I expect she would resign, but if she didn't, then 2nd Ref, perhaps allowing parliament to force it on her.
That's been my view, No Deal is such an absurd outcome that she will not allow it to happen, but I am not so sure now. She is pledged to deliver Brexit and IMO would have to resign if she doesn't. And I bet that losing her job is her plan Z.
"I've done the best deal possible and if you guys won't support it, tough, we're leaving anyway."
Starting to suspect that it's no bluff.
The party would undoubtedly split in that scenario.
As I stated earlier this week the entire purpose of Elizabeth announcing early is to make sure it's impossible for Bernie Sanders to run...
Rubbish. Sanders is still second to Biden in most Democratic nomination polls even with Warren included.
Sanders also polls better than Warren v Trump in general election polls
You understand the concept of vote-splitting, right?
Clearly you did not read a word I said. Sanders is second in most polls even with Warren included.
The centrist vote will be even more split with Biden, Brown, Klobuchar, Bloomberg etc
The point is that her running makes his life harder. Unless he's doing just as well in polls with her included as he's doing in polls without her included
Sanders is toast, particularly with today's news.
His defence for not being aware of, and hence not doing anything about, sexual harassment within his campaign is that 'I was a little busy'. How on earth does that qualify him to be President? It will be played on loop throughout any campaign he may launch by his primary opponents. And think what the GOP will do with that if in the unlikely event he does get the Dem nod.
While Trump no doubt has the brass neck to attack someone else for sexual harassment among their staff, I don't think he'd likely do so against Sanders, should it come to a head-to-head. There are much more fruitful attack lines and Trump understands that a single-word summary is best: 'Commie' would be my guess.
But of course, he has to win the nomination first, and he won't.
As I stated earlier this week the entire purpose of Elizabeth announcing early is to make sure it's impossible for Bernie Sanders to run...
Rubbish. Sanders is still second to Biden in most Democratic nomination polls even with Warren included.
Sanders also polls better than Warren v Trump in general election polls
You understand the concept of vote-splitting, right?
Clearly you did not read a word I said. Sanders is second in most polls even with Warren included.
The centrist vote will be even more split with Biden, Brown, Klobuchar, Bloomberg etc
The point is that her running makes his life harder. Unless he's doing just as well in polls with her included as he's doing in polls without her included
Sanders is toast, particularly with today's news.
His defence for not being aware of, and hence not doing anything about, sexual harassment within his campaign is that 'I was a little busy'. How on earth does that qualify him to be President? It will be played on loop throughout any campaign he may launch by his primary opponents. And think what the GOP will do with that if in the unlikely event he does get the Dem nod.
While Trump no doubt has the brass neck to attack someone else for sexual harassment among their staff, I don't think he'd likely do so against Sanders, should it come to a head-to-head. There are much more fruitful attack lines and Trump understands that a single-word summary is best: 'Commie' would be my guess.
But of course, he has to win the nomination first, and he won't.
David, that was not my point. My point is that, if Sanders can't see a major problem right under his nose and react to it while running a campaign, how will he cope with the multitude of huge problems every day as president.
"Mr President, Russia has invaded Crimea. How will the US react?" "Can't you see I'm a little busy now?"
Very possible,however, that the theme 'Clearing up the Tory Brexit Mess' could run for several years - given how Osborne managed to spin 'Clearing up Labour's Mess' for the entirety of the 2010 Parliament.
Except that Labour would have voted for the mess, and the vast bulk of Labour supporters would have wanted them to avoid the mess at all costs, which makes it awkward.
But that is a bit like saying that Cameron and Osborne had agreed with Labour's spending plans pre-2008.
Not really - this is about an actual vote in parliament. Most Tories will vote for the deal. As things stand, it looks as though Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, the Green and Plaid will be joining Jacob Rees-Mogg in voting to make a deal impossible.
Those Tory rebels legitimise all and any opposition to the Deal. If the government can’t even convince their own side why should the opposition give them a hearing?
Hate preacher Abu Hamza's son, 26, is man being quizzed over bouncer's murder at Mayfair New Year party as he appears in court charged with firearms possession
A self-styled Lord who was released from prison as an ‘act of mercy’ when he convinced judges he was gravely ill is clearly enjoying life as a free man.
Edward Davenport, nicknamed ‘Fast Eddie’, was jailed for eight years in 2011 for masterminding a £4.5million fraud where he hoodwinked the rich and famous.
Last May he was released early after claiming he was 'at death's door' because of kidney problems and suffering the 'ordeal' of having to leave prison each week for life-saving dialysis.
But eight months on socialite Davenport looks to be close to a full recovery as he had fun with a friend on Saturday.
Even al-Megrahi didn't make as good a recovery as that.
Remember Ernest Saunders? The only case of recovery from Alzheimers.
Surely there should be a clear way (unlike a neuralogical issue) to test his blood for kidney issues??
I expect she would resign, but if she didn't, then 2nd Ref, perhaps allowing parliament to force it on her.
That's been my view, No Deal is such an absurd outcome that she will not allow it to happen, but I am not so sure now. She is pledged to deliver Brexit and IMO would have to resign if she doesn't. And I bet that losing her job is her plan Z.
"I've done the best deal possible and if you guys won't support it, tough, we're leaving anyway."
Starting to suspect that it's no bluff.
The party would undoubtedly split in that scenario.
I’m not sure it’s a split if it’s 10 MPs and 10,000 party members.
Very possible,however, that the theme 'Clearing up the Tory Brexit Mess' could run for several years - given how Osborne managed to spin 'Clearing up Labour's Mess' for the entirety of the 2010 Parliament.
Except that Labour would have voted for the mess, and the vast bulk of Labour supporters would have wanted them to avoid the mess at all costs, which makes it awkward.
But that is a bit like saying that Cameron and Osborne had agreed with Labour's spending plans pre-2008.
Not really - this is about an actual vote in parliament. Most Tories will vote for the deal. As things stand, it looks as though Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, the Green and Plaid will be joining Jacob Rees-Mogg in voting to make a deal impossible.
But there is a difference between rejecting May's Deal and rejecting Any Deal. I suspect the electorate would be fairly receptive to such a message - even though much of it would be spin.
What examples are there of Norway using its veto in these organisations or of the UK having to sit on its hands because the other EU member stats have made a decision that we do not want to follow? I am sure it must have happened, but nothing immediately springs to mind. As ever, it is a balance - a notional veto on something relatively obscure that the rest of the world thinks is a good idea has to be set against what we give up by leaving. I guess we are about to find out.
EEA states act essentially like expert advisors, sitting on commission committees and providing feedback and advice. No EEA state has a veto as such.
EEA countries can choose not to implement directives, but if they do so they effectively lose all access to the covered segment of the single market, so it's not much of a threat.
This is also why, I think, the EU would never agree to an EEA-style deal for the UK. The UK is much bigger than any other EEA country, so our refusal to implement legislation would be a much more dangerous threat.
Thus, I think, the EEA will never be available to us as it stands. Perhaps some bespoke arrangement more like Switzerland, but the EU will want to make sure the it's much tighter than the Swiss bilateral treaties so the UK doesn't have blanket power to veto or derail EU legislation.
According to the Norwegian Government they do have a veto. They have not generally had to use it because the threat alone is enough to get the EU to agree to modify new regulations to deal with EEA objections and so negate the need to veto. It actually has been used once with regard to postal services which resulted in modifications to the regulations to suit Norway.
Very possible,however, that the theme 'Clearing up the Tory Brexit Mess' could run for several years - given how Osborne managed to spin 'Clearing up Labour's Mess' for the entirety of the 2010 Parliament.
Except that Labour would have voted for the mess, and the vast bulk of Labour supporters would have wanted them to avoid the mess at all costs, which makes it awkward.
But that is a bit like saying that Cameron and Osborne had agreed with Labour's spending plans pre-2008.
Not really - this is about an actual vote in parliament. Most Tories will vote for the deal. As things stand, it looks as though Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, the Green and Plaid will be joining Jacob Rees-Mogg in voting to make a deal impossible.
Those Tory rebels legitimise all and any opposition to the Deal. If the government can’t even convince their own side why should the opposition give them a hearing?
That's true, but there will be plenty of recriminations to go round in the event of No Deal.
Very possible,however, that the theme 'Clearing up the Tory Brexit Mess' could run for several years - given how Osborne managed to spin 'Clearing up Labour's Mess' for the entirety of the 2010 Parliament.
Except that Labour would have voted for the mess, and the vast bulk of Labour supporters would have wanted them to avoid the mess at all costs, which makes it awkward.
But that is a bit like saying that Cameron and Osborne had agreed with Labour's spending plans pre-2008.
Not really - this is about an actual vote in parliament. Most Tories will vote for the deal. As things stand, it looks as though Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, the Green and Plaid will be joining Jacob Rees-Mogg in voting to make a deal impossible.
Those Tory rebels legitimise all and any opposition to the Deal. If the government can’t even convince their own side why should the opposition give them a hearing?
The Tory rebels are respecting the referendum result, May's deal is not. It doesn't need to be legitimized. That's not how democracy works.
While we're on the subject of the electorate, all the polling suggests the electorate is firmly against May's deal too, so May is on the wrong side of the referendum result and public opinion.
In the event of No Deal, I would predict a very serious short-term disruption - a range of goods and foodstuffs in very short supply, immediate and serious job losses, large numbers of insolvencies, serious disruption to travel, a recession this year, etc. Quantifying this into numbers of unemployed and a percentage hit on GDP is extremely difficult, because this kind of cliff-edge hit to established trade in an advanced economy is unprecedented outside wartime, we can't know in advance what mitigating actions might be possible, and traditional economic models (which aren't that great in the first place) are simply not appropriate to such a disruption. Still, the general picture is clear - No Deal would be an unmitigated and immediate disaster.
As regards the political fall-out: In the short term, it seems inevitable that the government would get the blame, propelling Corbyn into No 10. But, after that, it's Labour who would get the blame; after all, they'd then be the ones in power, and Corbyn would inevitably fall into the trap of over-promising that he could fix things, whereas in fact all he would do is make them massively worse. Beyond that immediate reaction, what parties would end up rising up out of the ashes of this mess is anyone's guess, frankly; a lot would depend on whether the Tories had come to their senses in the meantime.
Very possible,however, that the theme 'Clearing up the Tory Brexit Mess' could run for several years - given how Osborne managed to spin 'Clearing up Labour's Mess' for the entirety of the 2010 Parliament.
It'd be a good campaign slogan but it'd need to be backed up in policy and delivery. Cameron and Osborne were able to win in 2015 because they had delivered on the promise on cleaning up the mess. Spending restraint had been introduced and the deficit had been brought down, while unemployment was kept under control and the economy kept growing (just about, after a wobble in 2011-12).
Corbyn would only get credit for "cleaning up a 'Tory Brexit mess'" if he led a government with a similar visible strategic focus and set of results. What would these be? I don't see anything like the same level of clarity of thinking, never mind ability of personnel, to be able to make that mission objective run.
Very possible,however, that the theme 'Clearing up the Tory Brexit Mess' could run for several years - given how Osborne managed to spin 'Clearing up Labour's Mess' for the entirety of the 2010 Parliament.
Except that Labour would have voted for the mess, and the vast bulk of Labour supporters would have wanted them to avoid the mess at all costs, which makes it awkward.
But that is a bit like saying that Cameron and Osborne had agreed with Labour's spending plans pre-2008.
Not really - this is about an actual vote in parliament. Most Tories will vote for the deal. As things stand, it looks as though Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, the Green and Plaid will be joining Jacob Rees-Mogg in voting to make a deal impossible.
Those Tory rebels legitimise all and any opposition to the Deal. If the government can’t even convince their own side why should the opposition give them a hearing?
That's true, but there will be plenty of recriminations to go round in the event of No Deal.
What examples are there of Norway using its veto in these organisations or of the UK having to sit on its hands because the other EU member stats have made a decision that we do not want to follow? I am sure it must have happened, but nothing immediately springs to mind. As ever, it is a balance - a notional veto on something relatively obscure that the rest of the world thinks is a good idea has to be set against what we give up by leaving. I guess we are about to find out.
EEA states act essentially like expert advisors, sitting on commission committees and providing feedback and advice. No EEA state has a veto as such.
EEA countries can choose not to implement directives, but if they do so they effectively lose all access to the covered segment of the single market, so it's not much of a threat.
This is also why, I think, the EU would never agree to an EEA-style deal for the UK. The UK is much bigger than any other EEA country, so our refusal to implement legislation would be a much more dangerous threat.
Thus, I think, the EEA will never be available to us as it stands. Perhaps some bespoke arrangement more like Switzerland, but the EU will want to make sure the it's much tighter than the Swiss bilateral treaties so the UK doesn't have blanket power to veto or derail EU legislation.
According to the Norwegian Government they do have a veto. They have not generally had to use it because the threat alone is enough to get the EU to agree to modify new regulations to deal with EEA objections and so negate the need to veto. It actually has been used once with regard to postal services which resulted in modifications to the regulations to suit Norway.
Norway seem to be bought into the concept, and the relationship is flexible and amenable. They know and we know that we are much more likely to bellicose and stomp our feet about things, and less willing to accept our place as a little minnow swimming in the wake of a large whale.
The party would undoubtedly split in that scenario.
But also a massive tory party problem if she reneges on Brexit.
If we leave with No Deal, and it's crash & chaos, as you predict, the Deal could be resurrected and implemented. So No Deal could be a staging post, albeit messy, to the Deal that she wants. She could perhaps carry on as PM in those circumstances.
And if, big surprise, it does not lead to crash & chaos, she's probably fine in that event too. She could perhaps carry on as PM.
But No Brexit kills her. She's gone.
That logic (if such it is) is why I am now running a little more scared of No Deal, although I still expect the Deal to pass in time.
Norway seem to be bought into the concept, and the relationship is flexible and amenable. They know and we know that we are much more likely to bellicose and stomp our feet about things, and less willing to accept our place as a little minnow swimming in the wake of a large whale.
Fair enough, but this does rather illustrate what I mean. Norway is not, in general, minded to use the EEA to throw its weight around. The UK would be. We'd immediately start attempting to use a Norway+ deal to hijack the EEA and use it as a weapon to beat the EU round the head with. We all know it.
In the event of No Deal, I would predict a very serious short-term disruption - a range of goods and foodstuffs in very short supply, immediate and serious job losses, large numbers of insolvencies, serious disruption to travel, a recession this year, etc. Quantifying this into numbers of unemployed and a percentage hit on GDP is extremely difficult, because this kind of cliff-edge hit to established trade in an advanced economy is unprecedented outside wartime, we can't know in advance what mitigating actions might be possible, and traditional economic models (which aren't that great in the first place) are simply not appropriate to such a disruption. Still, the general picture is clear - No Deal would be an unmitigated and immediate disaster.
As regards the political fall-out: In the short term, it seems inevitable that the government would get the blame, propelling Corbyn into No 10. But, after that, it's Labour who would get the blame; after all, they'd then be the ones in power, and Corbyn would inevitably fall into the trap of over-promising that he could fix things, whereas in fact all he would do is make them massively worse. Beyond that immediate reaction, what parties would end up rising up out of the ashes of this mess is anyone's guess, frankly; a lot would depend on whether the Tories had come to their senses in the meantime.
Very possible,however, that the theme 'Clearing up the Tory Brexit Mess' could run for several years - given how Osborne managed to spin 'Clearing up Labour's Mess' for the entirety of the 2010 Parliament.
It'd be a good campaign slogan but it'd need to be backed up in policy and delivery. Cameron and Osborne were able to win in 2015 because they had delivered on the promise on cleaning up the mess. Spending restraint had been introduced and the deficit had been brought down, while unemployment was kept under control and the economy kept growing (just about, after a wobble in 2011-12).
Corbyn would only get credit for "cleaning up a 'Tory Brexit mess'" if he led a government with a similar visible strategic focus and set of results. What would these be? I don't see anything like the same level of clarity of thinking, never mind ability of personnel, to be able to make that mission objective run.
I disagree there. Osborne's Austerity policies did not work in the opinion of most academic economists. Economic growth - and the very weak recovery it was - only continued at all when he changed direction to rely on stimulating the housing market. Corbyn would also gain from being far less Brexit focussed right from the moment he took office. It would fade as an issue - to the general relief of the public at large.
The party would undoubtedly split in that scenario.
But also a massive tory party problem if she reneges on Brexit.
If we leave with No Deal, and it's crash & chaos, as you predict, the Deal could be resurrected and implemented. So No Deal could be a staging post, albeit messy, to the Deal that she wants. She could perhaps carry on as PM in those circumstances.
And if, big surprise, it does not lead to crash & chaos, she's probably fine in that event too. She could perhaps carry on as PM.
But No Brexit kills her. She's gone.
That logic (if such it is) is why I am running a little more scared of No Deal, now, although I still expect the Deal to pass in time.
I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, except for one important point: once we've left the EU, then I doubt that it would be possible under EU law to simply resurrect the withdrawal deal. That's because the withdrawal deal has been negotiated under Article 50, but once we've left we'd simply be a third-party country and would have to start again in any negotiations, probably with a requirement for full ratification by all member states.
The party would undoubtedly split in that scenario.
But also a massive tory party problem if she reneges on Brexit.
If we leave with No Deal, and it's crash & chaos, as you predict, the Deal could be resurrected and implemented.
On a point of order, no it cannot.
The Union can only conclude the Withdrawal Agreement as part of the A50 process. If we leave and the WA has not been concluded, the EU will have no legal basis to negotiate and conclude a withdrawal agreement after that day.
Nah, the Revocation Bill is already drafted. No PM would want no deal to be their legacy and it would destroy the Tory party and the union, about both of which Mrs M cares greatly.
If you are right then all Labour have to do is keep opposing and bingo you get your referendum.
Norway seem to be bought into the concept, and the relationship is flexible and amenable. They know and we know that we are much more likely to bellicose and stomp our feet about things, and less willing to accept our place as a little minnow swimming in the wake of a large whale.
Fair enough, but this does rather illustrate what I mean. Norway is not, in general, minded to use the EEA to throw its weight around. The UK would be. We'd immediately start attempting to use a Norway+ deal to hijack the EEA and use it as a weapon to beat the EU round the head with. We all know it.
That's why we'd never be offered it.
The Norwegians quite like EU directives as do many (all??) of the EEA and EFTA countries. We seem to moan non-stop about EU laws. So why would either organisation want us as disruptive members of a system that works well for them.
If we leave, we leave. That is it. We are out unless we rejoin the EU.
I expect she would resign, but if she didn't, then 2nd Ref, perhaps allowing parliament to force it on her.
That's been my view, No Deal is such an absurd outcome that she will not allow it to happen, but I am not so sure now. She is pledged to deliver Brexit and IMO would have to resign if she doesn't. And I bet that losing her job is her plan Z.
"I've done the best deal possible and if you guys won't support it, tough, we're leaving anyway."
Starting to suspect that it's no bluff.
The party would undoubtedly split in that scenario.
I’m not sure it’s a split if it’s 10 MPs and 10,000 party members.
Agreed. If the UK does leave with no deal, despite the PM having agreed a deal with the EU and having kept trying to get that deal through, while also trying to tweak it at the edges, I don't think there'd be many defections.
If No 10 adopted No Deal as an active policy, rather than a necessary contingent, or if it went the other way to actively enable Remain in some way, then you'd see a more meaningful split.
Norway seem to be bought into the concept, and the relationship is flexible and amenable. They know and we know that we are much more likely to bellicose and stomp our feet about things, and less willing to accept our place as a little minnow swimming in the wake of a large whale.
Fair enough, but this does rather illustrate what I mean. Norway is not, in general, minded to use the EEA to throw its weight around. The UK would be. We'd immediately start attempting to use a Norway+ deal to hijack the EEA and use it as a weapon to beat the EU round the head with. We all know it.
That's why we'd never be offered it.
Keeping the UK within the EEA would be a massive diplomatic coup for the commission though. If the purpose it to maintain economic stability we would have it. It’s the natural option. We would be offered it, they would jump,at it, but yes it would need to be nailed down tightly.
But we are a nation of rules and laws. We follow them. We just do it begrudgingly. Unlike many other places who claim to follow them. I had a nice time in Greece over the summer. A nation supposedly bound by the same rules as we are. I could see no evidence of it.
It is interesting that despite the issues in France and Italy, the response doesn’t seem to be to try and forment discontent with the European Union. “It’s the EU that’s making us cut spending to keep to their economic model. Let’s take the fight to them”.
As I stated earlier this week the entire purpose of Elizabeth announcing early is to make sure it's impossible for Bernie Sanders to run...
Rubbish. Sanders is still second to Biden in most Democratic nomination polls even with Warren included.
Sanders also polls better than Warren v Trump in general election polls
You understand the concept of vote-splitting, right?
Clearly you did not read a word I said. Sanders is second in most polls even with Warren included.
The centrist vote will be even more split with Biden, Brown, Klobuchar, Bloomberg etc
The point is that her running makes his life harder. Unless he's doing just as well in polls with her included as he's doing in polls without her included
Sanders is toast, particularly with today's news.
His defence for not being aware of, and hence not doing anything about, sexual harassment within his campaign is that 'I was a little busy'. How on earth does that qualify him to be President? It will be played on loop throughout any campaign he may launch by his primary opponents. And think what the GOP will do with that if in the unlikely event he does get the Dem nod.
While Trump no doubt has the brass neck to attack someone else for sexual harassment among their staff, I don't think he'd likely do so against Sanders, should it come to a head-to-head. There are much more fruitful attack lines and Trump understands that a single-word summary is best: 'Commie' would be my guess.
But of course, he has to win the nomination first, and he won't.
David, that was not my point. My point is that, if Sanders can't see a major problem right under his nose and react to it while running a campaign, how will he cope with the multitude of huge problems every day as president.
"Mr President, Russia has invaded Crimea. How will the US react?" "Can't you see I'm a little busy now?"
Well, it was partly your point. But I do agree with what you say: he's not handled the rebuttal well and that opens him up to dangerous attacks from his opponents, not least because the attacks are ones of a nature that work against Trump too.
You really couldn't design a bigger mess even if you hired the best management consultants to help with the design.
Chris Grayling as the new Brexit Secretary?
Grayling's a hero. As we speak, a dredger is preparing Ramsgate harbour in case of a no-deal Brexit. That's more practical and effective action than any other department is managing.
The party would undoubtedly split in that scenario.
But also a massive tory party problem if she reneges on Brexit.
If we leave with No Deal, and it's crash & chaos, as you predict, the Deal could be resurrected and implemented. So No Deal could be a staging post, albeit messy, to the Deal that she wants. She could perhaps carry on as PM in those circumstances.
And if, big surprise, it does not lead to crash & chaos, she's probably fine in that event too. She could perhaps carry on as PM.
But No Brexit kills her. She's gone.
That logic (if such it is) is why I am now running a little more scared of No Deal, although I still expect the Deal to pass in time.
Surely, as others have said, No Deal and out means exactly that.
But if you're right, and TBH I think you are, then while the Government would almost certainly fall and the Tories crushed at any subsequent GE I suspect that the Tories wouldn't be forgiven by many five years later.
Precisely. Tuition fees was seven plus years ago; Black Wednesday hit the Tories for a decade. Anything close to what Richard describes would tarnish the Tories - who championed and thrust us into this fiasco from the beginning - for a generation.
I can see that happening - but I can't see what happens next.
Say the Tories have a rerun of 1997. Although many voters also do not trust Corbyn, and many others have not forgiven the Lib Dems. UKIP are a busted flush. Where do the voters go? The Greens?
The most plausible scenario is a drop in turnout, I guess. Drop five million off the 13.6 million Tory vote, some of it goes Labour while other anti-Corbyn or desperately pro-Remain voters slide away from Labour. Net - maybe +1 million to Labour? Lib Dem revival would be limited - at best, maybe 1.5 million on top of their 2.3 million last time (significant, but still a long way short of their pre-Coalition days). Double the Green vote, tweak the SNP up a bit, add a half-million to new parties or others, and that gives 28% Con, 45% Lab, 12% LD, 3% Green.
That'd be a Labour majority of 90+, Tories dropping below 200, Lib Dems only back in the mid-twenties.
So far, plausible - but what happens if (as many expect), a Corbyn-led Labour Government messes up the economy (which will be in the shitter already)? He can blame the Tory mess for a while, but sooner or later, the blame comes to him as well. What happens the election after?
Tories: not forgiven. Lib Dems: little forgiveness. Labour: Now also blamed. UKIP: pining for the fjords. Greens: Doubtful.
The Union can only conclude the Withdrawal Agreement as part of the A50 process. If we leave and the WA has not been concluded, the EU will have no legal basis to negotiate and conclude a withdrawal agreement after that day.
Ok. Of course that is technically the case.
But in practice, if we leave with no deal, still squabbling, and it's a great big bag of bad for both us and the likes of Ireland, Holland, Germany, Belgium, France etc etc, i.e. if it turns out as ghastly as predicted by many, will it not IYO be likely (assuming we see the light and want to do this) that we and the EU agree an emergency process whereby we implement the Deal on, say, 10th May, something like that?
Once you’re talking about the government ensuring everyone gets access to food you’re not in a very good place.
First, I wasn't the one talking about food shortages. Second, while the Government doesn't distribute food itself it will do anything and everything to ensure those who do are able to do so.
I simply can't envisage the level of ineptitude that will allow shortages of basic food items to occur short of encouraging panic buying.
However, I am talking about the current Government so literally anything is possible - I imagine I'll see the RN patrolling the Barking Creek before long.
Once you’re talking about the government ensuring everyone gets access to food you’re not in a very good place.
First, I wasn't the one talking about food shortages. Second, while the Government doesn't distribute food itself it will do anything and everything to ensure those who do are able to do so.
I simply can't envisage the level of ineptitude that will allow shortages of basic food items to occur short of encouraging panic buying.
However, I am talking about the current Government so literally anything is possible - I imagine I'll see the RN patrolling the Barking Creek before long.
TBF that's about all it can do. Isn't that so, Dura Ace?
You really couldn't design a bigger mess even if you hired the best management consultants to help with the design.
Chris Grayling as the new Brexit Secretary?
Grayling's a hero. As we speak, a dredger is preparing Ramsgate harbour in case of a no-deal Brexit. That's more practical and effective action than any other department is managing.
As I stated earlier this week the entire purpose of Elizabeth announcing early is to make sure it's impossible for Bernie Sanders to run...
Rubbish. Sanders is still second to Biden in most Democratic nomination polls even with Warren included.
Sanders also polls better than Warren v Trump in general election polls
You understand the concept of vote-splitting, right?
Clearly you did not read a word I said. Sanders is second in most polls even with Warren included.
The centrist vote will be even more split with Biden, Brown, Klobuchar, Bloomberg etc
The point is that her running makes his life harder. Unless he's doing just as well in polls with her included as he's doing in polls without her included
Sanders is toast, particularly with today's news.
His defence for not being aware of, and hence not doing anything about, sexual harassment within his campaign is that 'I was a little busy'. How on earth does that qualify him to be President? It will be played on loop throughout any campaign he may launch by his primary opponents. And think what the GOP will do with that if in the unlikely event he does get the Dem nod.
While Trump no doubt has the brass neck to attack someone else for sexual harassment among their staff, I don't think he'd likely do so against Sanders, should it come to a head-to-head. There are much more fruitful attack lines and Trump understands that a single-word summary is best: 'Commie' would be my guess.
But of course, he has to win the nomination first, and he won't.
If he can't deal with this satisfactorily, then he might not even enter the contest.
So far he's had a couple of weeks, and that's the best he can come up with ? He is truly tone deaf on some issues.
You really couldn't design a bigger mess even if you hired the best management consultants to help with the design.
Chris Grayling as the new Brexit Secretary?
Grayling's a hero. As we speak, a dredger is preparing Ramsgate harbour in case of a no-deal Brexit. That's more practical and effective action than any other department is managing.
No Deal destroys the Tory party for a generation. Following a (brief) period of civil emergency, we will be forced to sign up to a series of disadvantageous agreements with the EU just to keep the proverbial lights on.
It will be one of those oh shit moments like the collapse of Lehmans. I’d expect May to be ousted by her own Cabinet, perhaps after failed attempts to form a government of National Unity - May herself would not resign to avoid doing a Cameron.
No, May will not opt for a “No Deal”.
Although she is said to he totally against a referendum, seeing it as a betrayal of the vote, it does in fact offer a lifeline to her and her Party.
If her deal wins, May is safe, and Remainerdom will be vanquished. Having failed twice to persuade the public, I’d expect all but the most militant Remainers to shut up.
If Remain wins, I’d expect May to throw Eurosceptics a bone - perhaps even the promise of a third Referendum - but only after a Commission has examined various Options. Some of the fruitier Tories could jump to a moderately revitalised “Farage Party” - which will have used the referendum as a springboard to national relevance - but not enough to make a difference. Remain actually *benefits* the Tories as it helps them start the beginning of a detox they will need for post-Corbyn battles.
But if you're right, and TBH I think you are, then while the Government would almost certainly fall and the Tories crushed at any subsequent GE I suspect that the Tories wouldn't be forgiven by many five years later.
Precisely. Tuition fees was seven plus years ago; Black Wednesday hit the Tories for a decade. Anything close to what Richard describes would tarnish the Tories - who championed and thrust us into this fiasco from the beginning - for a generation.
I can see that happening - but I can't see what happens next.
Say the Tories have a rerun of 1997. Although many voters also do not trust Corbyn, and many others have not forgiven the Lib Dems. UKIP are a busted flush. Where do the voters go? The Greens?
The most plausible scenario is a drop in turnout, I guess. Drop five million off the 13.6 million Tory vote, some of it goes Labour while other anti-Corbyn or desperately pro-Remain voters slide away from Labour. Net - maybe +1 million to Labour? Lib Dem revival would be limited - at best, maybe 1.5 million on top of their 2.3 million last time (significant, but still a long way short of their pre-Coalition days). Double the Green vote, tweak the SNP up a bit, add a half-million to new parties or others, and that gives 28% Con, 45% Lab, 12% LD, 3% Green.
That'd be a Labour majority of 90+, Tories dropping below 200, Lib Dems only back in the mid-twenties.
So far, plausible - but what happens if (as many expect), a Corbyn-led Labour Government messes up the economy (which will be in the shitter already)? He can blame the Tory mess for a while, but sooner or later, the blame comes to him as well. What happens the election after?
Tories: not forgiven. Lib Dems: little forgiveness. Labour: Now also blamed. UKIP: pining for the fjords. Greens: Doubtful.
I think the answer to your question rests quite heavily on the extent of the schism in the Tory party thereafter.
Remember how unpopular Mrs T's 'radical' government quickly became in the 1980s, yet it retained power because its opposition was divided. Corbyn or his replacement could easily benefit from the same.
I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, except for one important point: once we've left the EU, then I doubt that it would be possible under EU law to simply resurrect the withdrawal deal. That's because the withdrawal deal has been negotiated under Article 50, but once we've left we'd simply be a third-party country and would have to start again in any negotiations, probably with a requirement for full ratification by all member states.
No, not simply fish it out and sign it. I'm sure you're right on that score. And perhaps you're right that the EU would insist that we start the whole process again if we want a deal.
I'm just postulating that if things are palpably bad for us and them, and we do a mea culpa, we say that we do now wish to implement the withdrawal treaty after a short period of this chaos, then a fast track way will be found to do that.
Course, my hope is that we never get to find out either way.
Once you’re talking about the government ensuring everyone gets access to food you’re not in a very good place.
First, I wasn't the one talking about food shortages. Second, while the Government doesn't distribute food itself it will do anything and everything to ensure those who do are able to do so.
I simply can't envisage the level of ineptitude that will allow shortages of basic food items to occur short of encouraging panic buying.
However, I am talking about the current Government so literally anything is possible - I imagine I'll see the RN patrolling the Barking Creek before long.
TBF that's about all it can do. Isn't that so, Dura Ace?
We can use a T23 to drop some 4.5" counter battery fire into Beckton Sewage Works.
Surely, as others have said, No Deal and out means exactly that.
It does. Definitely it does.
But if it causes massive problems for both us and the EU, and if after a few weeks of these problems we indicate that we do now wish to implement the Withdrawal Treaty, then a way will be found for that to happen in fairly short order, for the simple and compelling reason that it will be in everyone's best interests.
That is what I am thinking is far from impossible.
Comments
But of course, he has to win the nomination first, and he won't.
"Mr President, Russia has invaded Crimea. How will the US react?" "Can't you see I'm a little busy now?"
May thinks Corbyn is bluffing
Each is too stupid and stubborn to realize the other is too stupid and stubborn to be bluffing.
While we're on the subject of the electorate, all the polling suggests the electorate is firmly against May's deal too, so May is on the wrong side of the referendum result and public opinion.
Corbyn would only get credit for "cleaning up a 'Tory Brexit mess'" if he led a government with a similar visible strategic focus and set of results. What would these be? I don't see anything like the same level of clarity of thinking, never mind ability of personnel, to be able to make that mission objective run.
If we leave with No Deal, and it's crash & chaos, as you predict, the Deal could be resurrected and implemented. So No Deal could be a staging post, albeit messy, to the Deal that she wants. She could perhaps carry on as PM in those circumstances.
And if, big surprise, it does not lead to crash & chaos, she's probably fine in that event too. She could perhaps carry on as PM.
But No Brexit kills her. She's gone.
That logic (if such it is) is why I am now running a little more scared of No Deal, although I still expect the Deal to pass in time.
That's why we'd never be offered it.
Corbyn would also gain from being far less Brexit focussed right from the moment he took office. It would fade as an issue - to the general relief of the public at large.
The Union can only conclude the Withdrawal Agreement as part of the A50 process. If we leave and the WA has not been concluded, the EU will have no legal basis to negotiate and conclude a withdrawal agreement after that day.
Does that not seem a little too easy to you?
* "Just a little off the top, please"
If we leave, we leave. That is it. We are out unless we rejoin the EU.
If No 10 adopted No Deal as an active policy, rather than a necessary contingent, or if it went the other way to actively enable Remain in some way, then you'd see a more meaningful split.
But we are a nation of rules and laws. We follow them. We just do it begrudgingly. Unlike many other places who claim to follow them. I had a nice time in Greece over the summer. A nation supposedly bound by the same rules as we are. I could see no evidence of it.
It is interesting that despite the issues in France and Italy, the response doesn’t seem to be to try and forment discontent with the European Union. “It’s the EU that’s making us cut spending to keep to their economic model. Let’s take the fight to them”.
*I’ve always thought this a rather odd expression - if you punch above your weight, you’re likely to get knocked out.
Say the Tories have a rerun of 1997. Although many voters also do not trust Corbyn, and many others have not forgiven the Lib Dems. UKIP are a busted flush. Where do the voters go? The Greens?
The most plausible scenario is a drop in turnout, I guess. Drop five million off the 13.6 million Tory vote, some of it goes Labour while other anti-Corbyn or desperately pro-Remain voters slide away from Labour. Net - maybe +1 million to Labour? Lib Dem revival would be limited - at best, maybe 1.5 million on top of their 2.3 million last time (significant, but still a long way short of their pre-Coalition days). Double the Green vote, tweak the SNP up a bit, add a half-million to new parties or others, and that gives 28% Con, 45% Lab, 12% LD, 3% Green.
That'd be a Labour majority of 90+, Tories dropping below 200, Lib Dems only back in the mid-twenties.
So far, plausible - but what happens if (as many expect), a Corbyn-led Labour Government messes up the economy (which will be in the shitter already)? He can blame the Tory mess for a while, but sooner or later, the blame comes to him as well. What happens the election after?
Tories: not forgiven. Lib Dems: little forgiveness. Labour: Now also blamed. UKIP: pining for the fjords. Greens: Doubtful.
But in practice, if we leave with no deal, still squabbling, and it's a great big bag of bad for both us and the likes of Ireland, Holland, Germany, Belgium, France etc etc, i.e. if it turns out as ghastly as predicted by many, will it not IYO be likely (assuming we see the light and want to do this) that we and the EU agree an emergency process whereby we implement the Deal on, say, 10th May, something like that?
I simply can't envisage the level of ineptitude that will allow shortages of basic food items to occur short of encouraging panic buying.
However, I am talking about the current Government so literally anything is possible - I imagine I'll see the RN patrolling the Barking Creek before long.
So far he's had a couple of weeks, and that's the best he can come up with ? He is truly tone deaf on some issues.
It will be one of those oh shit moments like the collapse of Lehmans. I’d expect May to be ousted by her own Cabinet, perhaps after failed attempts to form a government of National Unity - May herself would not resign to avoid doing a Cameron.
No, May will not opt for a “No Deal”.
Although she is said to he totally against a referendum, seeing it as a betrayal of the vote, it does in fact offer a lifeline to her and her Party.
If her deal wins, May is safe, and Remainerdom will be vanquished. Having failed twice to persuade the public, I’d expect all but the most militant Remainers to shut up.
If Remain wins, I’d expect May to throw Eurosceptics a bone - perhaps even the promise of a third Referendum - but only after a Commission has examined various Options. Some of the fruitier Tories could jump to a moderately revitalised “Farage Party” - which will have used the referendum as a springboard to national relevance - but not enough to make a difference. Remain actually *benefits* the Tories as it helps them start the beginning of a detox they will need for post-Corbyn battles.
Or you can oppose him and all die and suffer terribly.
Remember how unpopular Mrs T's 'radical' government quickly became in the 1980s, yet it retained power because its opposition was divided. Corbyn or his replacement could easily benefit from the same.
I'm just postulating that if things are palpably bad for us and them, and we do a mea culpa, we say that we do now wish to implement the withdrawal treaty after a short period of this chaos, then a fast track way will be found to do that.
Course, my hope is that we never get to find out either way.
NEW THREAD
But if it causes massive problems for both us and the EU, and if after a few weeks of these problems we indicate that we do now wish to implement the Withdrawal Treaty, then a way will be found for that to happen in fairly short order, for the simple and compelling reason that it will be in everyone's best interests.
That is what I am thinking is far from impossible.