Notably, it was known for quite some time before the MV was pulled that it was going to be lost, that's why there was lots of speculation about whether it might get through on second attempt etc etc.
That it was pulled at the last minute, therefore, seems to me to be a very strong indication that while May's team might say that they will hold the vote again, many times if needed, that the reality will be quite different. If they really thought they'd get another shot why not hold the vote back then?
Why should MPs get a second vote, and the people not?
The problem for May is if that first "backbone" vote is not close - in that case, Tories may feel there's no point in jumping on the sinking ship. So I'm not sure about it either.
This must be key.
How close does she need to get in the MV for the Deal to keep breathing?
50?
I recall in mid December there was some talk that May's team might push the claim that anything under 100 would be enough to keep trying the deal. Frankly I doubt that, but it shows how much they think they will lose by, that is to say, well well over 100.
The problem for May is if that first "backbone" vote is not close - in that case, Tories may feel there's no point in jumping on the sinking ship. So I'm not sure about it either.
This must be key.
How close does she need to get in the MV for the Deal to keep breathing?
50?
That seems a reasonable estimate to me. She then needs to change the minds of 25+
Notably, it was known for quite some time before the MV was pulled that it was going to be lost, that's why there was lots of speculation about whether it might get through on second attempt etc etc.
That it was pulled at the last minute, therefore, seems to me to be a very strong indication that while May's team might say that they will hold the vote again, many times if needed, that the reality will be quite different. If they really thought they'd get another shot why not hold the vote back then?
Why should MPs get a second vote, and the people not?
Because MPs are in charge of running the country and the people are not.
The only reason to back a second vote, which I do, that makes sense is because Parliament is incapable of doing its job and agreeing something, and an election will not certainly resolve that. But some of the second vote arguments are just plain desperate and very unconvincing, like that polls indicate a changed mind (so we must never last a full government term as polls shift) or because there is somehow equivalence to parliamentary procedures on voting for things more than once and national referendums.
There's no path to getting the deal through. Trying over and over is pointless because enough people want no deal, don't fear no deal, or presume we will remain, somehow, as the deadline approaches, so are not persuadable.
On the concluding point that she is futilely trying to placate leavers rather than trying to gain the support of remainers outside her party, I agree it is not working but I do understand it. That means getting Labour remainers on board, which is also futile since, well, they see remain as a possibility. Or it requires just adopting Labour's policy, but that policy is to renegotiate something different, and probably loses her many of the votes she currently has. So she has attempted to get her party behind her, presumably to make it closer and pressure the Labour votes she would sill need. It isn't happening.
As has been the case for a long time, it is no deal or remain as the options now. As much as she clearly does not want no deal, May would presumably try to no deal, and I guess it is a question of if the Tory remainers follow through on their threats if that happens.
However disastrous no deal might be, at least it would nail one way or other the extent of the "myths" of the consequences. And would perhaps result in some sort of reckoning for the British political class which one might hope would improve things in the medium term. A bit like post war Germany or Japan, without the level of deaths.
"Permanent CU, with a deal on FOM as part of the FTA would work for me."
It probably would for me, but a 'deal' on FOM cannot happen. It would mean the other 27 countries would need to be offered the same deal. There be dragons!
So how does it pass? I think that there are 2 options, both unlikely.
The first is a volte face by Labour. We don't like the deal but to default to no deal would be an abrogation of our responsibilities. We will abstain. On Alastair's numbers May can win the vote (just) if Labour abstain. Whether May can get some cover for Corbyn to do this, such as some gesture or assurance about the future trade deal from Brussels, remains to be seen but it would certainly help.
The second is a volte face by the ERG if they can be persuaded that revocation really is the alternative. Even then there is work to be done around the edges given the position of the DUP. What May would give for the 13 MPs she carelessly misplaced in 2017.
I would give option 1 about a 30% chance. I do think Corbyn wants to deliver a Brexit that respects the vote but the temptation to play games is great.
Option 2 is hard to give the time of day, 10% at most.
I'd put both at around 10% really. I don't think Corbyn wants Brexit enough to actively help it occur, and it would royally piss off most of his party, which he has been testing enough by, er, sticking to party policy. We know how Labour would respond in the event of no deal default, and it is the same way the Tories would if the positions were reversed - say it is nothing to do with them (though they could prevent it) that the Tories brought back such a terrible deal that it could not be supported, and all the consequences are not their fault.
Sure, they might take a but of a hit for that stance, but far less than the Tories will unless no deal really is a cakewalk.
Hard to read this (excellent) summary and not conclude that the 4/6 available on the deal NOT passing is the bet of a lifetime.
I agree with Alastair that TM's best target is remainer MPs. There are more of them and they are less ideological. She needs to kill off the last unicorn (the 2nd referendum) and force the House to confront No Deal, make it clear that she is prepared to allow it to happen. Say to MPs, "Do you really want that? Ok, so go ahead. Make my day."
Blackmail, in other words, and quite right too. The approach is perfectly logical. We're leaving, per the 2016 referendum, and there are 2 ways to do it, with a deal or without one, and with a deal means this deal because there is no other deal and nor can there be. So choose.
I think the ramping up in public of No Deal 'planning' (lol) indicates that this is the plan. I hope it is because it is the right one and I do want the Deal to pass.
I would prefer the No Dealers to win followed in short order by the UK becoming a basket case while the EU goes from strength to strengh. I find the motivation of the Leavers to be so repulsive that unless they are seen to reap what they have sown we'll never get rid of the shackles of Empire and our inate distrust of foreigners and the malign influence of the self serving right wing press.
From an outsider's viewpoint. The UK Government organise a referendum. Parliament votes for it and votes to honour the decision despite being against one of the options. The 'wrong' options wins. Parliament spends two years farting around before deciding it won't implement it. Tells voters to try again.
A cynical person might draw the logical conclusion, and voters tend to be cynical.
This is not a surprise but I’m sure Theresa May welcomes it nevertheless.
It must be said the chances of the Renfrewshire East MP of any party coming out as a hard Leaver was vanishingly slim. That he is also antifrank's mate diminished the chances still further.
My not at all confident guess is that Theresa May will accommodate Labour enough on the permanence of the customs union to get Corbyn to go along with the deal at least to abstention. He clearly isn't interested in any particular alternative to her deal. If so, current conservative supporters of the deal will stick with it.
Labour's position is designed to not be accommodated with though, no? I'm yet to hear a sensible explanation for why the only substantial matter of difference should be whether the customs union is temporary or permanent given that effectively the deal is for a permanent customs union unless both sides agree to suspend it. Which to my mind is pretty much the same thing in reality as any "permanent" customs union could always subsequently be negotiated out if both sides want it.
And consequently all the legal advice that Labour make great play of trumpeting should actually allow them to comfortably back the deal if that (permanence of customs union) were a genuine sticking point.
The customs union sticking point is with Conservative MPs, or more particularly supporters, and not Labour. Which is why Theresa May has ruled it out. My guess, as I say, is that she will unrule it out. The Withdrawal Agreement is set but the Political Statement can be made softer. Theresa May has always presented her line as the only one available. It isn't.
That's missing the point? The Conservative objection to the backstop is that the Customs Union resulting from it is de facto permanent (taking the malign view of EU intentions). So if Labour objections based around this were genuine it doesn't make sense for them to strongly oppose the deal.
(In fact i believe that originally Labour were originally opposed to a (UK encompassing) Customs Union, but came to support it as their solution to the backstop. It then evolved into a "permanent" customs union to distinguish from May's proposals.
Timing is the issue. Ultimately a close relationship with the EU on a rule taking basis will be the alternative to membership. Conservative MPs aren't willing to sign up to the Vassal State just yet.
Edit Most Labour MPs are Remainers. They want EU membership. Corbyn didn't appear to care about the Vassal State.
Hard to read this (excellent) summary and not conclude that the 4/6 available on the deal NOT passing is the bet of a lifetime.
I agree with Alastair that TM's best target is remainer MPs. There are more of them and they are less ideological. She needs to kill off the last unicorn (the 2nd referendum) and force the House to confront No Deal, make it clear that she is prepared to allow it to happen. Say to MPs, "Do you really want that? Ok, so go ahead. Make my day."
Blackmail, in other words, and quite right too. The approach is perfectly logical. We're leaving, per the 2016 referendum, and there are 2 ways to do it, with a deal or without one, and with a deal means this deal because there is no other deal and nor can there be. So choose.
I think the ramping up in public of No Deal 'planning' (lol) indicates that this is the plan. I hope it is because it is the right one and I do want the Deal to pass.
I would prefer the No Dealers to win followed in short order by the UK becoming a basket case while the EU goes from strength to strengh. I find the motivation of the Leavers to be so repulsive that unless they are seen to reap what they have sown we'll never get rid of the shackles of Empire and our inate distrust of foreigners and the malign influence of the self serving right wing press.
From an outsider's viewpoint. The UK Government organise a referendum. Parliament votes for it and votes to honour the decision despite being against one of the options. The 'wrong' options wins. Parliament spends two years farting around before deciding it won't implement it. Tells voters to try again.
A cynical person might draw the logical conclusion, and voters tend to be cynical.
Yes, there is that major problem with a second vote. Parliament seems to not want no deal, and clearly doesn't want the deal so either option being on the ballot is a bit ridiculous, but obviously something must be up against remain. I don't buy for a second this crap that some people will magically decide to comply with the result this time - this is clearly a nonsense since the justification of many for a vote is that the people have changed their minds, that is that they are confident they will win this time, not that they actually care about the people breaking the parliamentary deadlock over the options.
So if there is one I would think the Act would need to specify the result will be enacted. Doesn't prevent parliament from faffing, but makes it harder.
I recall in mid December there was some talk that May's team might push the claim that anything under 100 would be enough to keep trying the deal. Frankly I doubt that, but it shows how much they think they will lose by, that is to say, well well over 100.
100 does seem too high to fight on.
But what about this?
What if the Deal goes down by 100+ but that is still more support than any alternative, including No Deal and 2nd Ref?
This is not a surprise but I’m sure Theresa May welcomes it nevertheless.
Hardly a ringing endorsement of his party leader's handling of Brexit, though
No, but is it the very first of the previously uncommitted actually coming down, sort of, in favour?
Doesn't mean much unless previously committed no dealers (and their small band of remainy pals like JoJo) start to switch of course. The catch there being they have no reason to do so before the MV, but if it is even possible to hold the MV again it could surely only happen if people switch beforehand to make it a closer vote.
I recall in mid December there was some talk that May's team might push the claim that anything under 100 would be enough to keep trying the deal. Frankly I doubt that, but it shows how much they think they will lose by, that is to say, well well over 100.
100 does seem too high to fight on.
But what about this?
What if the Deal goes down by 100+ but that is still more support than any alternative, including No Deal and 2nd Ref?
You know, do you want a shit or a shit sandwich?
Depends if it is unicorn shit.
The fundamental problem seems to be that no one as yet believes any options have been closed off, and I don't know what would convince them that any options have been.
1. May's deal IS Brexit as defined by the referendum question. All those people saying it isn't Brexit are stupid, disingenuous or both 2. May's deal will not pass the current House of Commons. The alternative to the deal is not no deal as May had tried to position, but delay/revoke. In no other circumstance would any MP choose to vote for a course of action that they know would make the country worse off - only stupid Brexiteers insisting they are right and the experts wrong think we'll be better off, the majority know how bad no deal will be and they won't let it happen 3. May's only chance of success is to bypass the MPs and go to the country. Neither an election (with her as Tory leader) nor a referendum will be popular, but she is stepping down at some point any way and has a strong sense of duty, so we may see her think "screw you" and do it anyway. 4. She will of course be no confidenced by Tory MPs. But would remain the PM whilst they knife each other for the "prize" of being the PM to deliver Brexit.
Fun times! A pity that I started my (brilliant) new job on Thursday and can't spend hours watching BBC Parliament eating popcorn as I could in my 10 week gap
Congratulations on the new job, and hope it's as good as you seem to expect, but remember; to have a silver lining one has to have a cloud!
The customs union sticking point is with Conservative MPs, or more particularly supporters, and not Labour. Which is why Theresa May has ruled it out. My guess, as I say, is that she will unrule it out. The Withdrawal Agreement is set but the Political Statement can be made softer. Theresa May has always presented her line as the only one available. It isn't.
That's missing the point? The Conservative objection to the backstop is that the Customs Union resulting from it is de facto permanent (taking the malign view of EU intentions). So if Labour objections based around this were genuine it doesn't make sense for them to strongly oppose the deal.
(In fact i believe that originally Labour were originally opposed to a (UK encompassing) Customs Union, but came to support it as their solution to the backstop. It then evolved into a "permanent" customs union to distinguish from May's proposals.
Timing is the issue. Ultimately a close relationship with the EU on a rule taking basis will be the alternative to membership. Conservative MPs aren't willing to sign up to the Vassal State just yet.
Edit Most Labour MPs are Remainers. They want EU membership. Corbyn didn't appear to care about the Vassal State.
But i'm trying to focus on the "official" main objection to Labour opposing the deal (we know a lot of Conservative MPs are opposed), given that it is suggested that a route to avoiding no deal is to accommodate their objection.
Effectively Labour's position if taken literally seems to be that they oppose deal because it guarantees the "vassal state" (if you accept this terminology) as opposed to only having it as a backstop. Which doesn't seem a logical position to hold which makes me argue that if May moved towards trying to accommodate them they would shift the grounds for their objection onto something else.
The noteworthy tweet is the last one; May's team confident they will win any confidence vote brought by Labour if they lose/delay the meaningful vote.
In other words, although she can't get her flagship policy through the House, there's no alternative Government.
I'm very doubtful as to the desirability, and even more as to the wisdom, of a second referendum, but surely the only way out of the mess is to have a new House! Postpone Article 50 for six to 12 months and have a General Election in late May or early June. It would almost be a Coupon Election; for the Deal or against it as far as the Tories area concerned, and probably for Labour as well.
We have too many domestic policies on hold for games such as this. The NHS, immigration, transport, welfare reform, defence, housing, economy particularly productivity and investment etc all stand in need of urgent action. There is no need to delay further particularly as you might get a similar result to the one you have now.
If May’s deal won’t pass, we’ll have a no deal Brexit and get on withthe rest of our lives.
Most of those on hold have a Brexit-related component. Without sorting out that any structures built, or amended, will be on sandy foundations.
I wonder if the shambles of shipping contracts with virtual or foreign companies and creating a traffic jam as practice are designed to show what a shambles a WTO Brexit would be or are just incompetence. I tend to think the second but the impact is the first.
In the real world the economy is now fading fast. By end of March we will be in recession without an agreement. Will this put added pressure on the MPs or lead to the cancellation of A50.
Will we get a motion asking TM to cancel A50 without an agreement and if she loses it and ignores it what would happen?
The "Deal" means jumping off a shorter drop and breaking your leg. This is obviously* preferable to jumping off a bigger drop and killing yourself. Not jumping off at all is, apparently, undemocratic.
I had thought May would pivot to a referendum as an option as, while I am far from convinced deal would win against remain for instance, it's the best option she has of getting the deal through given Parliament won't back it. Not without problems, but I could conceive of Labour supporting that at least since it could give them the remain they want (well, Starmer and the majority of MPs at least).
But having pushed back the MV to ramp up the pressure arising from voting it down it does seem she really is not contemplating a backup plan to the deal other than no deal.
I wonder if the shambles of shipping contracts with virtual or foreign companies and creating a traffic jam as practice are designed to show what a shambles a WTO Brexit would be or are just incompetence. I tend to think the second but the impact is the first.
In the real world the economy is now fading fast. By end of March we will be in recession without an agreement. Will this put added pressure on the MPs or lead to the cancellation of A50.
Will we get a motion asking TM to cancel A50 without an agreement and if she loses it and ignores it what would happen?
The "Deal" means jumping off a shorter drop and breaking your leg. This is obviously* preferable to jumping off a bigger drop and killing yourself. Not jumping off at all is, apparently, undemocratic.
If MPs were not prepared to accept at least a broken leg then it was very irresponsible of them to trigger A50. If the scenario you paint that any leave is equivalent to jumping off a bridge then no party should have backed it in 2017 and yet they did. And they certainly did not believe it would be all milk and honey and no cost, since most MPs backed Remain, so they cannot say they assumed there would be no cost to Brexit. So the fact of some cost might be reasonable for some of the public to change their minds, but not MPs - they need to argue more on the level of the cost, not the mere fact of jumping off the bridge. How can they say leaping off it is unacceptable when they already did it, and confirmed it again a year later, without knowing what was at the bottom?
I wonder if the shambles of shipping contracts with virtual or foreign companies and creating a traffic jam as practice are designed to show what a shambles a WTO Brexit would be or are just incompetence. I tend to think the second but the impact is the first.
In the real world the economy is now fading fast. By end of March we will be in recession without an agreement. Will this put added pressure on the MPs or lead to the cancellation of A50.
Will we get a motion asking TM to cancel A50 without an agreement and if she loses it and ignores it what would happen?
The "Deal" means jumping off a shorter drop and breaking your leg. This is obviously* preferable to jumping off a bigger drop and killing yourself. Not jumping off at all is, apparently, undemocratic.
If MPs were not prepared to accept at least a broken leg then it was very irresponsible of them to trigger A50. If the scenario you paint that any leave is equivalent to jumping off a bridge then no party should have backed it in 2017 and yet they did. And they certainly did not believe it would be all milk and honey and no cost, since most MPs backed Remain, so they cannot say they assumed there would be no cost to Brexit. So the fact of some cost might be reasonable for some of the public to change their minds, but not MPs - they need to argue more on the level of the cost, not the mere fact of jumping off the bridge. How can they say leaping off it is unacceptable when they already did it, and confirmed it again a year later, without knowing what was at the bottom?
Quite. What do most remainer MPs (those who voted to trigger Article 50) say when asked what "deal" outcome they were anticipating that is better than what May got? Especially given the FoM restrictions that May had insisted on as a red line from the start.
Presumably this is the reason why they are all arguing for a referendum "now that the public understand the outcome of what they previously voted for", rather than arguing for outright revocation.
That seems a reasonable estimate to me. She then needs to change the minds of 25+
50 then. Will be interesting to see where Sporting Index pitch the opening spread, assuming they have the balls to make the market.
BTW, your probabilities in your longer post - 40% chance of deal passing - is bang in line with Betfair.
So no bet for you.
Looking on Oddschecker at all the bets relating to Brexit, it looks to me as if punters and bookies are assigning the following approximate probabilities.
Leave by 1 April: 40% (30% Mays' Deal, 10% no Deal) Revoke by 1 April and Remain: 10% (if you don't believe this, then you can bet on "no revoke" at 1/10 on Paddy Power). Leave just after 1 April: 10% May's Deal 2nd referendum 40% (30% Remain, 10% May's deal).
I wonder if the shambles of shipping contracts with virtual or foreign companies and creating a traffic jam as practice are designed to show what a shambles a WTO Brexit would be or are just incompetence. I tend to think the second but the impact is the first.
In the real world the economy is now fading fast. By end of March we will be in recession without an agreement. Will this put added pressure on the MPs or lead to the cancellation of A50.
Will we get a motion asking TM to cancel A50 without an agreement and if she loses it and ignores it what would happen?
The "Deal" means jumping off a shorter drop and breaking your leg. This is obviously* preferable to jumping off a bigger drop and killing yourself. Not jumping off at all is, apparently, undemocratic.
If MPs were not prepared to accept at least a broken leg then it was very irresponsible of them to trigger A50. If the scenario you paint that any leave is equivalent to jumping off a bridge then no party should have backed it in 2017 and yet they did. And they certainly did not believe it would be all milk and honey and no cost, since most MPs backed Remain, so they cannot say they assumed there would be no cost to Brexit. So the fact of some cost might be reasonable for some of the public to change their minds, but not MPs - they need to argue more on the level of the cost, not the mere fact of jumping off the bridge. How can they say leaping off it is unacceptable when they already did it, and confirmed it again a year later, without knowing what was at the bottom?
Quite. What do most remainer MPs (those who voted to trigger Article 50) say when asked what "deal" outcome they were anticipating that is better than what May got? Especially given the FoM restrictions that May had insisted on as a red line from the start.
And if they say 'a better one than this' that may or may not be reasonable, but is at least potentially consistent rather than using the fact of any impact at all as an excuse to remain.
I had thought May would pivot to a referendum as an option as, while I am far from convinced deal would win against remain for instance, it's the best option she has of getting the deal through given Parliament won't back it. Not without problems, but I could conceive of Labour supporting that at least since it could give them the remain they want (well, Starmer and the majority of MPs at least).
But having pushed back the MV to ramp up the pressure arising from voting it down it does seem she really is not contemplating a backup plan to the deal other than no deal.
I suppose that we know whether or not she went for a long walk in the mountains of N. Wales over Christmas/New Year. She's been known to have a radical change of mind after doing that!
I would prefer the No Dealers to win followed in short order by the UK becoming a basket case while the EU goes from strength to strength. I find the motivation of the Leavers to be so repulsive that unless they are seen to reap what they have sown we'll never get rid of the shackles of Empire and our innate distrust of foreigners and the malign influence of the self serving right wing press.
I get you. Make them own it. Trouble is, would they? I can already hear the mantra "If we had been in charge, we would have got a terrific deal bla bla."
Also, what if it isn't as disastrous as you think it will be? Cannot rule that out.
Interestingly, I detect the mirror image of your position on the opposite extreme Leave side. Some of them prefer Remain to the Deal.
The customs union sticking point is with Conservative MPs, or more particularly supporters, and not Labour. Which is why Theresa May has ruled it out. My guess, as I say, is that she will unrule it out. The Withdrawal Agreement is set but the Political Statement can be made softer. Theresa May has always presented her line as the only one available. It isn't.
That's missing the point? The Conservative objection to the backstop is that the Customs Union resulting from it is de facto permanent (taking the malign view of EU intentions). So if Labour objections based around this were genuine it doesn't make sense for them to strongly oppose the deal.
(In fact i believe that originally Labour were originally opposed to a (UK encompassing) Customs Union, but came to support it as their solution to the backstop. It then evolved into a "permanent" customs union to distinguish from May's proposals.
Timing is the issue. Ultimately a close relationship with the EU on a rule taking basis will be the alternative to membership. Conservative MPs aren't willing to sign up to the Vassal State just yet.
Edit Most Labour MPs are Remainers. They want EU membership. Corbyn didn't appear to care about the Vassal State.
But i'm trying to focus on the "official" main objection to Labour opposing the deal (we know a lot of Conservative MPs are opposed), given that it is suggested that a route to avoiding no deal is to accommodate their objection.
Effectively Labour's position if taken literally seems to be that they oppose deal because it guarantees the "vassal state" (if you accept this terminology) as opposed to only having it as a backstop. Which doesn't seem a logical position to hold which makes me argue that if May moved towards trying to accommodate them they would shift the grounds for their objection onto something else.
Labour's position isn't coherent. I observe, like you I think, that Corbyn doesn't seem have any substantive objection to May's Deal. Hence my tentative guess that Corbyn will enable the Deal with some ideological concession that May will be prepared to offer.
May will likely lose the first vote and almost certainly never win Conservative have like leavers, the DUP or Labour Leavers behind it as they favour No Deal and Corbyn and the SNP will likely never vote with May either.
However as the article suggests the Deal is still likely to get 215 votes on the first vote meaning it needs just over 100 more to pass the Commons. How to get them? Here the Grieve amendment is her saviour.
As a result of the Grieve amendment being passed backbenchers will put forward Norway Plus and EUref2 to the vote which are the preferred options of Labour pro Europeans and the LDs and SNP and the handful of Conservative unreconciled Remainers. However we know that almost all Tory MPs, including the ERG, the DUP and Labour Leavers will vote against EUref2 and Norway Plus, Corbyn will not support them either and likely abstain and Labour MPs in Leave seats like Flint and Snell will also vote against them as they believe their constituents voted for Brexit and against free movement. That means both EUref2 and Norway plus likely end up with even fewer MPs voting for them than the 215 who will vote for the Deal. Indeed we know already just 114 MPs voted against triggering Article 50 and Brexit last February and just 101 MPs voted for Umunna' s amendment to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union last June.
Then the Deal becomes the default alternative to No Deal and that is when May can Labour pro Europeans, Labour MPs in Leave seats and Its to reluctantly vote for the Deal as the only alternative to No Deal
May’s absolute priority, really her only one, is ending freedom of movement for UK and EU citizens. She will do nothing that imperils that. This leads us inexorably and inevitably to a No Deal.
We are heading for a calamitous Tory hard Brexit. Second referendum and general election pipe dreams will fade quickly and the realisation of the hari-kari we are committing will begin to dawn. But sadly it is too late...
Brexit = a calamity! Brexiteers = xenophobes / little Englanders / thickos!
There are only 2 options on the table 1) Theresa's deal 2) No deal
We leave the EU on 29th March.
MPs cannot force another referendum only a GE and under the FTPA Theresa could easily drag it out to ensure the GE only takes place after 29th March. If the Government doesn't make parliamentary time for anything other than contingency planning for no-deal, no deal it is.
Frankly if we reach 21st January with no-deal the only option, regardless of what the drunk from Brussels says, EU leaders will ensure something is reached by 29th March. They don't want 20km queues at ferry ports in France, Belgium, Netherlands or Denmark. Angela Merkel cannot afford German car parts manufacturers to withdraw support from the CDU and Macron cannot risk the wrath of French farmers being told Britain wont take their milk, cheese, butter and meat! Add to that no £39 billion and the EU budget is f*cked!
I seriously doubt many EU leaders will want an extension of article 50. It would mean them giving up the extra seats in the European Parliament which they get when we leave and they certainly don't want to countenance 70+ British MEPs hanging around for a while like cuckoos in the nest.
IF English MPs think a 2nd referendum is a "get out of jail card" they risk the future of the UK because there would be no logical argument for refusing the majority will of the Scottish Parliament for IndyRef2. I might not like it but accept that there is a current majority in the Scottish Parliament so it does have some degree of legitimacy which a so called Peoples Vote (i.e. remoaners telling the electorate to vote the correct way next time) would not have.
The customs union sticking point is with Conservative MPs, or more particularly supporters, and not Labour. Which is why Theresa May has ruled it out. My guess, as I say, is that she will unrule it out. The Withdrawal Agreement is set but the Political Statement can be made softer. Theresa May has always presented her line as the only one available. It isn't.
That's missing the point? The Conservative objection to the backstop is that the Customs Union resulting from it is de facto permanent (taking the malign view of EU intentions). So if Labour objections based around this were genuine it doesn't make sense for them to strongly oppose the deal.
(In fact i believe that originally Labour were originally opposed to a (UK encompassing) Customs Union, but came to support it as their solution to the backstop. It then evolved into a "permanent" customs union to distinguish from May's proposals.
Timing is the issue. Ultimately a close relationship with the EU on a rule taking basis will be the alternative to membership. Conservative MPs aren't willing to sign up to the Vassal State just yet.
Edit Most Labour MPs are Remainers. They want EU membership. Corbyn didn't appear to care about the Vassal State.
But i'm trying to focus on the "official" main objection to Labour opposing the deal (we know a lot of Conservative MPs are opposed), given that it is suggested that a route to avoiding no deal is to accommodate their objection.
Effectively Labour's position if taken literally seems to be that they oppose deal because it guarantees the "vassal state" (if you accept this terminology) as opposed to only having it as a backstop. Which doesn't seem a logical position to hold which makes me argue that if May moved towards trying to accommodate them they would shift the grounds for their objection onto something else.
Labour's position isn't coherent. I observe, like you I think, that Corbyn doesn't seem have any substantive objection to May's Deal. Hence my tentative guess that Corbyn will enable the Deal with some ideological concession that May will be prepared to offer.
Labour abstention is the way for the May Deal to get delivered. Either formally, or (more likely) quietly letting it be known there will be no sanction against Labour MPs who abstain.
Corbyn gets his Brexit. The Tories can stay riven.
I would prefer the No Dealers to win followed in short order by the UK becoming a basket case while the EU goes from strength to strength. I find the motivation of the Leavers to be so repulsive that unless they are seen to reap what they have sown we'll never get rid of the shackles of Empire and our innate distrust of foreigners and the malign influence of the self serving right wing press.
I get you. Make them own it. Trouble is, would they? I can already hear the mantra "If we had been in charge, we would have got a terrific deal bla bla."
Also, what if it isn't as disastrous as you think it will be? Cannot rule that out.
Interestingly, I detect the mirror image of your position on the opposite extreme Leave side. Some of them prefer Remain to the Deal.
Rather how I feel about a second referendum. if the result could be guaranteed it might be OK. But it can't. Saw a Leaver post on Facebook the other day blaming ALL immigration on the EU.
I wonder if the shambles of shipping contracts with virtual or foreign companies and creating a traffic jam as practice are designed to show what a shambles a WTO Brexit would be or are just incompetence. I tend to think the second but the impact is the first.
In the real world the economy is now fading fast. By end of March we will be in recession without an agreement. Will this put added pressure on the MPs or lead to the cancellation of A50.
Will we get a motion asking TM to cancel A50 without an agreement and if she loses it and ignores it what would happen?
The "Deal" means jumping off a shorter drop and breaking your leg. This is obviously* preferable to jumping off a bigger drop and killing yourself. Not jumping off at all is, apparently, undemocratic.
If MPs were not prepared to accept at least a broken leg then it was very irresponsible of them to trigger A50. If the scenario you paint that any leave is equivalent to jumping off a bridge then no party should have backed it in 2017 and yet they did. And they certainly did not believe it would be all milk and honey and no cost, since most MPs backed Remain, so they cannot say they assumed there would be no cost to Brexit. So the fact of some cost might be reasonable for some of the public to change their minds, but not MPs - they need to argue more on the level of the cost, not the mere fact of jumping off the bridge. How can they say leaping off it is unacceptable when they already did it, and confirmed it again a year later, without knowing what was at the bottom?
Quite. Not many come out of this sorry episode with any credit. We are where are. We will take the broken leg.
We are heading for a calamitous Tory hard Brexit. Second referendum and general election pipe dreams will fade quickly and the realisation of the hari-kari we are committing will begin to dawn. But sadly it is too late...
Brexit = a calamity! Brexiteers = xenophobes / little Englanders / thickos!
Your Labour Party can stop that "calamitous" Hard Brexit. There's going to be plenty of shit to go round. Labour will get their fair share too. I expect the pro-May Deal Daily Mail to start firing up the "What the Hell are Labour Playing At?" line shortly......
May will likely lose the first vote and almost certainly never win Conservative have like leavers, the DUP or Labour Leavers behind it as they favour No Deal and Corbyn and the SNP will likely never vote with May either.
However as the article suggests the Deal is still likely to get 215 votes on the first vote meaning it needs just over 100 more to pass the Commons. How to get them? Here the Grieve amendment is her saviour.
As a result of the Grieve amendment being passed backbenchers will put forward Norway Plus and EUref2 to the vote which are the preferred options of Labour pro Europeans and the LDs and SNP and the handful of Conservative unreconciled Remainers. However we know that almost all Tory MPs, including the ERG, the DUP and Labour Leavers will vote against EUref2 and Norway Plus, Corbyn will not support them either and likely abstain and Labour MPs in Leave seats like Flint and Snell will also vote against them as they believe their constituents voted for Brexit and against free movement. That means both EUref2 and Norway plus likely end up with even fewer MPs voting for them than the 215 who will vote for the Deal. Indeed we know already just 114 MPs voted against triggering Article 50 and Brexit last February and just 101 MPs voted for Umunna' s amendment to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union last June.
Then the Deal becomes the default alternative to No Deal and that is when May can Labour pro Europeans, Labour MPs in Leave seats and Its to reluctantly vote for the Deal as the only alternative to No Deal
And if at the end, the Deal still does not win, what does Mrs May do? Allow No Deal, Revoke or propose her deal with referendum to confirm? It's not over until it's over.
May will likely lose the first vote and almost certainly never win Conservative have like leavers, the DUP or Labour Leavers behind it as they favour No Deal and Corbyn and the SNP will likely never vote with May either.
However as the article suggests the Deal is still likely to get 215 votes on the first vote meaning it needs just over 100 more to pass the Commons. How to get them? Here the Grieve amendment is her saviour.
As a result of the Grieve amendment being passed backbenchers will put forward Norway Plus and EUref2 to the vote which are the preferred options of Labour pro Europeans and the LDs and SNP and the handful of Conservative unreconciled Remainers. However we know that almost all Tory MPs, including the ERG, the DUP and Labour Leavers will vote against EUref2 and Norway Plus, Corbyn will not support them either and likely abstain and Labour MPs in Leave seats like Flint and Snell will also vote against them as they believe their constituents voted for Brexit and against free movement. That means both EUref2 and Norway plus likely end up with even fewer MPs voting for them than the 215 who will vote for the Deal. Indeed we know already just 114 MPs voted against triggering Article 50 and Brexit last February and just 101 MPs voted for Umunna' s amendment to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union last June.
Then the Deal becomes the default alternative to No Deal and that is when May can Labour pro Europeans, Labour MPs in Leave seats and Its to reluctantly vote for the Deal as the only alternative to No Deal
Good analysis. I think that's most likely too, although very far from guaranteed.
Well, well, what a mess this all is, made even worse by having one of the most disastrous PMs ever in charge.
The Leave campaign's slogan was "Take Back Control". Well there are only two things that are unambiguously in Britain's control right now: (1) signing up to the Deal and then concentrating on getting the best possible trade agreement. As others have pointed out, both the deal and any FTA will involve surrendering quite a lot of control in practice. (2) Revoking Article 50. This preserves the status quo. Britain can then work out what the hell it wants to do and how to get there and can tell the voters exactly what is involved, not the fairy stories which have been the currency of public debate for the last few years.
Anything else - extending Article 50, the fabled renegotiations etc etc involve the EU playing ball and there is no earthly reason why they should.
So these are the choices. And if neither of these are taken, then we crash out with No Deal, despite - apparently - a majority of MPs not wanting this. More fools them since this is what they voted for when they voted for the EU Withdrawal Act.
May will likely lose the first vote and almost certainly never win Conservative have like leavers, the DUP or Labour Leavers behind it as they favour No Deal and Corbyn and the SNP will likely never vote with May either.
However as the article suggests the Deal is still likely to get 215 votes on the first vote meaning it needs just over 100 more to pass the Commons. How to get them? Here the Grieve amendment is her saviour.
As a result of the Grieve amendment being passed backbenchers will put forward Norway Plus and EUref2 to the vote which are the preferred options of Labour pro Europeans and the LDs and SNP and the handful of Conservative unreconciled Remainers. However we know that almost all Tory MPs, including the ERG, the DUP and Labour Leavers will vote against EUref2 and Norway Plus, Corbyn will not support them either and likely abstain and Labour MPs in Leave seats like Flint and Snell will also vote against them as they believe their constituents voted for Brexit and against free movement. That means both EUref2 and Norway plus likely end up with even fewer MPs voting for them than the 215 who will vote for the Deal. Indeed we know already just 114 MPs voted against triggering Article 50 and Brexit last February and just 101 MPs voted for Umunna' s amendment to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union last June.
Then the Deal becomes the default alternative to No Deal and that is when May can Labour pro Europeans, Labour MPs in Leave seats and Its to reluctantly vote for the Deal as the only alternative to No Deal
And if at the end, the Deal still does not win, what does Mrs May do? Allow No Deal, Revoke or propose her deal with referendum to confirm? It's not over until it's over.
Then MPs will effectively have voted for No Deal by default which May will then push through.
She will of course never revoke Brexit given the vast majority of Tory voters and members are Leavers and I doubt she will propose EUref2 either, at most as a last resort she would only do so if Leave v Remain then if Leave wins Leave with the Deal or No Deal which at least favours the Deal
I would prefer the No Dealers to win followed in short order by the UK becoming a basket case while the EU goes from strength to strength. I find the motivation of the Leavers to be so repulsive that unless they are seen to reap what they have sown we'll never get rid of the shackles of Empire and our innate distrust of foreigners and the malign influence of the self serving right wing press.
I get you. Make them own it. Trouble is, would they? I can already hear the mantra "If we had been in charge, we would have got a terrific deal bla bla."
Also, what if it isn't as disastrous as you think it will be? Cannot rule that out.
Interestingly, I detect the mirror image of your position on the opposite extreme Leave side. Some of them prefer Remain to the Deal.
You say "what if it isn't as disastrous as you think it will be" as if it's a bad thing. Surely it not being disastrous would be a good thing?
We are heading for a calamitous Tory hard Brexit. Second referendum and general election pipe dreams will fade quickly and the realisation of the hari-kari we are committing will begin to dawn. But sadly it is too late...
Brexit = a calamity! Brexiteers = xenophobes / little Englanders / thickos!
Your Labour Party can stop that "calamitous" Hard Brexit. There's going to be plenty of shit to go round. Labour will get their fair share too. I expect the pro-May Deal Daily Mail to start firing up the "What the Hell are Labour Playing At?" line shortly......
Ah, it's the Labour party's fault now? Interesting.
When will the right-wing idiots take ownership for Brexit? You folks architected you - now f*cking own it you morons!
The fundamental problem seems to be that no one as yet believes any options have been closed off, and I don't know what would convince them that any options have been.
I was thinking that there might be 'indicative' parliamentary votes on No Deal and 2nd Ref, along with the MV on the Deal.
And then (say)
Deal: loses by 100 No Deal: loses by 400 2nd Ref: loses by 200
There are only 2 options on the table 1) Theresa's deal 2) No deal
We leave the EU on 29th March.
MPs cannot force another referendum only a GE and under the FTPA Theresa could easily drag it out to ensure the GE only takes place after 29th March. If the Government doesn't make parliamentary time for anything other than contingency planning for no-deal, no deal it is.
Frankly if we reach 21st January with no-deal the only option, regardless of what the drunk from Brussels says, EU leaders will ensure something is reached by 29th March. They don't want 20km queues at ferry ports in France, Belgium, Netherlands or Denmark. Angela Merkel cannot afford German car parts manufacturers to withdraw support from the CDU and Macron cannot risk the wrath of French farmers being told Britain wont take their milk, cheese, butter and meat! Add to that no £39 billion and the EU budget is f*cked!
I seriously doubt many EU leaders will want an extension of article 50. It would mean them giving up the extra seats in the European Parliament which they get when we leave and they certainly don't want to countenance 70+ British MEPs hanging around for a while like cuckoos in the nest.
IF English MPs think a 2nd referendum is a "get out of jail card" they risk the future of the UK because there would be no logical argument for refusing the majority will of the Scottish Parliament for IndyRef2. I might not like it but accept that there is a current majority in the Scottish Parliament so it does have some degree of legitimacy which a so called Peoples Vote (i.e. remoaners telling the electorate to vote the correct way next time) would not have.
If you really believe those are the only two options, you should pile on Paddy Power on "no second referendum" at 4/7 or "no revoking of A50" at 1/10. Free money for you.
There's no path to getting the deal through. Trying over and over is pointless because enough people want no deal, don't fear no deal, or presume we will remain, somehow, as the deadline approaches, so are not persuadable.
On the concluding point that she is futilely trying to placate leavers rather than trying to gain the support of remainers outside her party, I agree it is not working but I do understand it. That means getting Labour remainers on board, which is also futile since, well, they see remain as a possibility. Or it requires just adopting Labour's policy, but that policy is to renegotiate something different, and probably loses her many of the votes she currently has. So she has attempted to get her party behind her, presumably to make it closer and pressure the Labour votes she would sill need. It isn't happening.
As has been the case for a long time, it is no deal or remain as the options now. As much as she clearly does not want no deal, May would presumably try to no deal, and I guess it is a question of if the Tory remainers follow through on their threats if that happens.
However disastrous no deal might be, at least it would nail one way or other the extent of the "myths" of the consequences. And would perhaps result in some sort of reckoning for the British political class which one might hope would improve things in the medium term. A bit like post war Germany or Japan, without the level of deaths.
Well we can but hope...
Oh, I think the myths will persist either way. You really do need bone crunching, nation humiliating defeat (probably including deaths) to blast away the last shred of self deception.
May will likely lose the first vote and almost certainly never win Conservative have like leavers, the DUP or Labour Leavers behind it as they favour No Deal and Corbyn and the SNP will likely never vote with May either.
However as the article suggests the Deal is still likely to get 215 votes on the first vote meaning it needs just over 100 more to pass the Commons. How to get them? Here the Grieve amendment is her saviour.
As a result of the Grieve amendment being passed backbenchers will put forward Norway Plus and EUref2 to the vote which are the preferred options of Labour pro Europeans and the LDs and SNP and the handful of Conservative unreconciled Remainers. However we know that almost all Tory MPs, including the ERG, the DUP and Labour Leavers will vote against EUref2 and Norway Plus, Corbyn will not support them either and likely abstain and Labour MPs in Leave seats like Flint and Snell will also vote against them as they believe their constituents voted for Brexit and against free movement. That means both EUref2 and Norway plus likely end up with even fewer MPs voting for them than the 215 who will vote for the Deal. Indeed we know already just 114 MPs voted against triggering Article 50 and Brexit last February and just 101 MPs voted for Umunna' s amendment to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union last June.
Then the Deal becomes the default alternative to No Deal and that is when May can Labour pro Europeans, Labour MPs in Leave seats and Its to reluctantly vote for the Deal as the only alternative to No Deal
Good analysis. I think that's most likely too, although very far from guaranteed.
The key will be the Commons rejecting EUref2 and Norway plus to get pro European Labour and LD MPs and Labour MPs in Leave seats behind the Deal as a last resort
Inside May's head, she is going to deliver Brexit. So what flavour of Brexit do you want, Remainers? As 29th March approaches, which flavour do those Remainer MPs want to be associated with facilitating? By screaming that No Deal Brexit is so disastrous for the UK, they are rather hoist by their own petard if they then let that very thing happen. And for what? A bit of naked opportunism to get power over an apparently ravaged land?
Fast forward to 27 March. No Deal looms as inevitable. What do you do Yvette Cooper? What do you do, Chuka Umunna? What do you do, Sarah Wollaston?
Revoke Article 50
Not on the table from May. It's Hard Brexit then.
Yes, I suppose so, but it is May that will carry the can for the consequences.
It won't stick though.
What won't stick? Our Leaving? Jeez, you really think that there is any appetite to go through all this shit AGAIN? The more painful that No Deal proves to be, the LESS likely it is that anyone outside the Westminster bubble will want to pick at that EU scab any more.
Some time shortly before 29th March, Remain Fantasists need to let go of their fantasy. It's not happening. Stop being the toddler in the supermarket aisle having a screaming fit because they can't have chocolate for dinner - and decide which type of vegetables they want with their chicken. They can either have a role in the choice - or risk getting sprouts with every meal. For ever.
I'm reconciled to leaving And spending the next twenty years making sure that the brexiteers pay for it. An end to the triple lock and factory closures up north would be a good start. Brexiteers have assured us that any price will be fine to leave. Let's make sure they pay it.
London and the South East will suffer rather more than it thinks. The EU has made no secret of its ambition to move as much City work to the EU as possible and this will be inevitable. That will have an impact not just on the City but on the services which coalesce around it and on tax revenues. Couple that with a Corbyn government which has absolutely no love for the finance sector at all and the prospects do not look good for one of Britain's main major revenue earners.
A No Deal Brexit will likely harm all parts of the country not just Brexiteers.
May will likely lose the first vote and almost certainly never win Conservative have like leavers, the DUP or Labour Leavers behind it as they favour No Deal and Corbyn and the SNP will likely never vote with May either.
However as the article suggests the Deal is still likely to get 215 votes on the first vote meaning it needs just over 100 more to pass the Commons. How to get them? Here the Grieve amendment is her saviour.
As a result of the Grieve amendment being passed backbenchers will put forward Norway Plus and EUref2 to the vote which are the preferred options of Labour pro Europeans and the LDs and SNP and the handful of Conservative unreconciled Remainers. However we know that almost all Tory MPs, including the ERG, the DUP and Labour Leavers will vote against EUref2 and Norway Plus, Corbyn will not support them either and likely abstain and Labour MPs in Leave seats like Flint and Snell will also vote against them as they believe their constituents voted for Brexit and against free movement. That means both EUref2 and Norway plus likely end up with even fewer MPs voting for them than the 215 who will vote for the Deal. Indeed we know already just 114 MPs voted against triggering Article 50 and Brexit last February and just 101 MPs voted for Umunna' s amendment to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union last June.
Then the Deal becomes the default alternative to No Deal and that is when May can Labour pro Europeans, Labour MPs in Leave seats and Its to reluctantly vote for the Deal as the only alternative to No Deal
And if at the end, the Deal still does not win, what does Mrs May do? Allow No Deal, Revoke or propose her deal with referendum to confirm? It's not over until it's over.
Then MPs will effectively have voted for No Deal by default which May will then push through.
She will of course never revoke Brexit given the vast majority of Tory voters and members are Leavers and I doubt she will propose EUref2 either, at most as a last resort she would only do so if Leave v Remain then if Leave wins Leave with the Deal or No Deal which at least favours the Deal
May will likely lose the first vote and almost certainly never win Conservative have like leavers, the DUP or Labour Leavers behind it as they favour No Deal and Corbyn and the SNP will likely never vote with May either.
However as the article suggests the Deal is still likely to get 215 votes on the first vote meaning it needs just over 100 more to pass the Commons. How to get them? Here the Grieve amendment is her saviour.
As a result of the Grieve amendment being passed backbenchers will put forward Norway Plus and EUref2 to the vote which are the preferred options of Labour pro Europeans and the LDs and SNP and the handful of Conservative unreconciled Remainers. However we know that almost all Tory MPs, including the ERG, the DUP and Labour Leavers will vote against EUref2 and Norway Plus, Corbyn will not support them either and likely abstain and Labour MPs in Leave seats like Flint and Snell will also vote against them as they believe their constituents voted for Brexit and against free movement. That means both EUref2 and Norway plus likely end up with even fewer MPs voting for them than the 215 who will vote for the Deal. Indeed we know already just 114 MPs voted against triggering Article 50 and Brexit last February and just 101 MPs voted for Umunna' s amendment to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union last June.
Then the Deal becomes the default alternative to No Deal and that is when May can Labour pro Europeans, Labour MPs in Leave seats and Its to reluctantly vote for the Deal as the only alternative to No Deal
If Corbyn abstains or votes in favour of May’s deal at any point he is finished. It won’t happen. However, it is possible a few dozen backbench Labour MPs can be won over.
Isn't revoking Art 50 the same as saying we will Remain? Would this Parliament ever vote again to invoke Art 50? When is a fig-leaf not even that?
Yes it is. The bet is "UK to revoke Article 50 before 30-03-2019 and end Brexit?" You can get 1/10 on "No Revoke" on Betfair as well as Paddy Power.
10% tax free return in under three months (40% pa) for those who believe revocation is impossible.
EDIT: I'm not betting on this as, though I believe it is unlikely, I do believe it is possible with a greater than 10% probability - but do your own assessment.
Looking on Oddschecker at all the bets relating to Brexit, it looks to me as if punters and bookies are assigning the following approximate probabilities.
Leave by 1 April: 40% (30% Mays' Deal, 10% no Deal) Revoke by 1 April and Remain: 10% (if you don't believe this, then you can bet on "no revoke" at 1/10 on Paddy Power). Leave just after 1 April: 10% May's Deal 2nd referendum 40% (30% Remain, 10% May's deal).
May will likely lose the first vote and almost certainly never win Conservative have like leavers, the DUP or Labour Leavers behind it as they favour No Deal and Corbyn and the SNP will likely never vote with May either.
However as the article suggests the Deal is still likely to get 215 votes on the first vote meaning it needs just over 100 more to pass the Commons. How to get them? Here the Grieve amendment is her saviour.
As a result of the Grieve amendment being passed backbenchers will put forward Norway Plus and EUref2 to the vote which are the preferred options of Labour pro Europeans and the LDs and SNP and the handful of Conservative unreconciled Remainers. However we know that almost all Tory MPs, including the ERG, the DUP and Labour Leavers will vote against EUref2 and Norway Plus, Corbyn will not support them either and likely abstain and Labour MPs in Leave seats like Flint and Snell will also vote against them as they believe their constituents voted for Brexit and against free movement. That means both EUref2 and Norway plus likely end up with even fewer MPs voting for them than the 215 who will vote for the Deal. Indeed we know already just 114 MPs voted against triggering Article 50 and Brexit last February and just 101 MPs voted for Umunna' s amendment to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union last June.
Then the Deal becomes the default alternative to No Deal and that is when May can Labour pro Europeans, Labour MPs in Leave seats and Its to reluctantly vote for the Deal as the only alternative to No Deal
If Corbyn abstains or votes in favour of May’s deal at any point he is finished. It won’t happen. However, it is possible a few dozen backbench Labour MPs can be won over.
Corbyn of course will vote against May's Deal regardless, as will the DUP and the ERG and a few Labour Leavers like Hoey who favour No Deal and probably the SNP.
However if the Deal gets 215 votes on the first vote once EUref2 and Norway plus are voted down too under the Grieve amendment, May can then get MPs who voted for those options but against the Deal on the first ballot ie about 100 to 150 Labour and LD MPs plus a few Labour MPs in Leave seats like Flint and Snell to switch to the Deal on the second vote and it scrapes home to avoid No Deal.
The price of passing the Deal with Labour and LD votes though is the DUP could then VONC the government and a general election next summer or the DUP could even switch to Corbyn if he then switched to BINO for the whole UK
Interesting thread. The government has been banging the (false) drum of a Bad Deal being worse than No Deal for so long that no-one believes them. They won't support a Bad Deal thinking No Deal is actually worse.
May will likely lose the first vote and almost certainly never win Conservative have like leavers, the DUP or Labour Leavers behind it as they favour No Deal and Corbyn and the SNP will likely never vote with May either.
However as the article suggests the Deal is still likely to get 215 votes on the first vote meaning it needs just over 100 more to pass the Commons. How to get them? Here the Grieve amendment is her saviour.
As a result of the Grieve amendment being passed backbenchers will put forward Norway Plus and EUref2 to the vote which are the preferred options of Labour pro Europeans and the LDs and SNP and the handful of Conservative unreconciled Remainers. However we know that almost all Tory MPs, including the ERG, the DUP and Labour Leavers will vote against EUref2 and Norway Plus, Corbyn will not support them either and likely abstain and Labour MPs in Leave seats like Flint and Snell will also vote against them as they believe their constituents voted for Brexit and against free movement. That means both EUref2 and Norway plus likely end up with even fewer MPs voting for them than the 215 who will vote for the Deal. Indeed we know already just 114 MPs voted against triggering Article 50 and Brexit last February and just 101 MPs voted for Umunna' s amendment to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union last June.
Then the Deal becomes the default alternative to No Deal and that is when May can Labour pro Europeans, Labour MPs in Leave seats and Its to reluctantly vote for the Deal as the only alternative to No Deal
And if at the end, the Deal still does not win, what does Mrs May do? Allow No Deal, Revoke or propose her deal with referendum to confirm? It's not over until it's over.
Then MPs will effectively have voted for No Deal by default which May will then push through.
She will of course never revoke Brexit given the vast majority of Tory voters and members are Leavers and I doubt she will propose EUref2 either, at most as a last resort she would only do so if Leave v Remain then if Leave wins Leave with the Deal or No Deal which at least favours the Deal
No revoke is 1/10 on Paddy Power. Pile on.
Yes, after all, the one thing we know about TMay is she's a woman of her word. LOL!
Hard to read this (excellent) summary and not conclude that the 4/6 available on the deal NOT passing is the bet of a lifetime.
I agree with Alastair that TM's best target is remainer MPs. There are more of them and they are less ideological. She needs to kill off the last unicorn (the 2nd referendum) and force the House to confront No Deal, make it clear that she is prepared to allow it to happen. Say to MPs, "Do you really want that? Ok, so go ahead. Make my day."
Blackmail, in other words, and quite right too. The approach is perfectly logical. We're leaving, per the 2016 referendum, and there are 2 ways to do it, with a deal or without one, and with a deal means this deal because there is no other deal and nor can there be. So choose.
I think the ramping up in public of No Deal 'planning' (lol) indicates that this is the plan. I hope it is because it is the right one and I do want the Deal to pass.
I would prefer the No Dealers to win followed in short order by the UK becoming a basket case while the EU goes from strength to strengh. I find the motivation of the Leavers to be so repulsive that unless they are seen to reap what they have sown we'll never get rid of the shackles of Empire and our inate distrust of foreigners and the malign influence of the self serving right wing press.
That you can even type those words show how much you despise people who don't share your world view. You're no better than the extreme Brexiters. You project all your self loathing onto Brexit, it's probably not a very nice place in your head. Seek help, mate, seriously.
Mr. 43, May hasn't used that line for a while, but it's still a valid point you make (coupled with Osborne's overblown Remain campaign still working to dilute the impact of even realistic warnings of disruption).
May's legacy will be seen as similar to that of Nick Clegg - dealt a bad hand, but then played it really badly.
It's a tragedy that she wasn't removed in the recent vote of no confidence. It was the moment to get rid of the blockage and get some clarity. Boris/JRM etc as PM would have lead to clarity of approach, and remainers and leavers could've acted accordingly.
Inside May's head, she is going to deliver Brexit. So what flavour of Brexit do you want, Remainers? As 29th March approaches, which flavour do those Remainer MPs want to be associated with facilitating? By screaming that No Deal Brexit is so disastrous for the UK, they are rather hoist by their own petard if they then let that very thing happen. And for what? A bit of naked opportunism to get power over an apparently ravaged land?
Fast forward to 27 March. No Deal looms as inevitable. What do you do Yvette Cooper? What do you do, Chuka Umunna? What do you do, Sarah Wollaston?
Revoke Article 50
Not on the table from May. It's Hard Brexit then.
Yes, I suppose so, but it is May that will carry the can for the consequences.
It won't stick though.
What won't stick? Our Leaving? Jeez, you really think that there is any appetite to go through all this shit AGAIN? The more painful that No Deal proves to be, the LESS likely it is that anyone outside the Westminster bubble will want to pick at that EU scab any more.
Some time shortly before 29th March, Remain Fantasists need to let go of their fantasy. It's not happening. Stop being the toddler in the supermarket aisle having a screaming fit because they can't have chocolate for dinner - and decide which type of vegetables they want with their chicken. They can either have a role in the choice - or risk getting sprouts with every meal. For ever.
I'm reconciled to leaving And spending the next twenty years making sure that the brexiteers pay for it. An end to the triple lock and factory closures up north would be a good start. Brexiteers have assured us that any price will be fine to leave. Let's make sure they pay it.
London and the South East will suffer rather more than it thinks. The EU has made no secret of its ambition to move as much City work to the EU as possible and this will be inevitable. That will have an impact not just on the City but on the services which coalesce around it and on tax revenues. Couple that with a Corbyn government which has absolutely no love for the finance sector at all and the prospects do not look good for one of Britain's main major revenue earners.
A No Deal Brexit will likely harm all parts of the country not just Brexiteers.
I think Brexit kills London's dominance in financial services under any Brexit scenario. Barring EEA or equivalent it will probably do the same for pharmaceuticals, which is another key industry. Automotive is also at risk. All very important sectors for the UK.
May's legacy will be seen as similar to that of Nick Clegg - dealt a bad hand, but then played it really badly.
It's a tragedy that she wasn't removed in the recent vote of no confidence. It was the moment to get rid of the blockage and get some clarity. Boris/JRM etc as PM would have lead to clarity of approach, and remainers and leavers could've acted accordingly.
Nope. May has got the only sensible compromise available bar Remainer v No Dealer civil war
Inside May's head, she is going to deliver Brexit. So what flavour of Brexit do you want, Remainers? As 29th March approaches, which flavour do those Remainer MPs want to be associated with facilitating? By screaming that No Deal Brexit is so disastrous for the UK, they are rather hoist by their own petard if they then let that very thing happen. And for what? A bit of naked opportunism to get power over an apparently ravaged land?
Fast forward to 27 March. No Deal looms as inevitable. What do you do Yvette Cooper? What do you do, Chuka Umunna? What do you do, Sarah Wollaston?
Revoke Article 50
Not on the table from May. It's Hard Brexit then.
Yes, I suppose so, but it is May that will carry the can for the consequences.
It won't stick though.
What won't stick? Our Leaving? Jeez, you really think that there is any appetite to go through all this shit AGAIN? The more painful that No Deal proves to be, the LESS likely it is that anyone outside the Westminster bubble will want to pick at that EU scab any more.
Some time shortly before 29th March, Remain Fantasists need to let go of their fantasy. It's not happening. Stop being the toddler in the supermarket aisle having a screaming fit because they can't have chocolate for dinner - and decide which type of vegetables they want with their chicken. They can either have a role in the choice - or risk getting sprouts with every meal. For ever.
I'm reconciled to leaving And spending the next twenty years making sure that the brexiteers pay for it. An end to the triple lock and factory closures up north would be a good start. Brexiteers have assured us that any price will be fine to leave. Let's make sure they pay it.
London and the South East will suffer rather more than it thinks. The EU has made no secret of its ambition to move as much City work to the EU as possible and this will be inevitable. That will have an impact not just on the City but on the services which coalesce around it and on tax revenues. Couple that with a Corbyn government which has absolutely no love for the finance sector at all and the prospects do not look good for one of Britain's main major revenue earners.
A No Deal Brexit will likely harm all parts of the country not just Brexiteers.
I think Brexit kills London's dominance in financial services under any Brexit scenario.
You may be right but... 20 years ago didn't everyone say that about us joining the Euro?
I don’t think Labour will abstain. I don’t see any upside for them in doing so.
May’s best hope, if she is too stubborn to concede a referendum, is that the ERGers abstain. And her only leverage with them is probably an election.
Corbynites won't and the ERG won't. As I said many Labour MPs will switch from opposing the Deal to backing it once EUref2 and Norway plus are voted down
Isn't revoking Art 50 the same as saying we will Remain? Would this Parliament ever vote again to invoke Art 50? When is a fig-leaf not even that?
Yes it is. The bet is "UK to revoke Article 50 before 30-03-2019 and end Brexit?" You can get 1/10 on "No Revoke" on Betfair as well as Paddy Power.
10% tax free return in under three months (40% pa) for those who believe revocation is impossible.
EDIT: I'm not betting on this as, though I believe it is unlikely, I do believe it is possible with a greater than 10% probability - but do your own assessment.
I've just broken a betting red line of mine. I only ever bet on an objective assessment of value and never with my heart. But I've just piled onto "No Revoke" at 1/10, even though I don't think it is value, because the immense pleasure I'll get from losing the bet with a revocation of A50 and cancelling Brexit will be so immense, I'll gladly add to PP's coffers.
Inside May's head, she is going to deliver Brexit. So what flavour of Brexit do you want, Remainers? As 29th March approaches, which flavour do those Remainer MPs want to be associated with facilitating? By screaming that No Deal Brexit is so disastrous for the UK, they are rather hoist by their own petard if they then let that very thing happen. And for what? A bit of naked opportunism to get power over an apparently ravaged land?
Fast forward to 27 March. No Deal looms as inevitable. What do you do Yvette Cooper? What do you do, Chuka Umunna? What do you do, Sarah Wollaston?
Revoke Article 50
Not on the table from May. It's Hard Brexit then.
Yes, I suppose so, but it is May that will carry the can for the consequences.
It won't stick though.
What won't stick? Our Leaving? Jeez, you really think that there is any appetite to go through all this shit AGAIN? - or risk getting sprouts with every meal. For ever.
I'm reconciled to leaving And spending the next twenty years making sure that the brexiteers pay for it. An end to the triple lock and factory closures up north would be a good start. Brexiteers have assured us that any price will be fine to leave. Let's make sure they pay it.
London and the South East will suffer rather more than it thinks. The EU has made no secret of its ambition to move as much City work to the EU as possible and this will be inevitable. That will have an impact not just on the City but on the services which coalesce around it and on tax revenues. Couple that with a Corbyn government which has absolutely no love for the finance sector at all and the prospects do not look good for one of Britain's main major revenue earners.
A No Deal Brexit will likely harm all parts of the country not just Brexiteers.
I think Brexit kills London's dominance in financial services under any Brexit scenario. Barring EEA or equivalent it will probably do the same for pharmaceuticals, which is another key industry. Automotive is also at risk. All very important sectors for the UK.
London will almost certainly still be the biggest European financial centre regardless but Paris and Frankfurt will close the gap. New York and Hong Kong though will take a clear lead globally
If May were to take up Alastair Meeks suggestion and move towards Labour remainers to gain their support she is likely to find not just 100 Conservative MPs against her but 200.
From Corbyn's point of view, Labour supporting near-permanent CU/single market will take care of DUP red lines, as would revoking Article 50. Mrs Corbyn might need that tape measure! Alternatively, Theresa May could agree an early GE in exchange for Labour support for her deal with a couple of tweaks.
Might Theresa May's best plan be to seek general agreement for an extension of Article 50 past the date she'd retire anyway? She stays as PM; she gets to tackle her domestic agenda; remainers rejoice; non-headbanger leavers can be bought off with a Royal Commission on Brexit; headbangers can be told to serve on said commission or shut up. It is good for May and fits with her can-kicking SOP. But what would be Labour's price? Corbyn doesn't care about Brexit so something domestic that can be retrofitted to Labour's economic concerns and also May's JAM agenda?
Inside May's head, she is going to deliver Brexit. So what flavour of Brexit do you want, Remainers? As 29th March approaches, which flavour do those Remainer MPs want to be associated with facilitating? By screaming that No Deal Brexit is so disastrous for the UK, they are rather hoist by their own petard if they then let that very thing happen. And for what? A bit of naked opportunism to get power over an apparently ravaged land?
Fast forward to 27 March. No Deal looms as inevitable. What do you do Yvette Cooper? What do you do, Chuka Umunna? What do you do, Sarah Wollaston?
Revoke Article 50
Not on the table from May. It's Hard Brexit then.
Yes, I suppose so, but it is May that will carry the can for the consequences.
It won't stick though.
What won't stick? Our Leaving? Jeez, you really think that there is any appetite to go through all this shit AGAIN? - or risk getting sprouts with every meal. For ever.
I'm reconciled to leaving And spending the next twenty years making sure that the brexiteers pay for it. An end to the triple lock and factory closures up north would be a good start. Brexiteers have assured us that any price will be fine to leave. Let's make sure they pay it.
London and the South East will suffer rather more than it thinks. The EU has made no secret of its ambition to move as much City work to the EU as possible and this will be inevitable. That will have an impact not just on the City but on the services which coalesce around it and on tax revenues. Couple that with a Corbyn government which has absolutely no love for the finance sector at all and the prospects do not look good for one of Britain's main major revenue earners.
A No Deal Brexit will likely harm all parts of the country not just Brexiteers.
I think Brexit kills London's dominance in financial services under any Brexit scenario. Barring EEA or equivalent it will probably do the same for pharmaceuticals, which is another key industry. Automotive is also at risk. All very important sectors for the UK.
London will almost certainly still be the biggest European financial centre regardless but Paris and Frankfurt will close the gap. New York and Hong Kong though will take a clear lead globally
Fortress EU financial centres would surely suffer decline compared with the free markets of London, NY, HK, and Singapore.
If May were to take up Alastair Meeks suggestion and move towards Labour remainers to gain their support she is likely to find not just 100 Conservative MPs against her but 200.
She will not be moving anywhere. Once EUref2 and Norway plus are put forward under the Grieve amendment and voted down it will be Labour Remainers moving towards May's Deal as the only alternative to No Deal not the other way around
Fast forward to 27 March. No Deal looms as inevitable. What do you do Yvette Cooper? What do you do, Chuka Umunna? What do you do, Sarah Wollaston?
Revoke Article 50
Not on the table from May. It's Hard Brexit then.
Yes, I suppose so, but it is May that will carry the can for the consequences.
It won't stick though.
What won't stick? Our Leaving? Jeez, you really think that there is any appetite to go through all this shit AGAIN? The more painful that No Deal proves to be, the LESS likely it is that anyone outside the Westminster bubble will want to pick at that EU scab any more.
Some time shortly before 29th March, Remain Fantasists need to let go of their fantasy. It's not happening. Stop being the toddler in the supermarket aisle having a screaming fit because they can't have chocolate for dinner - and decide which type of vegetables they want with their chicken. They can either have a role in the choice - or risk getting sprouts with every meal. For ever.
I'm reconciled to leaving And spending the next twenty years making sure that the brexiteers pay for it. An end to the triple lock and factory closures up north would be a good start. Brexiteers have assured us that any price will be fine to leave. Let's make sure they pay it.
London and the South East will suffer rather more than it thinks. The EU has made no secret of its ambition to move as much City work to the EU as possible and this will be inevitable. That will have an impact not just on the City but on the services which coalesce around it and on tax revenues. Couple that with a Corbyn government which has absolutely no love for the finance sector at all and the prospects do not look good for one of Britain's main major revenue earners.
A No Deal Brexit will likely harm all parts of the country not just Brexiteers.
I think Brexit kills London's dominance in financial services under any Brexit scenario. Barring EEA or equivalent it will probably do the same for pharmaceuticals, which is another key industry. Automotive is also at risk. All very important sectors for the UK.
I think that unrealistic. Of the three, the most serious short term threat is to the motor industry. Of course Brexit plus Corbyn would be seriously damaging to the other two as well. Other scenarios could have a large range of outcomes.
May's legacy will be seen as similar to that of Nick Clegg - dealt a bad hand, but then played it really badly.
It's a tragedy that she wasn't removed in the recent vote of no confidence. It was the moment to get rid of the blockage and get some clarity. Boris/JRM etc as PM would have lead to clarity of approach, and remainers and leavers could've acted accordingly.
As both sides thought the other side was likely to win it was safer the devil you know carrying the can rather than one of the other options...
If May were to take up Alastair Meeks suggestion and move towards Labour remainers to gain their support she is likely to find not just 100 Conservative MPs against her but 200.
She will not be moving anywhere. Once EUref2 and Norway plus are put forward under the Grieve amendment and voted down it will be Labour Remainers moving towards May's Deal as the only alternative to No Deal not the other way around
It's never going to be official; Labour policy to back May's deal and her deal needs Labour support in bulk if it is to overcome 100 Conservative Leave supporters.
If May were to take up Alastair Meeks suggestion and move towards Labour remainers to gain their support she is likely to find not just 100 Conservative MPs against her but 200.
She will not be moving anywhere. Once EUref2 and Norway plus are put forward under the Grieve amendment and voted down it will be Labour Remainers moving towards May's Deal as the only alternative to No Deal not the other way around
Why would Remainers believe that they should abandon what they want just because its been rejected and adopt something they don't want that had also been rejected? Entirely possible EURef2 or Norway+ will get more backing than May's atrocious Deal.
If May were to take up Alastair Meeks suggestion and move towards Labour remainers to gain their support she is likely to find not just 100 Conservative MPs against her but 200.
Mrs May will not move far, if at all, towards Labour, retainers or not. It's not in her nature to do so. I suppose it's possible that should be be persuaded to do so, but I don't see anyone at the top of the Tory Party with the necessary clout. There's no-one of the stature of Whitelaw or Keith Joseph in the modern party, except, perhaps Gove and I don't think he's regarded as trustworthy or honourable.
From Corbyn's point of view, Labour supporting near-permanent CU/single market will take care of DUP red lines, as would revoking Article 50. Mrs Corbyn might need that tape measure! Alternatively, Theresa May could agree an early GE in exchange for Labour support for her deal with a couple of tweaks.
Might Theresa May's best plan be to seek general agreement for an extension of Article 50 past the date she'd retire anyway? She stays as PM; she gets to tackle her domestic agenda; remainers rejoice; non-headbanger leavers can be bought off with a Royal Commission on Brexit; headbangers can be told to serve on said commission or shut up. It is good for May and fits with her can-kicking SOP. But what would be Labour's price? Corbyn doesn't care about Brexit so something domestic that can be retrofitted to Labour's economic concerns and also May's JAM agenda?
I think Corbyn minority government propped up by the SNP and DUP and LDs on SM and CU BINO with the Tories under Boris in opposition with Leavers behind them and still comfortably the largest party is not something that many Tories would be too concerned about
Isn't revoking Art 50 the same as saying we will Remain? Would this Parliament ever vote again to invoke Art 50? When is a fig-leaf not even that?
Yes it is. The bet is "UK to revoke Article 50 before 30-03-2019 and end Brexit?" You can get 1/10 on "No Revoke" on Betfair as well as Paddy Power.
10% tax free return in under three months (40% pa) for those who believe revocation is impossible.
EDIT: I'm not betting on this as, though I believe it is unlikely, I do believe it is possible with a greater than 10% probability - but do your own assessment.
I've just broken a betting red line of mine. I only ever bet on an objective assessment of value and never with my heart. But I've just piled onto "No Revoke" at 1/10, even though I don't think it is value, because the immense pleasure I'll get from losing the bet with a revocation of A50 and cancelling Brexit will be so immense, I'll gladly add to PP's coffers.
I have a friend who uses political betting as a stabiliser to their political views, betting purely on outcomes she doesn't want to happen. She was gutted after the Brexit vote, but a few hundred quid richer to take the edge off.
Mr. 43, May hasn't used that line for a while, but it's still a valid point you make (coupled with Osborne's overblown Remain campaign still working to dilute the impact of even realistic warnings of disruption).
Inside May's head, she is going to deliver Brexit. So what flavour of Brexit do you want, Remainers? As 29th March approaches, which flavour do those Remainer MPs want to be associated with facilitating? By screaming that No Deal Brexit is so disastrous for the UK, they are rather hoist by their own petard if they then let that very thing happen. And for what? A bit of naked opportunism to get power over an apparently ravaged land?
Fast forward to 27 March. No Deal looms as inevitable. What do you do Yvette Cooper? What do you do, Chuka Umunna? What do you do, Sarah Wollaston?
Revoke Article 50
Not on the table from May. It's Hard Brexit then.
Yes, I suppose so, but it is May that will carry the can for the consequences.
It won't stick though.
What won't stick? Our Leaving? Jeez, you really think that there is any appetite to go through all this shit AGAIN? - or risk getting sprouts with every meal. For ever.
I'm reconciled to leaving And spending the next twenty years making sure that the brexiteers pay for it. An end to the triple lock and factory closures up north would be a good start. Brexiteers have assured us that any price will be fine to leave. Let's make sure they pay it.
London and the South East will suffer rather more than it thinks. The EU has made main major revenue earners.
A No Deal Brexit will likely harm all parts of the country not just Brexiteers.
I think Brexit kills London's dominance in financial services under any Brexit scenario. Barring EEA or equivalent it will probably do the same for pharmaceuticals, which is another key industry. Automotive is also at risk. All very important sectors for the UK.
London will almost certainly still be the biggest European financial centre regardless but Paris and Frankfurt will close the gap. New York and Hong Kong though will take a clear lead globally
Fortress EU financial centres would surely suffer decline compared with the free markets of London, NY, HK, and Singapore.
London would also see decline because of less access to the single market, the biggest gainers would be New York and the Far East
Surely we've got about two weeks for May's deal to get through but after around 21st January that's it. Time is pretty much up and the only option becomes No Deal?
All these various options and scenarios just seem far-fetched to me given how time has basically run out...
Inside May's head, she is going to deliver Brexit. So what flavour of Brexit do you want, Remainers? As 29th March approaches, which flavour do those Remainer MPs want to be associated with facilitating? By screaming that No Deal Brexit is so disastrous for the UK, they are rather hoist by their own petard if they then let that very thing happen. And for what? A bit of naked opportunism to get power over an apparently ravaged land?
Fast forward to 27 March. No Deal looms as inevitable. What do you do Yvette Cooper? What do you do, Chuka Umunna? What do you do, Sarah Wollaston?
Revoke Article 50
Not on the table from May. It's Hard Brexit then.
Yes, I suppose so, but it is May that will carry the can for the consequences.
It won't stick though.
What won't stick? Our Leaving? Jeez, you really think that there is any appetite to go through all this shit AGAIN? - or risk getting sprouts with every meal. For ever.
I'm reconciled to leaving And spending the next twenty years making sure that the brexiteers pay for it. An end to the triple lock and factory closures up north would be a good start. Brexiteers have assured us that any price will be fine to leave. Let's make sure they pay it.
London and the South East will suffer rather more than it thinks. The EU has made main major revenue earners.
A No Deal Brexit will likely harm all parts of the country not just Brexiteers.
I think Brexit kills London's dominance in financial services under any Brexit scenario. Barring EEA or equivalent it will probably do the same for pharmaceuticals, which is another key industry. Automotive is also at risk. All very important sectors for the UK.
London will almost certainly still be the biggest European financial centre regardless but Paris and Frankfurt will close the gap. New York and Hong Kong though will take a clear lead globally
Fortress EU financial centres would surely suffer decline compared with the free markets of London, NY, HK, and Singapore.
London would also see decline bevause of less access to the single market, the biggest gainers would be New York and the Far East
Why? What would NY and the Far East have to offer that we won't?
Isn't revoking Art 50 the same as saying we will Remain? Would this Parliament ever vote again to invoke Art 50? When is a fig-leaf not even that?
Yes it is. The bet is "UK to revoke Article 50 before 30-03-2019 and end Brexit?" You can get 1/10 on "No Revoke" on Betfair as well as Paddy Power.
10% tax free return in under three months (40% pa) for those who believe revocation is impossible.
EDIT: I'm not betting on this as, though I believe it is unlikely, I do believe it is possible with a greater than 10% probability - but do your own assessment.
I've just broken a betting red line of mine. I only ever bet on an objective assessment of value and never with my heart. But I've just piled onto "No Revoke" at 1/10, even though I don't think it is value, because the immense pleasure I'll get from losing the bet with a revocation of A50 and cancelling Brexit will be so immense, I'll gladly add to PP's coffers.
Hopefully your money will be going to the tenth punter, who saw it coming.
You say "what if it isn't as disastrous as you think it will be" as if it's a bad thing. Surely it not being disastrous would be a good thing?
I was putting myself in Roger's shoes. For the extreme Remainer (soon to be Rejoiner) a No Deal exit that turns out NOT to be disastrous is worst case.
If May were to take up Alastair Meeks suggestion and move towards Labour remainers to gain their support she is likely to find not just 100 Conservative MPs against her but 200.
She will not be moving anywhere. Once EUref2 and Norway plus are put forward under the Grieve amendment and voted down it will be Labour Remainers moving towards May's Deal as the only alternative to No Deal not the other way around
It's never going to be official; Labour policy to back May's deal and her deal needs Labour support in bulk if it is to overcome 100 Conservative Leave supporters.
100 Labour MPs would pass the Deal over No Deal. That still means 162 Labour MPs, a majority, would vote against the Deal but just over 200 Tory MPs plus 100 Labour MPs plus LDs like Lloyd would be enough to get it through
From Corbyn's point of view, Labour supporting near-permanent CU/single market will take care of DUP red lines, as would revoking Article 50. Mrs Corbyn might need that tape measure! Alternatively, Theresa May could agree an early GE in exchange for Labour support for her deal with a couple of tweaks.
Might Theresa May's best plan be to seek general agreement for an extension of Article 50 past the date she'd retire anyway? She stays as PM; she gets to tackle her domestic agenda; remainers rejoice; non-headbanger leavers can be bought off with a Royal Commission on Brexit; headbangers can be told to serve on said commission or shut up. It is good for May and fits with her can-kicking SOP. But what would be Labour's price? Corbyn doesn't care about Brexit so something domestic that can be retrofitted to Labour's economic concerns and also May's JAM agenda?
I think Corbyn minority government propped up by the SNP and DUP and LDs on SM and CU BINO with the Tories under Boris in opposition with Leavers behind them and still comfortably the largest party is not something that many Tories would be too concerned about
A statistic to cheer us all up... Marcus Harris made an eye-catching 79 and, if none of his team-mates pass that, he will hold the record for the lowest highest score in a Test series for Australia in 100 years...
I think that the only question will be whether India can take 20 wickets on that strip but either way India win the series.
As far as I can see, most of the Australian wickets have thus far been generously donated, rather than taken...
I don’t think Labour will abstain. I don’t see any upside for them in doing so.
May’s best hope, if she is too stubborn to concede a referendum, is that the ERGers abstain. And her only leverage with them is probably an election.
I doubt that has any leverage. There are as many Remainers at risk as Leavers. Soubry and Rudd would lose their seats, Clarke might well stand down and Grieve has said he won’t stand at the next election to buy off moves to deselect him at Beaconsfield. May won’t want a Corbyn Gov as her legacy even though she seems to be doing her best to deliver it.
Inside May's head, she is going to deliver Brexit. So what flavour of h Wollaston?
Revoke Article 50
Not on the table from May. It's Hard Brexit then.
Yes, I suppose so, but it is May that will carry the can for the consequences.
It won't stick though.
What won't stick? Our Leaving? Jeez, you really think that there is any appetite to go through all this shit AGAIN? - or risk getting sprouts with every meal. For ever.
I'm reconciled to leaving And spending the next twenty years making sure that the brexiteers pay for it. An end to the triple lock and factory closures up north would be a good start. Brexiteers have assured us that any price will be fine to leave. Let's make sure they pay it.
London and the South East will suffer rather more than it thinks. The EU has made main major revenue earners.
A No Deal Brexit will likely harm all parts of the country not just Brexiteers.
I think Brexit kills London's dominance in financial services under any Brexit scenario. Barring EEA or equivalent it will probably do the same for pharmaceuticals, which is another key industry. Automotive is also at risk. All very important sectors for the UK.
London will almost certainly still be the biggest European financial centre regardless but Paris and Frankfurt will close the gap. New York and Hong Kong though will take a clear lead globally
Fortress EU financial centres would surely suffer decline compared with the free markets of London, NY, HK, and Singapore.
London would also see decline bevause of less access to the single market, the biggest gainers would be New York and the Far East
Why? What would NY and the Far East have to offer that we won't?
One of the main reasons London is at the top tier is full access to the EU and single market, once that goes some financial companies will move to Paris, Frankfurt etc and London will decline relative to the Far East while still staying ahead of its European rivals but with a closer gap
No deal is not an end position but a good starting point from which to negotiate with the EU. We would be able to negotiate the Withdrawal agreement in parallel with the Free Trade Agreement, a far better bargaining position for the UK.
Business would have to cope with two changes in import/export arrangements (first to WTO then to FTA with EU markets) but the bulk of UK GDP trade is domestic and not import/export business with EU countries. Services are largely unaffected anyway in the real world.
From Corbyn's point of view, Labour supporting near-permanent CU/single market will take care of DUP red lines, as would revoking Article 50. Mrs Corbyn might need that tape measure! Alternatively, Theresa May could agree an early GE in exchange for Labour support for her deal with a couple of tweaks.
Might Theresa May's best plan be to seek general agreement for an extension of Article 50 past the date she'd retire anyway? She stays as PM; she gets to tackle her domestic agenda; remainers rejoice; non-headbanger leavers can be bought off with a Royal Commission on Brexit; headbangers can be told to serve on said commission or shut up. It is good for May and fits with her can-kicking SOP. But what would be Labour's price? Corbyn doesn't care about Brexit so something domestic that can be retrofitted to Labour's economic concerns and also May's JAM agenda?
I think Corbyn minority government propped up by the SNP and DUP and LDs on SM and CU BINO with the Tories under Boris in opposition with Leavers behind them and still comfortably the largest party is not something that many Tories would be too concerned about
Is that really the Central Office thinking?
As a former Tory council candidate in a Leave area, I would love campaigning with Corbyn in power propped up by the LDs, DUP and SNP and implementing BINO but with the Tories still easily largest party
Rather how I feel about a second referendum. if the result could be guaranteed it might be OK. But it can't. Saw a Leaver post on Facebook the other day blaming ALL immigration on the EU.
Does not surprise me. Another referendum is IMO the worst idea since the decision to hold the original one. The public are not equipped to make this decision.
Comments
The only reason to back a second vote, which I do, that makes sense is because Parliament is incapable of doing its job and agreeing something, and an election will not certainly resolve that. But some of the second vote arguments are just plain desperate and very unconvincing, like that polls indicate a changed mind (so we must never last a full government term as polls shift) or because there is somehow equivalence to parliamentary procedures on voting for things more than once and national referendums.
Well we can but hope...
"Permanent CU, with a deal on FOM as part of the FTA would work for me."
It probably would for me, but a 'deal' on FOM cannot happen. It would mean the other 27 countries would need to be offered the same deal. There be dragons!
Sure, they might take a but of a hit for that stance, but far less than the Tories will unless no deal really is a cakewalk.
Let's be objective.
From an outsider's viewpoint. The UK Government organise a referendum. Parliament votes for it and votes to honour the decision despite being against one of the options. The 'wrong' options wins. Parliament spends two years farting around before deciding it won't implement it. Tells voters to try again.
A cynical person might draw the logical conclusion, and voters tend to be cynical.
Edit Most Labour MPs are Remainers. They want EU membership. Corbyn didn't appear to care about the Vassal State.
So if there is one I would think the Act would need to specify the result will be enacted. Doesn't prevent parliament from faffing, but makes it harder.
But what about this?
What if the Deal goes down by 100+ but that is still more support than any alternative, including No Deal and 2nd Ref?
You know, do you want a shit or a shit sandwich?
Doesn't mean much unless previously committed no dealers (and their small band of remainy pals like JoJo) start to switch of course. The catch there being they have no reason to do so before the MV, but if it is even possible to hold the MV again it could surely only happen if people switch beforehand to make it a closer vote.
BTW, your probabilities in your longer post - 40% chance of deal passing - is bang in line with Betfair.
So no bet for you.
The fundamental problem seems to be that no one as yet believes any options have been closed off, and I don't know what would convince them that any options have been.
Effectively Labour's position if taken literally seems to be that they oppose deal because it guarantees the "vassal state" (if you accept this terminology) as opposed to only having it as a backstop. Which doesn't seem a logical position to hold which makes me argue that if May moved towards trying to accommodate them they would shift the grounds for their objection onto something else.
Most of those on hold have a Brexit-related component. Without sorting out that any structures built, or amended, will be on sandy foundations.
* But not obvious to everyone.
But having pushed back the MV to ramp up the pressure arising from voting it down it does seem she really is not contemplating a backup plan to the deal other than no deal.
Presumably this is the reason why they are all arguing for a referendum "now that the public understand the outcome of what they previously voted for", rather than arguing for outright revocation.
Leave by 1 April: 40% (30% Mays' Deal, 10% no Deal)
Revoke by 1 April and Remain: 10% (if you don't believe this, then you can bet on "no revoke" at 1/10 on Paddy Power).
Leave just after 1 April: 10% May's Deal
2nd referendum 40% (30% Remain, 10% May's deal).
Adding these up you get:
Leave 60% (50% May's deal, 10% no deal)
Remain 40% (30% 2nd Ref, 10% revoke).
She's been known to have a radical change of mind after doing that!
Also, what if it isn't as disastrous as you think it will be? Cannot rule that out.
Interestingly, I detect the mirror image of your position on the opposite extreme Leave side. Some of them prefer Remain to the Deal.
However as the article suggests the Deal is still likely to get 215 votes on the first vote meaning it needs just over 100 more to pass the Commons. How to get them? Here the Grieve amendment is her saviour.
As a result of the Grieve amendment being passed backbenchers will put forward Norway Plus and EUref2 to the vote which are the preferred options of Labour pro Europeans and the LDs and SNP and the handful of Conservative unreconciled Remainers. However we know that almost all Tory MPs, including the ERG, the DUP and Labour Leavers will vote against EUref2 and Norway Plus, Corbyn will not support them either and likely abstain and Labour MPs in Leave seats like Flint and Snell will also vote against them as they believe their constituents voted for Brexit and against free movement. That means both EUref2 and Norway plus likely end up with even fewer MPs voting for them than the 215 who will vote for the Deal. Indeed we know already just 114 MPs voted against triggering Article 50 and Brexit last February and just 101 MPs voted for Umunna' s amendment to stay in the Single Market and Customs Union last June.
Then the Deal becomes the default alternative to No Deal and that is when May can Labour pro Europeans, Labour MPs in Leave seats and Its to reluctantly vote for the Deal as the only alternative to No Deal
We are heading for a calamitous Tory hard Brexit. Second referendum and general election pipe dreams will fade quickly and the realisation of the hari-kari we are committing will begin to dawn. But sadly it is too late...
Brexit = a calamity!
Brexiteers = xenophobes / little Englanders / thickos!
1) Theresa's deal
2) No deal
We leave the EU on 29th March.
MPs cannot force another referendum only a GE and under the FTPA Theresa could easily drag it out to ensure the GE only takes place after 29th March. If the Government doesn't make parliamentary time for anything other than contingency planning for no-deal, no deal it is.
Frankly if we reach 21st January with no-deal the only option, regardless of what the drunk from Brussels says, EU leaders will ensure something is reached by 29th March. They don't want 20km queues at ferry ports in France, Belgium, Netherlands or Denmark. Angela Merkel cannot afford German car parts manufacturers to withdraw support from the CDU and Macron cannot risk the wrath of French farmers being told Britain wont take their milk, cheese, butter and meat! Add to that no £39 billion and the EU budget is f*cked!
I seriously doubt many EU leaders will want an extension of article 50. It would mean them giving up the extra seats in the European Parliament which they get when we leave and they certainly don't want to countenance 70+ British MEPs hanging around for a while like cuckoos in the nest.
IF English MPs think a 2nd referendum is a "get out of jail card" they risk the future of the UK because there would be no logical argument for refusing the majority will of the Scottish Parliament for IndyRef2. I might not like it but accept that there is a current majority in the Scottish Parliament so it does have some degree of legitimacy which a so called Peoples Vote (i.e. remoaners telling the electorate to vote the correct way next time) would not have.
Corbyn gets his Brexit. The Tories can stay riven.
The Leave campaign's slogan was "Take Back Control". Well there are only two things that are unambiguously in Britain's control right now: (1) signing up to the Deal and then concentrating on getting the best possible trade agreement. As others have pointed out, both the deal and any FTA will involve surrendering quite a lot of control in practice. (2) Revoking Article 50. This preserves the status quo. Britain can then work out what the hell it wants to do and how to get there and can tell the voters exactly what is involved, not the fairy stories which have been the currency of public debate for the last few years.
Anything else - extending Article 50, the fabled renegotiations etc etc involve the EU playing ball and there is no earthly reason why they should.
So these are the choices. And if neither of these are taken, then we crash out with No Deal, despite - apparently - a majority of MPs not wanting this. More fools them since this is what they voted for when they voted for the EU Withdrawal Act.
She will of course never revoke Brexit given the vast majority of Tory voters and members are Leavers and I doubt she will propose EUref2 either, at most as a last resort she would only do so if Leave v Remain then if Leave wins Leave with the Deal or No Deal which at least favours the Deal
When will the right-wing idiots take ownership for Brexit? You folks architected you - now f*cking own it you morons!
And then (say)
Deal: loses by 100
No Deal: loses by 400
2nd Ref: loses by 200
Would present an interesting scenario.
A No Deal Brexit will likely harm all parts of the country not just Brexiteers.
10% tax free return in under three months (40% pa) for those who believe revocation is impossible.
EDIT: I'm not betting on this as, though I believe it is unlikely, I do believe it is possible with a greater than 10% probability - but do your own assessment.
Laying the 2nd Ref is my best bet (since I assess it at 10%) but I've done enough of it for now.
However if the Deal gets 215 votes on the first vote once EUref2 and Norway plus are voted down too under the Grieve amendment, May can then get MPs who voted for those options but against the Deal on the first ballot ie about 100 to 150 Labour and LD MPs plus a few Labour MPs in Leave seats like Flint and Snell to switch to the Deal on the second vote and it scrapes home to avoid No Deal.
The price of passing the Deal with Labour and LD votes though is the DUP could then VONC the government and a general election next summer or the DUP could even switch to Corbyn if he then switched to BINO for the whole UK
https://twitter.com/Sime0nStylites/status/1081490193050415104
May’s best hope, if she is too stubborn to concede a referendum, is that the ERGers abstain. And her only leverage with them is probably an election.
It's a tragedy that she wasn't removed in the recent vote of no confidence. It was the moment to get rid of the blockage and get some clarity. Boris/JRM etc as PM would have lead to clarity of approach, and remainers and leavers could've acted accordingly.
You may be right but... 20 years ago didn't everyone say that about us joining the Euro?
Scrapping the backstop was the only solution that would have got the Parliamentary numbers up but that would have required to replace May last month.
https://twitter.com/magnusllewellin/status/1081467515191115776
The ERG and DUP will always prefer No Deal to the only Deal available from the EU
Did Alex ever sort out those allegations of "inappropriate behaviour" ?
Might Theresa May's best plan be to seek general agreement for an extension of Article 50 past the date she'd retire anyway? She stays as PM; she gets to tackle her domestic agenda; remainers rejoice; non-headbanger leavers can be bought off with a Royal Commission on Brexit; headbangers can be told to serve on said commission or shut up. It is good for May and fits with her can-kicking SOP. But what would be Labour's price? Corbyn doesn't care about Brexit so something domestic that can be retrofitted to Labour's economic concerns and also May's JAM agenda?
Of the three, the most serious short term threat is to the motor industry. Of course Brexit plus Corbyn would be seriously damaging to the other two as well. Other scenarios could have a large range of outcomes.
I suppose it's possible that should be be persuaded to do so, but I don't see anyone at the top of the Tory Party with the necessary clout. There's no-one of the stature of Whitelaw or Keith Joseph in the modern party, except, perhaps Gove and I don't think he's regarded as trustworthy or honourable.
All these various options and scenarios just seem far-fetched to me given how time has basically run out...
Business would have to cope with two changes in import/export arrangements (first to WTO then to FTA with EU markets) but the bulk of UK GDP trade is domestic and not import/export business with EU countries. Services are largely unaffected anyway in the real world.