Mr. Kinabalu, dreadful question, though. The 'No' option is almost 100% undefined. Hardline Remainers could vote for that, hoping for another referendum. Hardline Leavers could vote for it. Moderate Leavers unconvinced by the deal could for it. Moderate Remainers who want a closer relationship with the EU than May's deal could vote for it.
It's not anymore dreadful than the 2016 question...
The only two party bloc that would command a majority is therefore Con+SNP with a healthy majority of 20, but I think we can rule that out on grounds of sanity and good taste.
After that we're looking at Lab+SNP+LD I guess, which comes to 332, a wobbly majority of 12.
There are some on PB who are absolutely convinced the SNP would vote to support a Conservative government.
They are, of course, complete mentalists.
The SNP helped Thatcher to power in 1979.
More recently there was the Holyrood alliance under Aunty Annabel.
The Tory/SNP alliance is the love that dare not speak its name.
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
She doesn't (yet) have cross-party support for a 2nd ref, as Labour aren't yet ready to back one.
Unless May wins ~ a 200+ majority her deal is still dead.
I'd say an overall majority of around 50 would in practice give her the authority to get it through.
I also think if she could find a way to get the MV question out to the public - "The government has negotiated a treaty to leave the EU. Should parliament now ratify it? yes/no" - then she could well win that 'referendum'.
Yes, I know that parliament would almost certainly not approve such an exercise, but if it happened I think the public would vote for ratification. But the polls say that the deal is unpopular? Sure, but only in fantasy questions against unicorns such as Remain or No Deal.
If the public, free of party whipping, were given the MV question they would back the deal. I'm quite confident of that. I bet she would try this if she thought she could get away with it.
Agree with last para. Also I suspect that May would take a majority of one as enough!
When is she delivering the Stoke speech; wonder if the discredited section will still there there. She'll be insane if it is!
Ha ha. Edit necessary when I realised what predictive text had done!
TM seems to have decided that the parliamentary maths are heading to a referendum and by warning her party that voting against her deal risks no brexit is good politics
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
Indeed a de facto GNU for Brexit resulting in a GE somewhere down the line, maybe this autumn, with TM handing over to a newly elected leader of her party
Maybe fanciful, but most everything is these days
2nd ref would almost certainly mean May would be dropped as leader as it would represent personal failure for Mrs May's delivery of Brexit. I can't really see a scenario where she stays in charge if that is the path parliament goes down, which is one reason why it is an unlikely option.
I really think it is inevitable as the HOC takes control
TM seems to have decided that the parliamentary maths are heading to a referendum and by warning her party that voting against her deal risks no brexit is good politics
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
Indeed a de facto GNU for Brexit resulting in a GE somewhere down the line, maybe this autumn, with TM handing over to a newly elected leader of her party
Maybe fanciful, but most everything is these days
2nd ref would almost certainly mean May would be dropped as leader as it would represent personal failure for Mrs May's delivery of Brexit. I can't really see a scenario where she stays in charge if that is the path parliament goes down, which is one reason why it is an unlikely option.
I really think it is inevitable as the HOC takes control
Is there a majority to pass a bill to authorise the finance for a 2nd Ref ?
The narrative that Clinton was a weak candidate and any Dem would be better in 2020 is also flawed.
She was certainly flawed, but those flaws came to the fore because they were ruthlessly exploited by Trump. After every election, a story is written to the effect that the loser had some fatal hole below the waterline that could easily be avoided next time - and you have to take that with a huge pinch of salt.
Clinton also had major strengths as well as flaws - she won the debates, attracted huge funds, plainly had ample experience, and left office as Secretary of State with very strong ratings.
All the key 2020 candidates also have flaws, and Trump will be utterly brutal on these. The tweets write themselves:
Warren - Patronising Pocahontas preaching to Joe Six Pack! Sad.
Sanders - Doddering liberal who lost bigly to Crooked Hillary (who I crushed, by the way)! Sad.
Biden - Senile loser only there because Obama saved him from the scrapheap! Sad.
Harris - West coast liberal snowflake who doesn't speak for "real" Americans! Sad.
O'Rourke - Loser humiliated by Lyin' Ted Cruz (who I crushed, by the way)! Sad.
Same for anyone you care to list. They also all have strengths - but can they make the campaign about the strengths not the flaws? That's the trick, and I'm not sure at all that they can.
Trump is yet to win the popular vote in any election he has contested. Eventually that catches up with you, so lets not hail him as some great political brain, he isn't.
The only two party bloc that would command a majority is therefore Con+SNP with a healthy majority of 20, but I think we can rule that out on grounds of sanity and good taste.
After that we're looking at Lab+SNP+LD I guess, which comes to 332, a wobbly majority of 12.
There are some on PB who are absolutely convinced the SNP would vote to support a Conservative government.
They are, of course, complete mentalists.
The SNP helped Thatcher to power in 1979.
More recently there was the Holyrood alliance under Aunty Annabel.
The Tory/SNP alliance is the love that dare not speak its name.
What odds would you like on the SNP offering May confidence and supply ?
Mr. Flashman (deceased), the whole thing smells fishy.
Hopefully the deluded from south of the border who think the SNP and the Sturgeon could run a whelk stall will have the scales falling from their eyes at last.
I haven't been paying that close attention to what's going on, but I assume the reason why Sturgeon and Salmond are beating seven shades of shit out of each other is really a proxy war over the future direction of the SNP.
Salmond wants it to be a populist ethnosocialist insurrection movement like those that are currently all the rage across Europe Sturgeon wants it to be a moderate social democratic party of government of the kind that seems to be going rapidly extinct.
I think that's wrong. Salmond was always more centrist and less radical than Sturgeon. Its why we was able to entice the Scottish Tories and win their seats but struggled to make as big a breakthrough in the central belt. I have always thought that Salmond sees independence as an end in itself and has not put enormous thought into what happens next. Its why he was so badly caught on from time to time in the referendum. Sturgeon is much more statist in her approach and has taken the fight to Labour more effectively putting her tanks on their lawn. Ironically this has allowed the Tories to recover somewhat.
Off topic; so how would a GE work then, in terms of resolving Brexit? I live in a marginally Leave voting constituency with a Remain campaigning MP (Chief Whip) with a huge majority who has been working to get May’s deal adopted. The local activists whom I talk to now despise their MP because he has supported the deal.
So what happens? He remains the candidate but the activists stay at home? The activists work on behalf of an independent Conservative or UKIP candidate? He is deselected in favour of a purist candidate who vows not to support any deal with a backstop?
And what about constituencies with an ERG MP? Does CCHQ step in and replace them with someone who vows to support the deal (which presumably would be the only chapter in the manifesto) If not, what’s the point?
I think the way that a GE (possibly) resolves Brexit is not so much about what is in manifestos but about the result.
Specifically, that it might replace this hung parliament with a working majority for somebody, providing that 'somebody' with the authority to drive something through.
It's a plan but I suspect any resultant parliament would actually be even more hung than this one currently is.
I suspect Labour would end up with more seats at the expense of the Tories but without Scotland they won't get a majority and the SNP will keep enough seats that Labour won't be close to a majority...
On current polling, Lab+SNP would be able to construct a pretty sizable majority. Only question is what timbre a Lab/SNP government will have.
Not on the current polling with the Tories 5% ahead they wouldn't.....
Survation has Labour 3% ahead with BMG having them tied.
Also one place where the exquisite shittiness of Hillary Clinton shone through was that she never managed to actually come up with a decent line to address the emails non-scandal. She won the debates by literally deflecting the whole conversation and saying "this is refuted on my website".
This kind of thing used to work in the Bill Clinton days when everybody got their information from the media, so if you could minimize the time you spent talking about something, it would go away. But it doesn't work with social media, because if there's an attack line that you haven't properly rebutted, they can just rent Facebook ads or continue the conversation on Twitter.
TM seems to have decided that the parliamentary maths are heading to a referendum and by warning her party that voting against her deal risks no brexit is good politics
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
Indeed a de facto GNU for Brexit resulting in a GE somewhere down the line, maybe this autumn, with TM handing over to a newly elected leader of her party
Maybe fanciful, but most everything is these days
2nd ref would almost certainly mean May would be dropped as leader as it would represent personal failure for Mrs May's delivery of Brexit. I can't really see a scenario where she stays in charge if that is the path parliament goes down, which is one reason why it is an unlikely option.
I really think it is inevitable as the HOC takes control
Is there a majority to pass a bill to authorise the finance for a 2nd Ref ?
TM seems to have decided that the parliamentary maths are heading to a referendum and by warning her party that voting against her deal risks no brexit is good politics
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
Indeed a de facto GNU for Brexit resulting in a GE somewhere down the line, maybe this autumn, with TM handing over to a newly elected leader of her party
Maybe fanciful, but most everything is these days
2nd ref would almost certainly mean May would be dropped as leader as it would represent personal failure for Mrs May's delivery of Brexit. I can't really see a scenario where she stays in charge if that is the path parliament goes down, which is one reason why it is an unlikely option.
I really think it is inevitable as the HOC takes control
Is there a majority to pass a bill to authorise the finance for a 2nd Ref ?
TM seems to have decided that the parliamentary maths are heading to a referendum and by warning her party that voting against her deal risks no brexit is good politics
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
Indeed a de facto GNU for Brexit resulting in a GE somewhere down the line, maybe this autumn, with TM handing over to a newly elected leader of her party
Maybe fanciful, but most everything is these days
2nd ref would almost certainly mean May would be dropped as leader as it would represent personal failure for Mrs May's delivery of Brexit. I can't really see a scenario where she stays in charge if that is the path parliament goes down, which is one reason why it is an unlikely option.
I really think it is inevitable as the HOC takes control
Is there a majority to pass a bill to authorise the finance for a 2nd Ref ?
Genuine question: does there need to be a separate bill to authorise the finance?
If there does, I presume it would get the same majority as the 2nd Ref bill itself.
I suspect Labour would end up with more seats at the expense of the Tories but without Scotland they won't get a majority and the SNP will keep enough seats that Labour won't be close to a majority...
A likely outcome I would have thought. And provides a way forward - Norway plus, aka BINO.
Still needs the Withdrawal Treaty, of course, the sine qua non of Brexit. If we want to leave the EU we have to sign it.
Or to put it in a more palatable fashion - remove the nasty whiff of blackmail from the equation - if we do not sign it we are not leaving the EU.
TM seems to have decided that the parliamentary maths are heading to a referendum and by warning her party that voting against her deal risks no brexit is good politics
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
Indeed a de facto GNU for Brexit resulting in a GE somewhere down the line, maybe this autumn, with TM handing over to a newly elected leader of her party
Maybe fanciful, but most everything is these days
2nd ref would almost certainly mean May would be dropped as leader as it would represent personal failure for Mrs May's delivery of Brexit. I can't really see a scenario where she stays in charge if that is the path parliament goes down, which is one reason why it is an unlikely option.
I really think it is inevitable as the HOC takes control
It's possible, but given the very negative views of Conservative voters towards a 2nd ref, given May's promise to deliver Brexit and continual dismissal of another public vote - if we did end up in that situation it would be a catastrophic failure for May, a step too far for the public and I'm sure Tory MPs would oust her within days.
TM seems to have decided that the parliamentary maths are heading to a referendum and by warning her party that voting against her deal risks no brexit is good politics
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
Indeed a de facto GNU for Brexit resulting in a GE somewhere down the line, maybe this autumn, with TM handing over to a newly elected leader of her party
Maybe fanciful, but most everything is these days
2nd ref would almost certainly mean May would be dropped as leader as it would represent personal failure for Mrs May's delivery of Brexit. I can't really see a scenario where she stays in charge if that is the path parliament goes down, which is one reason why it is an unlikely option.
I really think it is inevitable as the HOC takes control
It's possible, but given the very negative views of Conservative voters towards a 2nd ref, given May's promise to deliver Brexit and continual dismissal of another public vote - if we did end up in that situation it would be a catastrophic failure for May, a step too far for the public and I'm sure Tory MPs would oust her within days.
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
She doesn't (yet) have cross-party support for a 2nd ref, as Labour aren't yet ready to back one.
I don’t see Labour leadership backing a 2nd ref if they think there’s a prospect of forcing the government into unilateral revocation (which would be even more toxic for the Tories). If the choice is no deal or revocation on 28 March then I don’t think any PM could avoid revocation.
However if May can get 150+ Tories on her side there are probably enough Labour supporters of 2Ref who will vote it through regardless of leadership position. Probably actively in spite of leadership position, in fact.
The only two party bloc that would command a majority is therefore Con+SNP with a healthy majority of 20, but I think we can rule that out on grounds of sanity and good taste.
After that we're looking at Lab+SNP+LD I guess, which comes to 332, a wobbly majority of 12.
There are some on PB who are absolutely convinced the SNP would vote to support a Conservative government.
They are, of course, complete mentalists.
The SNP helped Thatcher to power in 1979.
More recently there was the Holyrood alliance under Aunty Annabel.
The Tory/SNP alliance is the love that dare not speak its name.
What odds would you like on the SNP offering May confidence and supply ?
TM seems to have decided that the parliamentary maths are heading to a referendum and by warning her party that voting against her deal risks no brexit is good politics
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
Indeed a de facto GNU for Brexit resulting in a GE somewhere down the line, maybe this autumn, with TM handing over to a newly elected leader of her party
Maybe fanciful, but most everything is these days
2nd ref would almost certainly mean May would be dropped as leader as it would represent personal failure for Mrs May's delivery of Brexit. I can't really see a scenario where she stays in charge if that is the path parliament goes down, which is one reason why it is an unlikely option.
It's not a failure of her delivery of Brexit if there's a referendum and her deal wins, it's a triumph and vindication of her delivery of Brexit.
If Remain wins then it's quite complicated, but the Leavers have just been found not to represent the voters, and the base are spitting feathers at the Remainers, so how better to split the difference than to let Mrs May carry on? MPs will have the same conundrum that they do now: If they let their base vote, there's a serious risk they'll end up with someone bonkers, especially with the base still mad about Brexit while the voters are sick of talking about it. The only way to avoid the risk of a Tory version of Jeremy Corbyn is to stick with their current leader.
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
She doesn't (yet) have cross-party support for a 2nd ref, as Labour aren't yet ready to back one.
Enough labour MPs would...and she might have the bonus of tearing the Labour party apart as well...
I have a feeling she might pull this vote, admit no majority for it, and go for a GE or 2nd referendum...
Could the referendum question be : "Should the Uk agree to the proposed deal with the EU ?" simple binary question.
Not pratically. Because it's unclear as to what a "No" vote means there, because it could be one of three things. The electoral commission would require the meaning of No to be clarified, I think.
No means leave the EU with no deal No means revoke A50 No means go back to the EU and renegotiate
The EU would agree for an A50 extension only in the situation where No means Revoke.
I tell you what, the news ferrets at the Mail on Sunday were working overtime. They totally called both Boles/Grieve/Bercow drafting a new UK constitution and May's great renegotiation touring whimpering out with a couple of meaningless letters from Juncker and Tusk, to fairly widespread scepticism on the Twitternets.
TM seems to have decided that the parliamentary maths are heading to a referendum and by warning her party that voting against her deal risks no brexit is good politics
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
Indeed a de facto GNU for Brexit resulting in a GE somewhere down the line, maybe this autumn, with TM handing over to a newly elected leader of her party
Maybe fanciful, but most everything is these days
2nd ref would almost certainly mean May would be dropped as leader as it would represent personal failure for Mrs May's delivery of Brexit. I can't really see a scenario where she stays in charge if that is the path parliament goes down, which is one reason why it is an unlikely option.
I really think it is inevitable as the HOC takes control
It's possible, but given the very negative views of Conservative voters towards a 2nd ref, given May's promise to deliver Brexit and continual dismissal of another public vote - if we did end up in that situation it would be a catastrophic failure for May, a step too far for the public and I'm sure Tory MPs would oust her within days.
How?
Exactly. My point is that if there is cross party support for a deal/remain referendum including the SNP, TM would be retained in Office by the nature of the cross party support. i.e. de facto GNU
TM seems to have decided that the parliamentary maths are heading to a referendum and by warning her party that voting against her deal risks no brexit is good politics
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
Indeed a de facto GNU for Brexit resulting in a GE somewhere down the line, maybe this autumn, with TM handing over to a newly elected leader of her party
Maybe fanciful, but most everything is these days
2nd ref would almost certainly mean May would be dropped as leader as it would represent personal failure for Mrs May's delivery of Brexit. I can't really see a scenario where she stays in charge if that is the path parliament goes down, which is one reason why it is an unlikely option.
It's not a failure of her delivery of Brexit if there's a referendum and her deal wins, it's a triumph and vindication of her delivery of Brexit.
If Remain wins then it's quite complicated, but the Leavers have just been found not to represent the voters, and the base are spitting feathers at the Remainers, so how better to split the difference than to let Mrs May carry on? MPs will have the same conundrum that they do now: If they let their base vote, there's a serious risk they'll end up with someone bonkers, especially with the base still mad about Brexit while the voters are sick of talking about it. The only way to avoid the risk of a Tory version of Jeremy Corbyn is to stick with their current leader.
I can see how she could cease to be PM.... lose a VoC in the HoC....... but not how she could be dropped at Leader of the Tories, if she doesn't accept that she must go.
We are told that the Commons is 'taking back control' of Brexit from the government.
But how can a body of MPs who can't agree amongst themselves on anything related to Brexit take back control of it?
We are probably going to find that out in the next week or so.
I hope so as Richard is totally right. People think they being clever parroting back the take control line but unless they can deliver something it's just pointless recklessness.
Mr. Flashman (deceased), the whole thing smells fishy.
Hopefully the deluded from south of the border who think the SNP and the Sturgeon could run a whelk stall will have the scales falling from their eyes at last.
I haven't been paying that close attention to what's going on, but I assume the reason why Sturgeon and Salmond are beating seven shades of shit out of each other is really a proxy war over the future direction of the SNP.
Salmond wants it to be a populist ethnosocialist insurrection movement like those that are currently all the rage across Europe Sturgeon wants it to be a moderate social democratic party of government of the kind that seems to be going rapidly extinct.
I think it's a proxy war for whether Eck faces charges/public shaming for his alleged lewd behaviour.
Direction of travel is that the police investigation will crash and burn due to the FUBAR - result for Eck.
More like it is a bungled stitch up which makes Civil Service and Scottish Government look like amateurs. Be interesting to see what ICO get from their investigation , it will be far more interesting , the police one will just be dropped due to lack of anything having happened.
Part of the issue with Brexit is nobody has ever really wanted to take back control. Control is hard work, and we're clearly not willing or able as a nation to really put in the work to do it.
The only two party bloc that would command a majority is therefore Con+SNP with a healthy majority of 20, but I think we can rule that out on grounds of sanity and good taste.
After that we're looking at Lab+SNP+LD I guess, which comes to 332, a wobbly majority of 12.
There are some on PB who are absolutely convinced the SNP would vote to support a Conservative government.
They are, of course, complete mentalists.
The SNP helped Thatcher to power in 1979.
More recently there was the Holyrood alliance under Aunty Annabel.
The Tory/SNP alliance is the love that dare not speak its name.
Utter bollox, just what you would expect from a Tory, absolutely unable to divorce truth from fiction. Both items are downright bare faced lies.
TM seems to have decided that the parliamentary maths are heading to a referendum and by warning her party that voting against her deal risks no brexit is good politics
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
Indeed a de facto GNU for Brexit resulting in a GE somewhere down the line, maybe this autumn, with TM handing over to a newly elected leader of her party
Maybe fanciful, but most everything is these days
2nd ref would almost certainly mean May would be dropped as leader as it would represent personal failure for Mrs May's delivery of Brexit. I can't really see a scenario where she stays in charge if that is the path parliament goes down, which is one reason why it is an unlikely option.
I really think it is inevitable as the HOC takes control
Is there a majority to pass a bill to authorise the finance for a 2nd Ref ?
LOL, if they can give 14M to a ferry company without ferries , it should be simple.
TM seems to have decided that the parliamentary maths are heading to a referendum and by warning her party that voting against her deal risks no brexit is good politics
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
Indeed a de facto GNU for Brexit resulting in a GE somewhere down the line, maybe this autumn, with TM handing over to a newly elected leader of her party
Maybe fanciful, but most everything is these days
2nd ref would almost certainly mean May would be dropped as leader as it would represent personal failure for Mrs May's delivery of Brexit. I can't really see a scenario where she stays in charge if that is the path parliament goes down, which is one reason why it is an unlikely option.
I really think it is inevitable as the HOC takes control
It's possible, but given the very negative views of Conservative voters towards a 2nd ref, given May's promise to deliver Brexit and continual dismissal of another public vote - if we did end up in that situation it would be a catastrophic failure for May, a step too far for the public and I'm sure Tory MPs would oust her within days.
How?
Exactly. My point is that if there is cross party support for a deal/remain referendum including the SNP, TM would be retained in Office by the nature of the cross party support. i.e. de facto GNU
It's hard to imagine Labour (corbyn) playing ball with this.
Surely he would make a claim that he should be PM, or push for a GE at least.
TM seems to have decided that the parliamentary maths are heading to a referendum and by warning her party that voting against her deal risks no brexit is good politics
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
Indeed a de facto GNU for Brexit resulting in a GE somewhere down the line, maybe this autumn, with TM handing over to a newly elected leader of her party
Maybe fanciful, but most everything is these days
2nd ref would almost certainly mean May would be dropped as leader as it would represent personal failure for Mrs May's delivery of Brexit. I can't really see a scenario where she stays in charge if that is the path parliament goes down, which is one reason why it is an unlikely option.
It's not a failure of her delivery of Brexit if there's a referendum and her deal wins, it's a triumph and vindication of her delivery of Brexit.
If Remain wins then it's quite complicated, but the Leavers have just been found not to represent the voters, and the base are spitting feathers at the Remainers, so how better to split the difference than to let Mrs May carry on? MPs will have the same conundrum that they do now: If they let their base vote, there's a serious risk they'll end up with someone bonkers, especially with the base still mad about Brexit while the voters are sick of talking about it. The only way to avoid the risk of a Tory version of Jeremy Corbyn is to stick with their current leader.
I can see how she could cease to be PM.... lose a VoC in the HoC....... but not how she could be dropped at Leader of the Tories, if she doesn't accept that she must go.
A majority of Tory MPs decide time is up she has to go.
I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that Theresa May wasted a month of everyone's time and all she has to show for it are these letters that simply restate what the Withdrawal Agreement already says.
I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that Theresa May wasted a month of everyone's time and all she has to show for it are these letters that simply restate what the Withdrawal Agreement already says.
NOTHING, as somebody wise once said, HAS CHANGED.
Well, it's fair enough to restate it, given that no-one seems to have actually read the Withdrawal Agreement.
TM seems to have decided that the parliamentary maths are heading to a referendum and by warning her party that voting against her deal risks no brexit is good politics
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
Indeed a de facto GNU for Brexit resulting in a GE somewhere down the line, maybe this autumn, with TM handing over to a newly elected leader of her party
Maybe fanciful, but most everything is these days
2nd ref would almost certainly mean May would be dropped as leader as it would represent personal failure for Mrs May's delivery of Brexit. I can't really see a scenario where she stays in charge if that is the path parliament goes down, which is one reason why it is an unlikely option.
It's not a failure of her delivery of Brexit if there's a referendum and her deal wins, it's a triumph and vindication of her delivery of Brexit.
If Remain wins then it's quite complicated, but the Leavers have just been found not to represent the voters, and the base are spitting feathers at the Remainers, so how better to split the difference than to let Mrs May carry on? MPs will have the same conundrum that they do now: If they let their base vote, there's a serious risk they'll end up with someone bonkers, especially with the base still mad about Brexit while the voters are sick of talking about it. The only way to avoid the risk of a Tory version of Jeremy Corbyn is to stick with their current leader.
I can see how she could cease to be PM.... lose a VoC in the HoC....... but not how she could be dropped at Leader of the Tories, if she doesn't accept that she must go.
Well right - I mean in theory the Tories can change the rules to get rid of her, but requires quite a big commitment by a majority of MPs, moving against a sitting Prime Minister.
Or they can wait a year, but then, like I say, the alternative could be very bad indeed.
From Tezza's letter the two stand out points for me:
First, this seems to limit the ability of the EU to head off into the sunset with NI in its jetstream following ever more and esoteric EU rules:
"The Agreement is also clear that any new act that the Union proposes should be added to the Protocol will require the agreement of the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee."
But the most important part of the letter, a point often and idiotically ignored or misunderstood by most No Dealers is as follows: "...The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and is successor agreements are an achievement the UK Government is deeply committed to sustaining and that is the majority view in UK politics by an overwhelming margin. No UK Government would risk that progress, including by willingly allowing a hard border to re-emerge."
TM seems to have decided that the parliamentary maths are heading to a referendum and by warning her party that voting against her deal risks no brexit is good politics
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
Indeed a de facto GNU for Brexit resulting in a GE somewhere down the line, maybe this autumn, with TM handing over to a newly elected leader of her party
Maybe fanciful, but most everything is these days
2nd ref would almost certainly mean May would be dropped as leader as it would represent personal failure for Mrs May's delivery of Brexit. I can't really see a scenario where she stays in charge if that is the path parliament goes down, which is one reason why it is an unlikely option.
It's not a failure of her delivery of Brexit if there's a referendum and her deal wins, it's a triumph and vindication of her delivery of Brexit.
If Remain wins then it's quite complicated, but the Leavers have just been found not to represent the voters, and the base are spitting feathers at the Remainers, so how better to split the difference than to let Mrs May carry on? MPs will have the same conundrum that they do now: If they let their base vote, there's a serious risk they'll end up with someone bonkers, especially with the base still mad about Brexit while the voters are sick of talking about it. The only way to avoid the risk of a Tory version of Jeremy Corbyn is to stick with their current leader.
It's a huge and rather desperate leap to imagine she gets a referendum with her deal as the question on the ballot paper. It would represent a failure that it even got to this stage given where she was 18 months ago. I think a majority of Tory Mps and Tory voters would long have lost faith in her and would sooner replace her than fight a referendum for a deal they don't really support.
TM seems to have decided that the parliamentary maths are heading to a referendum and by warning her party that voting against her deal risks no brexit is good politics
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
Indeed a de facto GNU for Brexit resulting in a GE somewhere down the line, maybe this autumn, with TM handing over to a newly elected leader of her party
Maybe fanciful, but most everything is these days
2nd ref would almost certainly mean May would be dropped as leader as it would represent personal failure for Mrs May's delivery of Brexit. I can't really see a scenario where she stays in charge if that is the path parliament goes down, which is one reason why it is an unlikely option.
It's not a failure of her delivery of Brexit if there's a referendum and her deal wins, it's a triumph and vindication of her delivery of Brexit.
If Remain wins then it's quite complicated, but the Leavers have just been found not to represent the voters, and the base are spitting feathers at the Remainers, so how better to split the difference than to let Mrs May carry on? MPs will have the same conundrum that they do now: If they let their base vote, there's a serious risk they'll end up with someone bonkers, especially with the base still mad about Brexit while the voters are sick of talking about it. The only way to avoid the risk of a Tory version of Jeremy Corbyn is to stick with their current leader.
I can see how she could cease to be PM.... lose a VoC in the HoC....... but not how she could be dropped at Leader of the Tories, if she doesn't accept that she must go.
Well right - I mean in theory the Tories can change the rules to get rid of her, but requires quite a big commitment by a majority of MPs, moving against a sitting Prime Minister.
Or they can wait a year, but then, like I say, the alternative could be very bad indeed.
Surely both votes are the same? A move to change the rules would be a quasi VONC followed swiftly (if she doesn't resign first) with an actual one. The key is having a majority.
TM seems to have decided that the parliamentary maths are heading to a referendum and by warning her party that voting against her deal risks no brexit is good politics
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
Indeed a de facto GNU for Brexit resulting in a GE somewhere down the line, maybe this autumn, with TM handing over to a newly elected leader of her party
Maybe fanciful, but most everything is these days
2nd ref would almost certainly mean May would be dropped as leader as it would represent personal failure for Mrs May's delivery of Brexit. I can't really see a scenario where she stays in charge if that is the path parliament goes down, which is one reason why it is an unlikely option.
It's not a failure of her delivery of Brexit if there's a referendum and her deal wins, it's a triumph and vindication of her delivery of Brexit.
If Remain wins then it's quite complicated, but the Leavers have just been found not to represent the voters, and the base are spitting feathers at the Remainers, so how better to split the difference than to let Mrs May carry on? MPs will have the same conundrum that they do now: If they let their base vote, there's a serious risk they'll end up with someone bonkers, especially with the base still mad about Brexit while the voters are sick of talking about it. The only way to avoid the risk of a Tory version of Jeremy Corbyn is to stick with their current leader.
I can see how she could cease to be PM.... lose a VoC in the HoC....... but not how she could be dropped at Leader of the Tories, if she doesn't accept that she must go.
A majority of Tory MPs decide time is up she has to go.
What's the mechanism? No leadership contest is allowed until December at the earliest.
I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that Theresa May wasted a month of everyone's time and all she has to show for it are these letters that simply restate what the Withdrawal Agreement already says.
NOTHING, as somebody wise once said, HAS CHANGED.
Well, it's fair enough to restate it, given that no-one seems to have actually read the Withdrawal Agreement.
You're right, of course. The withdrawal agreement is a totem. It doesn't need to be read, it just needs to exist.
Of course, the fact that May still believes that all she had to do was help Parliament understand how to read the document properly with suitable clarifications and assurances and everyone would fall in line, suggests that she does not realise at all at how the WA has become totemic.
The narrative that Clinton was a weak candidate and any Dem would be better in 2020 is also flawed.
She was certainly flawed, but those flaws came to the fore because they were ruthlessly exploited by Trump. After every election, a story is written to the effect that the loser had some fatal hole below the waterline that could easily be avoided next time - and you have to take that with a huge pinch of salt.
Clinton also had major strengths as well as flaws - she won the debates, attracted huge funds, plainly had ample experience, and left office as Secretary of State with very strong ratings.
All the key 2020 candidates also have flaws, and Trump will be utterly brutal on these. The tweets write themselves:
Warren - Patronising Pocahontas preaching to Joe Six Pack! Sad.
Sanders - Doddering liberal who lost bigly to Crooked Hillary (who I crushed, by the way)! Sad.
Biden - Senile loser only there because Obama saved him from the scrapheap! Sad.
Harris - West coast liberal snowflake who doesn't speak for "real" Americans! Sad.
O'Rourke - Loser humiliated by Lyin' Ted Cruz (who I crushed, by the way)! Sad.
Same for anyone you care to list. They also all have strengths - but can they make the campaign about the strengths not the flaws? That's the trick, and I'm not sure at all that they can.
These are all correct. And Beto has the DUI to boot. However,
A couple of things that are intellectually annoying
i) The whole parliament won't vote this through argument being wheeled out by people who won't vote the deal through. ii) The entire 'parliament should decide' <-> 'the people are ultimate masters' ping pong being played by both sides. iii) The Gov't (I think this might happen) using parliament as a cover to do stuff even though it won't have to. iv) Both sides using convention when it suits them and making it up as they go along when it doesn't.
TM seems to have decided that the parliamentary maths are heading to a referendum and by warning her party that voting against her deal risks no brexit is good politics
It may bring some on board but equally strengthens remainers, moving her to a position that should the deal be subjected to a deal/remain referendum she could lay the legislation without threat from the ERG as she would have cross party support, sidelining the hard brexiteers
Indeed a de facto GNU for Brexit resulting in a GE somewhere down the line, maybe this autumn, with TM handing over to a newly elected leader of her party
Maybe fanciful, but most everything is these days
2nd ref would almost certainly mean May would be dropped as leader as it would represent personal failure for Mrs May's delivery of Brexit. I can't really see a scenario where she stays in charge if that is the path parliament goes down, which is one reason why it is an unlikely option.
It's not a failure of her delivery of Brexit if there's a referendum and her deal wins, it's a triumph and vindication of her delivery of Brexit.
If Remain wins then it's quite complicated, but the Leavers have just been found not to represent the voters, and the base are spitting feathers at the Remainers, so how better to split the difference than to let Mrs May carry on? MPs will have the same conundrum that they do now: If they let their base vote, there's a serious risk they'll end up with someone bonkers, especially with the base still mad about Brexit while the voters are sick of talking about it. The only way to avoid the risk of a Tory version of Jeremy Corbyn is to stick with their current leader.
I can see how she could cease to be PM.... lose a VoC in the HoC....... but not how she could be dropped at Leader of the Tories, if she doesn't accept that she must go.
Well right - I mean in theory the Tories can change the rules to get rid of her, but requires quite a big commitment by a majority of MPs, moving against a sitting Prime Minister.
Or they can wait a year, but then, like I say, the alternative could be very bad indeed.
Surely both votes are the same? A move to change the rules would be a quasi VONC followed swiftly (if she doesn't resign first) with an actual one. The key is having a majority.
The only two party bloc that would command a majority is therefore Con+SNP with a healthy majority of 20, but I think we can rule that out on grounds of sanity and good taste.
After that we're looking at Lab+SNP+LD I guess, which comes to 332, a wobbly majority of 12.
There are some on PB who are absolutely convinced the SNP would vote to support a Conservative government.
They are, of course, complete mentalists.
The SNP helped Thatcher to power in 1979.
More recently there was the Holyrood alliance under Aunty Annabel.
The Tory/SNP alliance is the love that dare not speak its name.
What odds would you like on the SNP offering May confidence and supply ?
From Tezza's letter the two stand out points for me:
First, this seems to limit the ability of the EU to head off into the sunset with NI in its jetstream following ever more and esoteric EU rules: "The Agreement is also clear that any new act that the Union proposes should be added to the Protocol will require the agreement of the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee."
But the most important part of the letter, a point often and idiotically ignored or misunderstood by most No Dealers is as follows:
"...The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and is successor agreements are an achievement the UK Government is deeply committed to sustaining and that is the majority view in UK politics by an overwhelming margin. No UK Government would risk that progress, including by willingly allowing a hard border to re-emerge."
The trouble is that it is two reasonable parties confirming to each other their reasonable agreement, but the obstacle is unreasonable MPs refusing to accept that it is a reasonable agreement. It's hard to see this changing things significantly, but equally most of the so-called alternatives being banded about by MPs and opposition parties wouldn't change anything either.
I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that Theresa May wasted a month of everyone's time and all she has to show for it are these letters that simply restate what the Withdrawal Agreement already says.
NOTHING, as somebody wise once said, HAS CHANGED.
Well, it's fair enough to restate it, given that no-one seems to have actually read the Withdrawal Agreement.
You're right, of course. The withdrawal agreement is a totem. It doesn't need to be read, it just needs to exist.
Of course, the fact that May still believes that all she had to do was help Parliament understand how to read the document properly with suitable clarifications and assurances and everyone would fall in line, suggests that she does not realise at all at how the WA has become totemic.
I think that for some people, the very fact that an agreement was reached makes it unacceptable.
We will try really really hard to get this all done as you suggest and not invoke the backstop and you are great and so is your deal and we promise not to take the piss.
Complex. 1922 committee proposes a change to the party board, if the party board agrees it convenes a convention to draft the changes to the party constitution, then the changes are sent to the members for approval in a yes/no vote.
The last constitutional change took around two years.
I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that Theresa May wasted a month of everyone's time and all she has to show for it are these letters that simply restate what the Withdrawal Agreement already says.
NOTHING, as somebody wise once said, HAS CHANGED.
Well, it's fair enough to restate it, given that no-one seems to have actually read the Withdrawal Agreement.
Judging by his article on Con Home, Peter Bone appears not to have read it. It's just a rehash of the Spectator's 40 horrible things about the WA.
The only two party bloc that would command a majority is therefore Con+SNP with a healthy majority of 20, but I think we can rule that out on grounds of sanity and good taste.
After that we're looking at Lab+SNP+LD I guess, which comes to 332, a wobbly majority of 12.
There are some on PB who are absolutely convinced the SNP would vote to support a Conservative government.
They are, of course, complete mentalists.
The SNP helped Thatcher to power in 1979.
More recently there was the Holyrood alliance under Aunty Annabel.
The Tory/SNP alliance is the love that dare not speak its name.
What odds would you like on the SNP offering May confidence and supply ?
I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that Theresa May wasted a month of everyone's time and all she has to show for it are these letters that simply restate what the Withdrawal Agreement already says.
NOTHING, as somebody wise once said, HAS CHANGED.
Well, it's fair enough to restate it, given that no-one seems to have actually read the Withdrawal Agreement.
Judging by his article on Con Home, Peter Bone appears not to have read it. It's just a rehash of the Spectator's 40 horrible things about the WA.
That's nothing. Nicholas Soames has written a POEM about it.
From Tezza's letter the two stand out points for me:
First, this seems to limit the ability of the EU to head off into the sunset with NI in its jetstream following ever more and esoteric EU rules: "The Agreement is also clear that any new act that the Union proposes should be added to the Protocol will require the agreement of the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee."
But the most important part of the letter, a point often and idiotically ignored or misunderstood by most No Dealers is as follows:
"...The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and is successor agreements are an achievement the UK Government is deeply committed to sustaining and that is the majority view in UK politics by an overwhelming margin. No UK Government would risk that progress, including by willingly allowing a hard border to re-emerge."
The trouble is that it is two reasonable parties confirming to each other their reasonable agreement, but the obstacle is unreasonable MPs refusing to accept that it is a reasonable agreement. It's hard to see this changing things significantly, but equally most of the so-called alternatives being banded about by MPs and opposition parties wouldn't change anything either.
Oh yes absolutely. There is no comfort letter the loons won't dismiss. Has there been any reaction by the loons-in-chief? Francois or IDS for example?
I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that Theresa May wasted a month of everyone's time and all she has to show for it are these letters that simply restate what the Withdrawal Agreement already says.
NOTHING, as somebody wise once said, HAS CHANGED.
Well, it's fair enough to restate it, given that no-one seems to have actually read the Withdrawal Agreement.
Judging by his article on Con Home, Peter Bone appears not to have read it. It's just a rehash of the Spectator's 40 horrible things about the WA.
That's nothing. Nicholas Soames has written a POEM about it.
Poem by Edwin J Milliken. Churchill apparently liked it. Soames' abridgement misses out the last cheery line about "DEATH IS IN CHARGE OF THE CLATTERING TRAIN".
I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that Theresa May wasted a month of everyone's time and all she has to show for it are these letters that simply restate what the Withdrawal Agreement already says.
NOTHING, as somebody wise once said, HAS CHANGED.
Well, it's fair enough to restate it, given that no-one seems to have actually read the Withdrawal Agreement.
Judging by his article on Con Home, Peter Bone appears not to have read it. It's just a rehash of the Spectator's 40 horrible things about the WA.
That's nothing. Nicholas Soames has written a POEM about it.
From Tezza's letter the two stand out points for me:
First, this seems to limit the ability of the EU to head off into the sunset with NI in its jetstream following ever more and esoteric EU rules: "The Agreement is also clear that any new act that the Union proposes should be added to the Protocol will require the agreement of the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee."
But the most important part of the letter, a point often and idiotically ignored or misunderstood by most No Dealers is as follows:
"...The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and is successor agreements are an achievement the UK Government is deeply committed to sustaining and that is the majority view in UK politics by an overwhelming margin. No UK Government would risk that progress, including by willingly allowing a hard border to re-emerge."
The trouble is that it is two reasonable parties confirming to each other their reasonable agreement, but the obstacle is unreasonable MPs refusing to accept that it is a reasonable agreement. It's hard to see this changing things significantly, but equally most of the so-called alternatives being banded about by MPs and opposition parties wouldn't change anything either.
Oh yes absolutely. There is no comfort letter the loons won't dismiss. Has there been any reaction by the loons-in-chief? Francois or IDS for example?
Andrew Lillico will probably tweet that being transported to Belsen would be preferable to May's deal
The fact that May has a problem with telling the truth is hardly news.
But this story does add to the air of abject incompetence in No 10 - why on earth was the speech not fact- checked???
You can perhaps forgive her for forgetting the Tories ran on a 2nd-ref/abolitionist platform in Wales in 2005, for who remembers what happens in Wales?
But one would hope that May surely wouldn't have needed to fact check that she voted against the legislation to implement the Assembly, despite the referendum result. Refusing to honour the result of a referendum? That's the kind of thing she should really be able to remember.
Not really analogous, is it? By the time of the 2001 GE (let alone 2005), the Welsh Assembly was up and running. No one has ever said that a political party should be prevented from pledging to rejoin the EU (with or without a referendum) after Brexit.
The fact that May has a problem with telling the truth is hardly news.
But this story does add to the air of abject incompetence in No 10 - why on earth was the speech not fact- checked???
You can perhaps forgive her for forgetting the Tories ran on a 2nd-ref/abolitionist platform in Wales in 2005, for who remembers what happens in Wales?
But one would hope that May surely wouldn't have needed to fact check that she voted against the legislation to implement the Assembly, despite the referendum result. Refusing to honour the result of a referendum? That's the kind of thing she should really be able to remember.
You'd think so, but even after all the overnight furore, she kept the reference in her speech:
The fact that May has a problem with telling the truth is hardly news.
But this story does add to the air of abject incompetence in No 10 - why on earth was the speech not fact- checked???
You can perhaps forgive her for forgetting the Tories ran on a 2nd-ref/abolitionist platform in Wales in 2005, for who remembers what happens in Wales?
But one would hope that May surely wouldn't have needed to fact check that she voted against the legislation to implement the Assembly, despite the referendum result. Refusing to honour the result of a referendum? That's the kind of thing she should really be able to remember.
Part of the issue with Brexit is nobody has ever really wanted to take back control. Control is hard work, and we're clearly not willing or able as a nation to really put in the work to do it.
May said that the month delay on the MV was to obtain a legally-binding guarantee of an end date to the backstop and a way for the UK to derogate from it.
What she's achieved is a statement from Juncker and Tusk that the EU is in no position to offer either of those things, and a recapitulation of the existing withdrawal agreement.
The fact that May has a problem with telling the truth is hardly news.
But this story does add to the air of abject incompetence in No 10 - why on earth was the speech not fact- checked???
They've outsourced fact-checking to twitter. We wait to see whether she actually says what the media has been told she will say (incidentally I hope this practice of releasing speech extracts in advance dies a death soon).
Paralysis in parliament risks no Brexit "most likely."
Wowee!
I don't understand this line, paralysis would imply no primary legislation being able to be moved. If no primary legislation can be moved then we leave without a deal on 29th March. Can someone explain the mechanisms to me of how parliament can force that off the table without the acquiescence of the Gov't ?
Not really analogous, is it? By the time of the 2001 GE (let alone 2005), the Welsh Assembly was up and running. No one has ever said that a political party should be prevented from pledging to rejoin the EU (with or without a referendum) after Brexit.
AIUI she also voted against establishing the Assembly, despite the referendum result. Also, her ‘nobody seriously questioned’ comment is pretty broad.
I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that Theresa May wasted a month of everyone's time and all she has to show for it are these letters that simply restate what the Withdrawal Agreement already says.
NOTHING, as somebody wise once said, HAS CHANGED.
Well, it's fair enough to restate it, given that no-one seems to have actually read the Withdrawal Agreement.
You're right, of course. The withdrawal agreement is a totem. It doesn't need to be read, it just needs to exist.
Of course, the fact that May still believes that all she had to do was help Parliament understand how to read the document properly with suitable clarifications and assurances and everyone would fall in line, suggests that she does not realise at all at how the WA has become totemic.
I think that for some people, the very fact that an agreement was reached makes it unacceptable.
Remarkably, yes. Not the whole, but amazingly some.
From Tezza's letter the two stand out points for me:
First, this seems to limit the ability of the EU to head off into the sunset with NI in its jetstream following ever more and esoteric EU rules: "The Agreement is also clear that any new act that the Union proposes should be added to the Protocol will require the agreement of the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee."
But the most important part of the letter, a point often and idiotically ignored or misunderstood by most No Dealers is as follows:
"...The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and is successor agreements are an achievement the UK Government is deeply committed to sustaining and that is the majority view in UK politics by an overwhelming margin. No UK Government would risk that progress, including by willingly allowing a hard border to re-emerge."
The trouble is that it is two reasonable parties confirming to each other their reasonable agreement, but the obstacle is unreasonable MPs refusing to accept that it is a reasonable agreement. It's hard to see this changing things significantly, but equally most of the so-called alternatives being banded about by MPs and opposition parties wouldn't change anything either.
No it is one unreasonable party and one craven coward trying to foist an unacceptable backstop that Parliament is reasonably blocking.
The PM herself said that no PM could agree to a border in the Irish Sea but her own Attorney General has already confirmed in his frank legal advice she tried to hide that this backstop creates one.
Mr. Kinabalu, dreadful question, though. The 'No' option is almost 100% undefined. Hardline Remainers could vote for that, hoping for another referendum. Hardline Leavers could vote for it. Moderate Leavers unconvinced by the deal could for it. Moderate Remainers who want a closer relationship with the EU than May's deal could vote for it.
It mimics the vote in parliament, shares the same flaws, and therefore it is indeed an unattractive prospect. It could resolve matters but a 'no' would return us to impasse and uncertainty. Nevertheless it is IMO the most defensible of the various options for another EU referendum.
"Parliament are frustrating me, my people, will you be the grown ups in the room and ratify my treaty? - yes or no."
Not really analogous, is it? By the time of the 2001 GE (let alone 2005), the Welsh Assembly was up and running. No one has ever said that a political party should be prevented from pledging to rejoin the EU (with or without a referendum) after Brexit.
AIUI she also voted against establishing the Assembly, despite the referendum result. Also, her ‘nobody seriously questioned’ comment is pretty broad.
I agree that doesn't look good for her. But my point was the one around the Tories having a referendum on Welsh Devolution in their 2005 manifesto.
I'm seeing chat that May voted for a Conservative ammendment to the Government of Wales bill that would have withdrawn the bill during its passage through the House.
Anyone got a link to proposed ammemdments and voting records thereof so that I can check this huge if true claim?
I can see from the hansard record that the ammendment was proposed but I do not know if it went anywhere.
I don't know if I am just worn down by this chaos but I seriously wonder if we are in the last week of May's Premiership in anything other than a caretaker capacity. She has run out of road and if her deal is rejected by 150+ tomorrow, which seems all too likely, she surely has to go.
From Tezza's letter the two stand out points for me:
First, this seems to limit the ability of the EU to head off into the sunset with NI in its jetstream following ever more and esoteric EU rules: "The Agreement is also clear that any new act that the Union proposes should be added to the Protocol will require the agreement of the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee."
But the most important part of the letter, a point often and idiotically ignored or misunderstood by most No Dealers is as follows:
"...The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and is successor agreements are an achievement the UK Government is deeply committed to sustaining and that is the majority view in UK politics by an overwhelming margin. No UK Government would risk that progress, including by willingly allowing a hard border to re-emerge."
The trouble is that it is two reasonable parties confirming to each other their reasonable agreement, but the obstacle is unreasonable MPs refusing to accept that it is a reasonable agreement. It's hard to see this changing things significantly, but equally most of the so-called alternatives being banded about by MPs and opposition parties wouldn't change anything either.
No it is one unreasonable party and one craven coward trying to foist an unacceptable backstop that Parliament is reasonably blocking.
The PM herself said that no PM could agree to a border in the Irish Sea but her own Attorney General has already confirmed in his frank legal advice she tried to hide that this backstop creates one.
"...No UK Government would risk that progress, including by willingly allowing a hard border to re-emerge."
May said that the month delay on the MV was to obtain a legally-binding guarantee of an end date to the backstop and a way for the UK to derogate from it.
What she's achieved is a statement from Juncker and Tusk that the EU is in no position to offer either of those things, and a recapitulation of the existing withdrawal agreement.
That's not quite true, they do say this:
In this context, it can be stated that European Council conclusions have a legal value in the Union commensurate to the authority of the European Council under the Treaties to define directions and priorities for the European Union at the highest level and, in the specific context of withdrawal, to establish, in the form of guidelines, its framework. They may commit the European Union in the most solemn manner. European Council conclusions therefore constitute part of the context in which an international agreement, such as the Withdrawal Agreement, will be interpreted.
As for the link between the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration, to which you make reference in your letter, it can be made clear that these two documents, while being of a different nature, are part of the same negotiated package. In order to underline the close relationship between the two texts, they can be published side by side in the Official Journal in a manner reflecting the link between the two as provided for in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
I think that she is clever in appealing to the public about being able to move on immediately the agreement is signed. They (the public) might in turn put pressure on foot-dragging, knuckle-dragging MPs.
Comments
More recently there was the Holyrood alliance under Aunty Annabel.
The Tory/SNP alliance is the love that dare not speak its name.
When is she delivering the Stoke speech; wonder if the discredited section will still there there. She'll be insane if it is!
Ha ha. Edit necessary when I realised what predictive text had done!
This kind of thing used to work in the Bill Clinton days when everybody got their information from the media, so if you could minimize the time you spent talking about something, it would go away. But it doesn't work with social media, because if there's an attack line that you haven't properly rebutted, they can just rent Facebook ads or continue the conversation on Twitter.
But how can a body of MPs who can't agree amongst themselves on anything related to Brexit take back control of it?
If there does, I presume it would get the same majority as the 2nd Ref bill itself.
Still needs the Withdrawal Treaty, of course, the sine qua non of Brexit. If we want to leave the EU we have to sign it.
Or to put it in a more palatable fashion - remove the nasty whiff of blackmail from the equation - if we do not sign it we are not leaving the EU.
However if May can get 150+ Tories on her side there are probably enough Labour supporters of 2Ref who will vote it through regardless of leadership position. Probably actively in spite of leadership position, in fact.
(I know I do it myself, though I try not to.)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/770770/Letter_from_the_Prime_Minister_to_President_Juncker_and_President_Tusk.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/770771/Response_from_President_Juncker_and_President_Tusk_to_the_Prime_Minister.pdf
If Remain wins then it's quite complicated, but the Leavers have just been found not to represent the voters, and the base are spitting feathers at the Remainers, so how better to split the difference than to let Mrs May carry on? MPs will have the same conundrum that they do now: If they let their base vote, there's a serious risk they'll end up with someone bonkers, especially with the base still mad about Brexit while the voters are sick of talking about it. The only way to avoid the risk of a Tory version of Jeremy Corbyn is to stick with their current leader.
No means leave the EU with no deal
No means revoke A50
No means go back to the EU and renegotiate
The EU would agree for an A50 extension only in the situation where No means Revoke.
Been talking with Bannon again?
What we want is the ILLUSION of control.
Surely he would make a claim that he should be PM, or push for a GE at least.
Wasn’t the 1979 GE when the SNP lost around half their MPs?
Edit. The SNP were absolutely fuckwangled in 1979 losing 9 out of 11 seats.
NOTHING, as somebody wise once said, HAS CHANGED.
Or they can wait a year, but then, like I say, the alternative could be very bad indeed.
Why did they lose so many?
First, this seems to limit the ability of the EU to head off into the sunset with NI in its jetstream following ever more and esoteric EU rules:
"The Agreement is also clear that any new act that the Union proposes should be added to the Protocol will require the agreement of the United Kingdom in the Joint Committee."
But the most important part of the letter, a point often and idiotically ignored or misunderstood by most No Dealers is as follows:
"...The Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement and is successor agreements are an achievement the UK Government is deeply committed to sustaining and that is the majority view in UK politics by an overwhelming margin. No UK Government would risk that progress, including by willingly allowing a hard border to re-emerge."
Of course, the fact that May still believes that all she had to do was help Parliament understand how to read the document properly with suitable clarifications and assurances and everyone would fall in line, suggests that she does not realise at all at how the WA has become totemic.
Generic Mid West Democrat.
He is the perfect candidate.
i) The whole parliament won't vote this through argument being wheeled out by people who won't vote the deal through.
ii) The entire 'parliament should decide' <-> 'the people are ultimate masters' ping pong being played by both sides.
iii) The Gov't (I think this might happen) using parliament as a cover to do stuff even though it won't have to.
iv) Both sides using convention when it suits them and making it up as they go along when it doesn't.
1979 SCon mps 22
1992 SCon mps 11
1997 SCon mps 0
Still, Mags & the Tories were the midwives of the SNP resurgence, so thanks.
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1084602078419476482?s=21
We will try really really hard to get this all done as you suggest and not invoke the backstop and you are great and so is your deal and we promise not to take the piss.
I paraphrase.
The last constitutional change took around two years.
https://twitter.com/NSoames/status/1084553177838559232
But this story does add to the air of abject incompetence in No 10 - why on earth was the speech not fact- checked???
https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-131/poems-churchill-loved-the-clattering-train/
But one would hope that May surely wouldn't have needed to fact check that she voted against the legislation to implement the Assembly, despite the referendum result. Refusing to honour the result of a referendum? That's the kind of thing she should really be able to remember.
Wowee!
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1084775236875108355
Edit: though she dropped the line saying "the popular legitimacy of that institution has never seriously been questioned".
What she's achieved is a statement from Juncker and Tusk that the EU is in no position to offer either of those things, and a recapitulation of the existing withdrawal agreement.
Can someone explain the mechanisms to me of how parliament can force that off the table without the acquiescence of the Gov't ?
The PM herself said that no PM could agree to a border in the Irish Sea but her own Attorney General has already confirmed in his frank legal advice she tried to hide that this backstop creates one.
"Parliament are frustrating me, my people, will you be the grown ups in the room and ratify my treaty? - yes or no."
Anyone got a link to proposed ammemdments and voting records thereof so that I can check this huge if true claim?
I can see from the hansard record that the ammendment was proposed but I do not know if it went anywhere.
In this context, it can be stated that European Council conclusions have a legal value in the Union commensurate to the authority of the European Council under the Treaties to define directions and priorities for the European Union at the highest level and, in the specific context of withdrawal, to establish, in the form of guidelines, its framework. They may commit the European Union in the most solemn manner. European Council conclusions therefore constitute part of the context in which an international agreement, such as the Withdrawal Agreement, will be interpreted.
As for the link between the Withdrawal Agreement and the Political Declaration, to which you make reference in your letter, it can be made clear that these two documents, while being of a different nature, are part of the same negotiated package. In order to underline the close relationship between the two texts, they can be published side by side in the Official Journal in a manner reflecting the link between the two as provided for in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).
So it's sort-of legally binding.