- and not just for the property market but for any contract.
They want to break a contract because something unexpected happened? Unless there is a clause to that effect in the contract their chances must be slim, surely?
The law on frustration of contracts is very complex. But in essence they are saying that this was an unknown unknown and therefore the contract could not be performed. The EMA are liable for the rent on the building even though they are leaving the premises and they are arguing this so as to avoid paying the outstanding rent. Quite why they can't sub-let is not clear.
The landlords are saying that departure from the EU was not unforeseeable, not least because Article 50 has been in existence since the Lisbon Treaty came into force.
But it's just an example of the sorts of legal cases that will occur if/when Brexit happens and depending on how it happens.
If I was moved to another town by my employer, even if it was unforseeable, I’d be liable to pay the remaining rent on my contract. Not sure why the EMA think they are special in this regard.
The important point is that the EMA - on its own case - can't operate from London if it wanted to.
Incidentally I think the answer to Cyclefree's question is that the purpose of the lease was to allow the EMA to occupy, and therefore frustration must focus on their ability to occupy and not their subtenants.
So? I wouldn’t be able to operate from my old apartment if I was moved across the country. As the old Ferengi saying goes, a contract is a contract is a contract.
They are saying (basically) that it is illegal for them to operate from post-Brexit London, whereas you retain the ability to use your flat in London.
It appears it is more technical that that; that the EMA wouldn't get its "rights and privileges" outside the EU (whatever that means).
Frustration of a lease for reasons unrelated to the property itself is almost unheard of. It occupies two paragraphs of my handbook.
In their case does the lease require them to operate the EMA from London, or are the only duties attached to the lease not related to their actual activities?
Apparently their constitution and/or EU law affords them rights an protections only on EU soil
- and not just for the property market but for any contract.
They want to break a contract because something unexpected happened? Unless there is a clause to that effect in the contract their chances must be slim, surely?
The law on frustration of contracts is very complex. But in essence they are saying that this was an unknown unknown and therefore the contract could not be performed. The EMA are liable for the rent on the building even though they are leaving the premises and they are arguing this so as to avoid paying the outstanding rent. Quite why they can't sub-let is not clear.
The landlords are saying that departure from the EU was not unforeseeable, not least because Article 50 has been in existence since the Lisbon Treaty came into force.
But it's just an example of the sorts of legal cases that will occur if/when Brexit happens and depending on how it happens.
Looking up my copy of Hill and Redman, I think the EMA are on a hiding to nothing, unless there is something very unusual that makes their leasehold covenants impossible to perform.
Given that the cost of going to court has to be tiny compared to the ongoing rent I can see why the EMA are trying it on even if the odds are infinitesimal.
Mind you I've seen other EU departments waste £50,000 to check that what they had been told to was correct so I'm not surprised.
Outstanding rent is close to half a billion pounds
Which is why spending £1m trying to get out of the contract isn't a total waste of money even if there is less than a snowball's chance of it working...
I bet he wouldn't say that about respecting different cultures if the institution he was visiting banned gay men. But banning women, hey, that's OK.
In more conservative parts of the world being gay can be something that gets you killed, rather than banned from public spaces.
Well, indeed. All very well flying the flag for gay marriage and abortion in Ireland but then to defend a monastery which sees women as second class - pathetic. If he wants to do that why he doesn't come back home and defend what was done to women in Ireland by the Catholic Church? (And to be clear, I don't defend that. What they did was indefensible and horrible.)
But of course - for some of the stupider liberals - it always looks better to praise some foreign, exotic and dark-skinned bigot while chastising home-grown ones.
So the Western world should dictate morality to all other nations? That was a little easier when Europe had 25% of the world’s population rather than 7%.
You’re about 100 years late. We didn’t get thanked for it last time.
No - he was not forced to say that he respected their culture. He didn't have to go there. He didn't have to say anything. He could have politely visited it. He could also politely have said to his hosts that he took a different view on the equality of men and women. He could have chosen to visit a place in the country which did something for women, was run by women etc etc..... There are lots of things that could be done by someone who genuinely believes in equality rather than using it as a way of posturing and preening about how "liberal" they are.
- and not just for the property market but for any contract.
They want to break a contract because something unexpected happened? Unless there is a clause to that effect in the contract their chances must be slim, surely?
.
If I was moved to another town by my employer, even if it was unforseeable, I’d be liable to pay the remaining rent on my contract. Not sure why the EMA think they are special in this regard.
The important point is that the EMA - on its own case - can't operate from London if it wanted to.
Incidentally I think the answer to Cyclefree's question is that the purpose of the lease was to allow the EMA to occupy, and therefore frustration must focus on their ability to occupy and not their subtenants.
So? I wouldn’t be able to operate from my old apartment if I was moved across the country. As the old Ferengi saying goes, a contract is a contract is a contract.
They are saying (basically) that it is illegal for them to operate from post-Brexit London, whereas you retain the ability to use your flat in London.
It appears it is more technical that that; that the EMA wouldn't get its "rights and privileges" outside the EU (whatever that means).
Frustration of a lease for reasons unrelated to the property itself is almost unheard of. It occupies two paragraphs of my handbook.
Reading a few legal articles about it, it seems to be common ground in this case that had the agreement for the lease been entered into after Cameron's promise of a referendum, then Brexit would have been reasonably foreseeable, and the EMA would have no case.
However, the EMA signed the contract to enter the lease in 2011, three years before the lease itself was signed. Hence, the argument that this contract was frustrated.
I'd still be very surprised if they won though, because assignment or sub-letting would still enable them to fulfil their obligations to the landlord. Apparently, they simply agreed far too high a rent, which means they would suffer a loss on assignment or subletting.
True but they also signed it after they added Article 50 ot their constitution so it can't have been unforeseeable that Article 50 would be used.
Apparently their constitution and/or EU law affords them rights an protections only on EU soil
But aren’t we talking about duties in the lease which I assume are mundane things like notifying the landlord of repairs etc? You don’t need EU protection for that.
No doubt the PB Tories will enjoy several bouts of onanism over the story for a while.
She's right that, off peak, first class is often just a few quid more, and does provide a quiet environment to get stuff done. It's hardly turning left on the aeroplane.
- and not just for the property market but for any contract.
They want to break a contract because something unexpected happened? Unless there is a clause to that effect in the contract their chances must be slim, surely?
.
If I was moved to another town by my employer, even if it was unforseeable, I’d be liable to pay the remaining rent on my contract. Not sure why the EMA think they are special in this regard.
The important point is that the EMA - on its own case - can't operate from London if it wanted to.
Incidentally I think the answer to Cyclefree's question is that the purpose of the lease was to allow the EMA to occupy, and therefore frustration must focus on their ability to occupy and not their subtenants.
So? I wouldn’t be able to operate from my old apartment if I was moved across the country. As the old Ferengi saying goes, a contract is a contract is a contract.
They are saying (basically) that it is illegal for them to operate from post-Brexit London, whereas you retain the ability to use your flat in London.
It appears it is more technical that that; that the EMA wouldn't get its "rights and privileges" outside the EU (whatever that means).
Frustration of a lease for reasons unrelated to the property itself is almost unheard of. It occupies two paragraphs of my handbook.
Reading a few legal articles about it, it seems to be common ground in this case that had the agreement for the lease been entered into after Cameron's promise of a referendum, then Brexit would have been reasonably foreseeable, and the EMA would have no case.
However, the EMA signed the contract to enter the lease in 2011, three years before the lease itself was signed. Hence, the argument that this contract was frustrated.
I'd still be very surprised if they won though, because assignment or sub-letting would still enable them to fulfil their obligations to the landlord. Apparently, they simply agreed far too high a rent, which means they would suffer a loss on assignment or subletting.
2011 was 4 years after Article 50 came into force.
No doubt the PB Tories will enjoy several bouts of onanism over the story for a while.
She's right that, off peak, first class is often just a few quid more, and does provide a quiet environment to get stuff done. It's hardly turning left on the aeroplane.
Do they have seats if you turn right? I never knew....
- and not just for the property market but for any contract.
They want to break a contract because something unexpected happened? Unless there is a clause to that effect in the contract their chances must be slim, surely?
.
If I was moved to another town by my employer, even if it was unforseeable, I’d be liable to pay the remaining rent on my contract. Not sure why the EMA think they are special in this regard.
The important point is that the EMA - on its own case - can't operate from London if it wanted to.
Incidentally I think the answer to Cyclefree's question is that the purpose of the lease was to allow the EMA to occupy, and therefore frustration must focus on their ability to occupy and not their subtenants.
So? I wouldn’t be able to operate from my old apartment if I was moved across the country. As the old Ferengi saying goes, a contract is a contract is a contract.
They are saying (basically) that it is illegal for them to operate from post-Brexit London, whereas you retain the ability to use your flat in London.
It appears it is more technical that that; that the EMA wouldn't get its "rights and privileges" outside the EU (whatever that means).
Frustration of a lease for reasons unrelated to the property itself is almost unheard of. It occupies two paragraphs of my handbook.
Reading a few legal articles about it, it seems to be common ground in this case that had the agreement for the lease been entered into after Cameron's promise of a referendum, then Brexit would have been reasonably foreseeable, and the EMA would have no case.
However, the EMA signed the contract to enter the lease in 2011, three years before the lease itself was signed. Hence, the argument that this contract was frustrated.
I'd still be very surprised if they won though, because assignment or sub-letting would still enable them to fulfil their obligations to the landlord. Apparently, they simply agreed far too high a rent, which means they would suffer a loss on assignment or subletting.
True but they also signed it after they added Article 50 ot their constitution so it can't have been unforeseeable that Article 50 would be used.
No doubt the PB Tories will enjoy several bouts of onanism over the story for a while.
She's right that, off peak, first class is often just a few quid more, and does provide a quiet environment to get stuff done. It's hardly turning left on the aeroplane.
Do they have seats if you turn right? I never knew....
I know you all enjoyed my Roman Emperor list for potential 2015 GE results for Cameron (he actually ended up as Trajan, taking a majority despite level-pegging polls for six months, though he didn't end up doing quite so well at the governing bit).
And so, here is Morris Dancer's Roman defeat-o-meter for May's deal (emphasis on the tactical, not strategic, defeat): Catalaunian Plains - shock victory against the odds - any majority at all for the deal Teutoberg Forest - majority of 50 against May's deal Adrianople - majority of 75 against May's deal Lake Trasimene - majority of 100 against May's deal Arausio - majority of 125 against May's deal Carrhae - majority of 150 against May's deal Cannae - annihilation, woe, doom, despair - majority of 175 against May's deal Allia - Rome falls - majority of 200+ against May's deal
[NB Caudine Forks may apply if the PM instantly resigns due to the scale of humiliation].
- and not just for the property market but for any contract.
They want to break a contract because something unexpected happened? Unless there is a clause to that effect in the contract their chances must be slim, surely?
The law on frustration of contracts is very complex. But in essence they are saying that this was an unknown unknown and therefore the contract could not be performed. The EMA are liable for the rent on the building even though they are leaving the premises and they are arguing this so as to avoid paying the outstanding rent. Quite why they can't sub-let is not clear.
The landlords are saying that departure from the EU was not unforeseeable, not least because Article 50 has been in existence since the Lisbon Treaty came into force.
But it's just an example of the sorts of legal cases that will occur if/when Brexit happens and depending on how it happens.
Looking up my copy of Hill and Redman, I think the EMA are on a hiding to nothing, unless there is something very unusual that makes their leasehold covenants impossible to perform.
I struggle with how the lease contract has been frustrated unless there are specific covenants relating to continuing EU membership. It’s clear from the argument that they are running that there aren’t. Bad bargain I’m afraid. Perhaps they could do a CVA.....
Is the EBRD still in London or have they left the Attali palace?
- and not just for the property market but for any contract.
They want to break a contract because something unexpected happened? Unless there is a clause to that effect in the contract their chances must be slim, surely?
.
If I was moved to another town by my employer, even if it was unforseeable, I’d be liable to pay the remaining rent on my contract. Not sure why the EMA think they are special in this regard.
The important point is that the EMA - on its own case - can't operate from London if it wanted to.
Incidentally I think the answer to Cyclefree's question is that the purpose of the lease was to allow the EMA to occupy, and therefore frustration must focus on their ability to occupy and not their subtenants.
So? I wouldn’t be able to operate from my old apartment if I was moved across the country. As the old Ferengi saying goes, a contract is a contract is a contract.
They are saying (basically) that it is illegal for them to operate from post-Brexit London, whereas you retain the ability to use your flat in London.
It appears it is more technical that that; that the EMA wouldn't get its "rights and privileges" outside the EU (whatever that means).
Frustration of a lease for reasons unrelated to the property itself is almost unheard of. It occupies two paragraphs of my handbook.
Reading a few legal articles about it, it seems to be common ground in this case that had the agreement for the lease been entered into after Cameron's promise of a referendum, then Brexit would have been reasonably foreseeable, and the EMA would have no case.
However, the EMA signed the contract to enter the lease in 2011, three years before the lease itself was signed. Hence, the argument that this contract was frustrated.
I'd still be very surprised if they won though, because assignment or sub-letting would still enable them to fulfil their obligations to the landlord. Apparently, they simply agreed far too high a rent, which means they would suffer a loss on assignment or subletting.
Never heard it, never saw anything me...never...even when standing right next to him. Total one off, never happened before. Oh the time I should under a load of hammer and sickle flags, no I didn't seem them either...
And just when some people weren't thinking of him as an absolute c*nt.....
I know you all enjoyed my Roman Emperor list for potential 2015 GE results for Cameron (he actually ended up as Trajan, taking a majority despite level-pegging polls for six months, though he didn't end up doing quite so well at the governing bit).
And so, here is Morris Dancer's Roman defeat-o-meter for May's deal (emphasis on the tactical, not strategic, defeat): Catalaunian Plains - shock victory against the odds - any majority at all for the deal Teutoberg Forest - majority of 50 against May's deal Adrianople - majority of 75 against May's deal Lake Trasimene - majority of 100 against May's deal Arausio - majority of 125 against May's deal Carrhae - majority of 150 against May's deal Cannae - annihilation, woe, doom, despair - majority of 175 against May's deal Allia - Rome falls - majority of 200+ against May's deal
[NB Caudine Forks may apply if the PM instantly resigns due to the scale of humiliation].
Excellent What about a tie decided by the speaker? (Which way would he even vote?)
I know you all enjoyed my Roman Emperor list for potential 2015 GE results for Cameron (he actually ended up as Trajan, taking a majority despite level-pegging polls for six months, though he didn't end up doing quite so well at the governing bit).
And so, here is Morris Dancer's Roman defeat-o-meter for May's deal (emphasis on the tactical, not strategic, defeat): Catalaunian Plains - shock victory against the odds - any majority at all for the deal Teutoberg Forest - majority of 50 against May's deal Adrianople - majority of 75 against May's deal Lake Trasimene - majority of 100 against May's deal Arausio - majority of 125 against May's deal Carrhae - majority of 150 against May's deal Cannae - annihilation, woe, doom, despair - majority of 175 against May's deal Allia - Rome falls - majority of 200+ against May's deal
[NB Caudine Forks may apply if the PM instantly resigns due to the scale of humiliation].
What's the number where Theresa May is turned into Dominic Grieve's footstool?
I know you all enjoyed my Roman Emperor list for potential 2015 GE results for Cameron (he actually ended up as Trajan, taking a majority despite level-pegging polls for six months, though he didn't end up doing quite so well at the governing bit).
And so, here is Morris Dancer's Roman defeat-o-meter for May's deal (emphasis on the tactical, not strategic, defeat): Catalaunian Plains - shock victory against the odds - any majority at all for the deal Teutoberg Forest - majority of 50 against May's deal Adrianople - majority of 75 against May's deal Lake Trasimene - majority of 100 against May's deal Arausio - majority of 125 against May's deal Carrhae - majority of 150 against May's deal Cannae - annihilation, woe, doom, despair - majority of 175 against May's deal Allia - Rome falls - majority of 200+ against May's deal
[NB Caudine Forks may apply if the PM instantly resigns due to the scale of humiliation].
Never heard it, never saw anything me...never...even when standing right next to him. Total one off, never happened before. Oh the time I should under a load of hammer and sickle flags, no I didn't seem them either...
And just when some people weren't thinking of him as an absolute c*nt.....
He is far more dangerous than Corbyn. He lies with far more ease.
The map cant be right as most of it is grey. Is there a typo in the descriptions?
It shows only the 100 constituencies referred to ?
Yes, that's right. Apologies if that wasn't clear.
A personal note of thanks to Gareth Johnson - his timing was impeccable, ensuring the map and table were out of date seconds before publication.
Though since he is MP for Dartford (Leave 64%), he supports my argument perfectly.
So my MP Anne Main with a very strong remain constituency of St Albans is either a headbanger or may well be persuadable to vote for the Deal?
An additional point that I would have made if space permitted is that we can expect Anne Main, Zac Goldsmith and Ross Thomson to underperform their colleagues if they go ahead with their stated intention of opposing the deal. They are seriously at odds with their constituencies.
Never heard it, never saw anything me...never...even when standing right next to him. Total one off, never happened before. Oh the time I should under a load of hammer and sickle flags, no I didn't seem them either...
Why does he bother? Labour members don't care enough to do anything and his opponents won't believe his denials so why even deny? And no, it isn't plausible he never sees or hears these things.
"After listening to every single Brexit debate since the agreement was published and speaking to colleagues and government ministers, I decided that I cannot support the deal in its current form and I sincerely hope that reforms are made.
The Northern Irish backstop, as it currently stands, is something I cannot sign up to."
While she does say:
"I will wait and see what, if anything, is brought back from Brussels and presented before parliament ahead of the vote."
I don't see how she could justify changing her mind given what she has already said.
She has absolutely no room to manoeuvre if those 5 prove correct which means she is more of a lame duck than she is now. If she doesn’t resign, she has two immediate problems - staving off defeat in a VONC and trying to keep control of the political agenda.
She has no choice but to resign or call another election which apparently CCHQ were war gaming before Christmas. If she loses control of events, it’s difficult to see how she staves off defeat in a VONC.
I don’t expect her to call another GE, but she has to do something and that looks like the only way she keeps control.
I didn't mention a VONC because that's an option for Corbyn, not May. It's a complete and utter waste of time and will be politically counter-productive.
Quite part from the DUP, I cannot envisage a single Conservative MP failing to support a Conservative Government in a VONC. It's the ultimate betrayal and would mean expulsion and deselection (probably not in that order).
I can quite easily believe the only thing the 318 Conservative MPs have in common is their detestation (or fear) (or contempt) of Corbyn and any Government he led. That will be enough to vote down any VONC.
Corbyn must know this - I don't understand the politics of it from his perspective.
Difficult to see how Remainers like Grieve or Boles can plot to remove her from determining the course of events and they say they have confidence in her Gov. I am sure they will come up with something because I agree they loathe Corbyn more than they loathe their colleagues but nothing credible.
Corbyn’s motivation is surely that he just wants power. He might not win this time around as Mrs T didn’t with Callaghan but as the Tories tear themselves apart, the dripping tap effect might well deliver for him.
Never heard it, never saw anything me...never...even when standing right next to him. Total one off, never happened before. Oh the time I should under a load of hammer and sickle flags, no I didn't seem them either...
And just when some people weren't thinking of him as an absolute c*nt.....
He is far more dangerous than Corbyn. He lies with far more ease.
But you can at least tell when McDonnell is lying - he still has a pulse....
No doubt the PB Tories will enjoy several bouts of onanism over the story for a while.
She's right that, off peak, first class is often just a few quid more, and does provide a quiet environment to get stuff done. It's hardly turning left on the aeroplane.
Do they have seats if you turn right? I never knew....
I hear that you have to make your own bed
Christ, I have inadvertently trigger the PB Tory First Class Air Travellers' Tales thing!
Difficult to see how Remainers like Grieve or Boles can plot to remove her from determining the course of events and they say they have confidence in her Gov.
It's still possible to believe May is once-in-a-lifetime bad, whilst thinking Corbyn is once-in-a-geologic-time-scale bad......
The Murrison amendment has been completely changed from what was previously mooted, it no longer sets a hard time-limit for the backstop. Instead it seems to be a variant of the Hugo Swire amendment:
She has absolutely no room to manoeuvre if those 5 prove correct which means she is more of a lame duck than she is now. If she doesn’t resign, she has two immediate problems - staving off defeat in a VONC and trying to keep control of the political agenda.
She is certainly in a tight corner. Hence the tidal wave of support for her amongst ordinary decent people. The British people, particularly decent ordinary ones, tend to rally to the cause of someone who is in a tight corner. History is littered with examples of that.
The public understand the stress that Mrs May is under. They are no doubt aware of the copious research which shows that the most unpleasant of all positions in the workplace is that of hapless middle-manager caught between the devil of a capricious and unyielding boss (EU) and the deep blue sea of a bunch of unruly miscreants (MPs) whom one is technically responsible for managing. They can relate to this, ordinary people can, and it breaks their hearts to see their Prime Minister in such a place.
Still, all very well, but it is hard to see the relevance of this to the likely margin of defeat tomorrow. Looks like it is going to be a rather heavy one.
What an absolute fucking idiot. The deal is not the deal. It is the precursor to the deal. The deal will follow at some point following the precursor. All that bollocks about "the deal" not being in peoples' interest or not being in the UK's interest is just extraordinary. It is the first step on a road to a deal. It is not the effing deal itself.
What an absolute fucking idiot. The deal is not the deal. It is the precursor to the deal. The deal will follow at some point following the precursor. All that bollocks about "the deal" not being in peoples' interest or not being in the UK's interest is just extraordinary. It is the first step on a road to a deal. It is not the effing deal itself.
She has absolutely no room to manoeuvre if those 5 prove correct which means she is more of a lame duck than she is now. If she doesn’t resign, she has two immediate problems - staving off defeat in a VONC and trying to keep control of the political agenda.
She is certainly in a tight corner. Hence the tidal wave of support for her amongst ordinary decent people. The British people, particularly decent ordinary ones, tend to rally to the cause of someone who is in a tight corner. History is littered with examples of that.
The public understand the stress that Mrs May is under. They are no doubt aware of the copious research which shows that the most unpleasant of all positions in the workplace is that of hapless middle-manager caught between the devil of a capricious and unyielding boss (EU) and the deep blue sea of a bunch of unruly miscreants (MPs) whom one is technically responsible for managing. They can relate to this, ordinary people can, and it breaks their hearts to see their Prime Minister in such a place.
Still, all very well, but it is hard to see the relevance of this to the likely margin of defeat tomorrow. Looks like it is going to be a rather heavy one.
If there were really a tidal wave of support for her Mps would not be so implacably opposed. No, more likely people are sympathetic but that's it.
She has absolutely no room to manoeuvre if those 5 prove correct which means she is more of a lame duck than she is now. If she doesn’t resign, she has two immediate problems - staving off defeat in a VONC and trying to keep control of the political agenda.
She is certainly in a tight corner. Hence the tidal wave of support for her amongst ordinary decent people. The British people, particularly decent ordinary ones, tend to rally to the cause of someone who is in a tight corner. History is littered with examples of that.
The public understand the stress that Mrs May is under. They are no doubt aware of the copious research which shows that the most unpleasant of all positions in the workplace is that of hapless middle-manager caught between the devil of a capricious and unyielding boss (EU) and the deep blue sea of a bunch of unruly miscreants (MPs) whom one is technically responsible for managing. They can relate to this, ordinary people can, and it breaks their hearts to see their Prime Minister in such a place.
Still, all very well, but it is hard to see the relevance of this to the likely margin of defeat tomorrow. Looks like it is going to be a rather heavy one.
We always admire a plucky loser. Those who admire her still hate her deal according to the polls and there is no domestic policy agenda to bring party unity or electoral popularity.
I am sure May is under a lot of stress but that is because she failed to build support even though she lacks a majority. She only has herself to blame for that.
If she is not going to resign and she is not going to give up her deal, a GE seems the only way for her to proceed, even though she’s already said she’ll resign before the next one.
She has absolutely no room to manoeuvre if those 5 prove correct which means she is more of a lame duck than she is now. If she doesn’t resign, she has two immediate problems - staving off defeat in a VONC and trying to keep control of the political agenda.
She is certainly in a tight corner. Hence the tidal wave of support for her amongst ordinary decent people. The British people, particularly decent ordinary ones, tend to rally to the cause of someone who is in a tight corner. History is littered with examples of that.
The public understand the stress that Mrs May is under. They are no doubt aware of the copious research which shows that the most unpleasant of all positions in the workplace is that of hapless middle-manager caught between the devil of a capricious and unyielding boss (EU) and the deep blue sea of a bunch of unruly miscreants (MPs) whom one is technically responsible for managing. They can relate to this, ordinary people can, and it breaks their hearts to see their Prime Minister in such a place.
Still, all very well, but it is hard to see the relevance of this to the likely margin of defeat tomorrow. Looks like it is going to be a rather heavy one.
We always admire a plucky loser. Those who admire her still hate her deal according to the polls and there is no domestic policy agenda to bring party unity or electoral popularity.
I am sure May is under a lot of stress but that is because she failed to build support even though she lacks a majority. She only has herself to blame for that.
If she is not going to resign and she is not going to give up her deal, a GE seems the only way for her to proceed, even though she’s already said she’ll resign before the next one.
How on earth do the ERG stand in a general election where the most important thing on the Tory party manifesto is May's deal.
Difficult to see how Remainers like Grieve or Boles can plot to remove her from determining the course of events and they say they have confidence in her Gov.
It's still possible to believe May is once-in-a-lifetime bad, whilst thinking Corbyn is once-in-a-geologic-time-scale bad......
Yep - but I don’t expect May to sit idly by whilst others determine what happens next. Losing the deal will certainly prompt her to react.
She has absolutely no room to manoeuvre if those 5 prove correct which means she is more of a lame duck than she is now. If she doesn’t resign, she has two immediate problems - staving off defeat in a VONC and trying to keep control of the political agenda.
She is certainly in a tight corner. Hence the tidal wave of support for her amongst ordinary decent people. The British people, particularly decent ordinary ones, tend to rally to the cause of someone who is in a tight corner. History is littered with examples of that.
The public understand the stress that Mrs May is under. They are no doubt aware of the copious research which shows that the most unpleasant of all positions in the workplace is that of hapless middle-manager caught between the devil of a capricious and unyielding boss (EU) and the deep blue sea of a bunch of unruly miscreants (MPs) whom one is technically responsible for managing. They can relate to this, ordinary people can, and it breaks their hearts to see their Prime Minister in such a place.
Still, all very well, but it is hard to see the relevance of this to the likely margin of defeat tomorrow. Looks like it is going to be a rather heavy one.
We always admire a plucky loser. Those who admire her still hate her deal according to the polls and there is no domestic policy agenda to bring party unity or electoral popularity.
I am sure May is under a lot of stress but that is because she failed to build support even though she lacks a majority. She only has herself to blame for that.
If she is not going to resign and she is not going to give up her deal, a GE seems the only way for her to proceed, even though she’s already said she’ll resign before the next one.
How on earth do the ERG stand in a general election where the most important thing on the Tory party manifesto is May's deal.
She has absolutely no room to manoeuvre if those 5 prove correct which means she is more of a lame duck than she is now. If she doesn’t resign, she has two immediate problems - staving off defeat in a VONC and trying to keep control of the political agenda.
She is certainly in a tight corner. Hence the tidal wave of support for her amongst ordinary decent people. The British people, particularly decent ordinary ones, tend to rally to the cause of someone who is in a tight corner. History is littered with examples of that.
The public understand the stress that Mrs May is under. They are no doubt aware of the copious research which shows that the most unpleasant of all positions in the workplace is that of hapless middle-manager caught between the devil of a capricious and unyielding boss (EU) and the deep blue sea of a bunch of unruly miscreants (MPs) whom one is technically responsible for managing. They can relate to this, ordinary people can, and it breaks their hearts to see their Prime Minister in such a place.
Still, all very well, but it is hard to see the relevance of this to the likely margin of defeat tomorrow. Looks like it is going to be a rather heavy one.
We always admire a plucky loser. Those who admire her still hate her deal according to the polls and there is no domestic policy agenda to bring party unity or electoral popularity.
I am sure May is under a lot of stress but that is because she failed to build support even though she lacks a majority. She only has herself to blame for that.
If she is not going to resign and she is not going to give up her deal, a GE seems the only way for her to proceed, even though she’s already said she’ll resign before the next one.
How on earth do the ERG stand in a general election where the most important thing on the Tory party manifesto is May's deal.
Good question. Or, conversely, how do Amber Rudd, Phil Hammond, Greg Clark, Dominic Grieve, Richard Harrington and about a further 150 MPs stand on a manifesto of leaving without a deal?
She has absolutely no room to manoeuvre if those 5 prove correct which means she is more of a lame duck than she is now. If she doesn’t resign, she has two immediate problems - staving off defeat in a VONC and trying to keep control of the political agenda.
She is certainly in a tight corner. Hence the tidal wave of support for her amongst ordinary decent people. The British people, particularly decent ordinary ones, tend to rally to the cause of someone who is in a tight corner. History is littered with examples of that.
The public understand the stress that Mrs May is under. They are no doubt aware of the copious research which shows that the most unpleasant of all positions in the workplace is that of hapless middle-manager caught between the devil of a capricious and unyielding boss (EU) and the deep blue sea of a bunch of unruly miscreants (MPs) whom one is technically responsible for managing. They can relate to this, ordinary people can, and it breaks their hearts to see their Prime Minister in such a place.
Still, all very well, but it is hard to see the relevance of this to the likely margin of defeat tomorrow. Looks like it is going to be a rather heavy one.
We always admire a plucky loser. Those who admire her still hate her deal according to the polls and there is no domestic policy agenda to bring party unity or electoral popularity.
I am sure May is under a lot of stress but that is because she failed to build support even though she lacks a majority. She only has herself to blame for that.
If she is not going to resign and she is not going to give up her deal, a GE seems the only way for her to proceed, even though she’s already said she’ll resign before the next one.
How on earth do the ERG stand in a general election where the most important thing on the Tory party manifesto is May's deal.
How on earth do the Labour Party stand in a general election where the most important thing on the Labour Party manifesto is - fuck knows what......
My meaning was perfectly clear, therefore the distinction, in this instance, is entirely unnecessary. If it doesn't affect understanding a rule is pointless to maintain. In some cases it makes a difference, but not here.
Hopefully the Tories can have their two separate parties soon. I wonder which side gets to keep the name
No need to wonder. It will be pretty obvious when 10% are arch Remainers and 90% are not.
Then it will be the conservative party in opposition very soon, not some offshoot.
There are times when I think that would be for the best. I subscribe to the party’s Facebook feed, which is just a succession of numbers, often involving increased public spending. It is indicative of a party whose leadership have forgotten much of their ideological underpinnings.
The only problem is that the party (and its members) might be abolished in opposition as part of our glorious transition to a People’s Republic.
What an absolute fucking idiot. The deal is not the deal. It is the precursor to the deal. The deal will follow at some point following the precursor. All that bollocks about "the deal" not being in peoples' interest or not being in the UK's interest is just extraordinary. It is the first step on a road to a deal. It is not the effing deal itself.
Either an idiot or a liar. You take your pick.
He is my mp and is in trouble with his constituency. He was Plaid Cymru at one time and is very controversial. I have written to him and he provided a patronising response. I have asked for him to be de-selected
When I think of former conservative mps for Conwy, and especially Lord Wyn Roberts who I chauffered over several campaigns, they would turn in their graves
But it's a pathetic agreement. Two and a half years in gestation brought forward a hideously malformed foetus.....
Take comfort in that as the commons see us remain.
Gives no comfort to the 17.4m......
Which includes me. If the deal is so bad it's not worth leaving over that's leavers Mps choice. Sure they'd prefer something else but if they cannot get that it's up to them to decide if any leave is worth it.
Maybe a GE is the way forward. Mrs May can propose the Deal in her manifesto. If the ERG headbangers don't want to get behind that they should resign the whip. Corbyn can propose his CV as demonstrating his experience in negotiating international deals (After all, in his mind he is responsible for peace in Northern Ireland!), and we will have to have an extension to A50 to accommodate the election. If there is another hung parliament there will have to be a govt of national unity. It isn't a terribly serious proposition, but then neither is having Corbyn as PM.
She has absolutely no room to manoeuvre if those 5 prove correct which means she is more of a lame duck than she is now. If she doesn’t resign, she has two immediate problems - staving off defeat in a VONC and trying to keep control of the political agenda.
She is certainly in a tight corner. Hence the tidal wave of support for her amongst ordinary decent people. The British people, particularly decent ordinary ones, tend to rally to the cause of someone who is in a tight corner. History is littered with examples of that.
The public understand the stress that Mrs May is under. They are no doubt aware of the copious research which shows that the most unpleasant of all positions in the workplace is that of hapless middle-manager caught between the devil of a capricious and unyielding boss (EU) and the deep blue sea of a bunch of unruly miscreants (MPs) whom one is technically responsible for managing. They can relate to this, ordinary people can, and it breaks their hearts to see their Prime Minister in such a place.
Still, all very well, but it is hard to see the relevance of this to the likely margin of defeat tomorrow. Looks like it is going to be a rather heavy one.
We always admire a plucky loser. Those who admire her still hate her deal according to the polls and there is no domestic policy agenda to bring party unity or electoral popularity.
I am sure May is under a lot of stress but that is because she failed to build support even though she lacks a majority. She only has herself to blame for that.
If she is not going to resign and she is not going to give up her deal, a GE seems the only way for her to proceed, even though she’s already said she’ll resign before the next one.
How on earth do the ERG stand in a general election where the most important thing on the Tory party manifesto is May's deal.
No idea - but standing on a manifesto that included leaving the customs union and the Single Market hasn’t caused Grieve, Greening, Soubry, Boles etc any lost sleep. Not sure manifestos have any meaning as May has junked so much of her 2017 manifesto.
I did read one story, which may or may not be true, that the ERG said they would support her deal notwithstanding the backstop if she committed to stand down as leader by 30th June.
I don’t see how the Tory Party holds together in the longer term - but we may an election before then.
Difficult to see how Remainers like Grieve or Boles can plot to remove her from determining the course of events and they say they have confidence in her Gov.
It's still possible to believe May is once-in-a-lifetime bad, whilst thinking Corbyn is once-in-a-geologic-time-scale bad......
Yep - but I don’t expect May to sit idly by whilst others determine what happens next. Losing the deal will certainly prompt her to react.
That depends on whether you call saying “nothing has changed, and I believe this is the best deal available” reacting.
Never heard it, never saw anything me...never...even when standing right next to him. Total one off, never happened before. Oh the time I should under a load of hammer and sickle flags, no I didn't seem them either...
And just when some people weren't thinking of him as an absolute c*nt.....
He is far more dangerous than Corbyn. He lies with far more ease.
Corbyn is a slightly odd grandpa thing about him. Mcdonnell is something else entire;y. IF you want to think of the kind of person who would sign the warrant to put dissidents in the Gulags, look at people like him. The means to obtain, and what you have to do to maintain power are not as important as the noble cause you are following.
My meaning was perfectly clear, therefore the distinction, in this instance, is entirely unnecessary. If it doesn't affect understanding a rule is pointless to maintain. In some cases it makes a difference, but not here.
If you can't stick a pitchfork into it then it is fewer.
Unlimited power!!! (except to modify said act and the Human Rights Act)
Yep. I mentioned this delightful piece of Blairite legislation a couple of weeks ago. One if the most pernicious and authoritarian bits of law ever passed in this country. I bet May can't wait for the chance to use it.
Unlimited power!!! (except to modify said act and the Human Rights Act)
Yep. I mentioned this delightful piece of Blairite legislation a couple of weeks ago. One if the most pernicious and authoritarian bits of law ever passed in this country. I bet May can't wait for the chance to use it.
To be fair, it's supposed to be use in the case of things like nuclear war. Not Parliament being fucking useless.
Difficult to see how Remainers like Grieve or Boles can plot to remove her from determining the course of events and they say they have confidence in her Gov.
It's still possible to believe May is once-in-a-lifetime bad, whilst thinking Corbyn is once-in-a-geologic-time-scale bad......
Yep - but I don’t expect May to sit idly by whilst others determine what happens next. Losing the deal will certainly prompt her to react.
That depends on whether you call saying “nothing has changed, and I believe this is the best deal available” reacting.
I think the second of those is a dead cert. if only saying it made it so.....
Starting to push the line that a PM who defies constitutional convention and refuses to resign when she’s manifestly lost the confidence of Parliament is in no position to protest about other deviations from constitutional norms.
She has absolutely no room to manoeuvre if those 5 prove correct which means she is more of a lame duck than she is now. If she doesn’t resign, she has two immediate problems - staving off defeat in a VONC and trying to keep control of the political agenda.
She is certainly in a tight corner. Hence the tidal wave of support for her amongst ordinary decent people. The British people, particularly decent ordinary ones, tend to rally to the cause of someone who is in a tight corner. History is littered with examples of that.
The public understand the stress that Mrs May is under. They are no doubt aware of the copious research which shows that the most unpleasant of all positions in the workplace is that of hapless middle-manager caught between the devil of a capricious and unyielding boss (EU) and the deep blue sea of a bunch of unruly miscreants (MPs) whom one is technically responsible for managing. They can relate to this, ordinary people can, and it breaks their hearts to see their Prime Minister in such a place.
Still, all very well, but it is hard to see the relevance of this to the likely margin of defeat tomorrow. Looks like it is going to be a rather heavy one.
We always admire a plucky loser. Those who admire her still hate her deal according to the polls and there is no domestic policy agenda to bring party unity or electoral popularity.
I am sure May is under a lot of stress but that is because she failed to build support even though she lacks a majority. She only has herself to blame for that.
If she is not going to resign and she is not going to give up her deal, a GE seems the only way for her to proceed, even though she’s already said she’ll resign before the next one.
The DUP have just said that they will support the government in any vnoc and expect the PM to return to Brussels to address the backstop. They clearly stated the PM is a matter for the party
Leave voting conservative mps have confirmed the party will vote 100% for the government and that the leadership of the party leader was resolved recently.
It does look as if any attempt by Corbyn to vnoc will lose and then he is going to come under huge pressure to decide on a second referendum. Indeed he may hold over the vnoc because he would be compromised
Starting to push the line that a PM who defies constitutional convention and refuses to resign when she’s manifestly lost the confidence of Parliament is in no position to protest about other deviations from constitutional norms.
There’s only one way to test the confidence of the house these days.
If there were really a tidal wave of support for her Mps would not be so implacably opposed. No, more likely people are sympathetic but that's it.
I think there could be more to it than that.
I can't prove this - there is as yet no reliable polling on it - but I sense that the public have started to really focus on the contents of the Withdrawal Treaty now, and in particular the Backstop. I think they might even be reading it.
Assuming there is a political imperative for no border in Ireland, all that the Backstop does is turn that political imperative into a legal commitment - is what is perhaps striking them.
Therefore, if the Backstop is as heinous a problem as is being made out, it implies that the political imperative is not an imperative but merely an aspiration.
And given that the public realize that it IS an imperative, they could be beginning to conclude that much of the bile directed against the Backstop, and thus against the Withdrawal Treaty, is entirely without reasonable justification.
Just a trickle of this line of thinking at the moment, perhaps, but it could soon be a flood.
Unlimited power!!! (except to modify said act and the Human Rights Act)
Yep. I mentioned this delightful piece of Blairite legislation a couple of weeks ago. One if the most pernicious and authoritarian bits of law ever passed in this country. I bet May can't wait for the chance to use it.
To be fair, it's supposed to be use in the case of things like nuclear war. Not Parliament being fucking useless.
True but at the time there were plenty of people complaining that the way it was drafted meant it basically could be used whenever the Government thought they could get away with it.
I don't actually think May would use it but it is certainly not impossible.
Never heard it, never saw anything me...never...even when standing right next to him. Total one off, never happened before. Oh the time I should under a load of hammer and sickle flags, no I didn't seem them either...
And just when some people weren't thinking of him as an absolute c*nt.....
He is far more dangerous than Corbyn. He lies with far more ease.
Corbyn is a slightly odd grandpa thing about him. Mcdonnell is something else entire;y. IF you want to think of the kind of person who would sign the warrant to put dissidents in the Gulags, look at people like him. The means to obtain, and what you have to do to maintain power are not as important as the noble cause you are following.
Both of them think that lies and distortions are acceptable routes to utopia. They are a perfect mirror to those who advocate Brexit
The DUP have just said that they will support the government in any vnoc and expect the PM to return to Brussels to address the backstop. They clearly stated the PM is a matter for the party
She went back to Brussels to address the backstop, and the DUP have totally and utterly rejected May's efforts.
The DUP have made a legitimate and peaceful request for cheese and pineapple on a stick.
Unlimited power!!! (except to modify said act and the Human Rights Act)
Yep. I mentioned this delightful piece of Blairite legislation a couple of weeks ago. One if the most pernicious and authoritarian bits of law ever passed in this country. I bet May can't wait for the chance to use it.
To be fair, it's supposed to be use in the case of things like nuclear war. Not Parliament being fucking useless.
True but at the time there were plenty of people complaining that the way it was drafted meant it basically could be used whenever the Government thought they could get away with it.
I don't actually think May would use it but it is certainly not impossible.
We know there is a civil contingency plan, I would have thought in preference to using this
Comments
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1084819342229991430
nothing new there for most people here - as I can't see why Spain would let us just extend...
I know you all enjoyed my Roman Emperor list for potential 2015 GE results for Cameron (he actually ended up as Trajan, taking a majority despite level-pegging polls for six months, though he didn't end up doing quite so well at the governing bit).
And so, here is Morris Dancer's Roman defeat-o-meter for May's deal (emphasis on the tactical, not strategic, defeat):
Catalaunian Plains - shock victory against the odds - any majority at all for the deal
Teutoberg Forest - majority of 50 against May's deal
Adrianople - majority of 75 against May's deal
Lake Trasimene - majority of 100 against May's deal
Arausio - majority of 125 against May's deal
Carrhae - majority of 150 against May's deal
Cannae - annihilation, woe, doom, despair - majority of 175 against May's deal
Allia - Rome falls - majority of 200+ against May's deal
[NB Caudine Forks may apply if the PM instantly resigns due to the scale of humiliation].
Is the EBRD still in London or have they left the Attali palace?
https://www.brugesgroup.com/quotes/referendum-promises
And the provisions of article 50 are (cough) quite clear....
A personal note of thanks to Gareth Johnson - his timing was impeccable, ensuring the map and table were out of date seconds before publication.
Though since he is MP for Dartford (Leave 64%), he supports my argument perfectly.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f155e22a10c8
Mildly surprised, on checking, at the death toll, but it could easily have figured in the list.
Oh, the number. 400.
On topic, this article from Guto Bebb shows how if it wasn't the Backstop, it would be something else. https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/01/guto-bebb-conservative-mps-opposition-to-this-deal-is-about-far-more-than-just-the-backstop.html?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter
"If there are not significant changes to the withdrawal agreement then I will not support it."
https://www.annemain.com/content/new-year-message-4
"After listening to every single Brexit debate since the agreement was published and speaking to colleagues and government ministers, I decided that I cannot support the deal in its current form and I sincerely hope that reforms are made.
The Northern Irish backstop, as it currently stands, is something I cannot sign up to."
While she does say:
"I will wait and see what, if anything, is brought back from Brussels and presented before parliament ahead of the vote."
I don't see how she could justify changing her mind given what she has already said.
Corbyn’s motivation is surely that he just wants power. He might not win this time around as Mrs T didn’t with Callaghan but as the Tories tear themselves apart, the dripping tap effect might well deliver for him.
I don't know if it's a joke or photoshopped btw
I repent! I repent! I REPENT!
Guess that's that then.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1084834657164820480
Bloody hard to keep up!
The public understand the stress that Mrs May is under. They are no doubt aware of the copious research which shows that the most unpleasant of all positions in the workplace is that of hapless middle-manager caught between the devil of a capricious and unyielding boss (EU) and the deep blue sea of a bunch of unruly miscreants (MPs) whom one is technically responsible for managing. They can relate to this, ordinary people can, and it breaks their hearts to see their Prime Minister in such a place.
Still, all very well, but it is hard to see the relevance of this to the likely margin of defeat tomorrow. Looks like it is going to be a rather heavy one.
oh
Explains a few things.
I am sure May is under a lot of stress but that is because she failed to build support even though she lacks a majority. She only has herself to blame for that.
If she is not going to resign and she is not going to give up her deal, a GE seems the only way for her to proceed, even though she’s already said she’ll resign before the next one.
Hmm. Last time I checked, looking at estimated support, the under 200 band on Betfair was actually quite tempting.
There's 8.2 for that, and 6.4 for the band above, although that's only 200-209.
FEWER!!! FEWER THAN 200 TORIES...
ahem.
Yep - but I don’t expect May to sit idly by whilst others determine what happens next. Losing the deal will certainly prompt her to react.
Be a good way of turning Brexit into an actual Civil War.
Labour has a similar problem, of course.
The only problem is that the party (and its members) might be abolished in opposition as part of our glorious transition to a People’s Republic.
When I think of former conservative mps for Conwy, and especially Lord Wyn Roberts who I chauffered over several campaigns, they would turn in their graves
- wants C & L to believe the V (left) party won't have any influence
- promises V influence (but no agreement)
What could go wrong?
I'm merely saying that some leavers... may... burn.
I am willing to hide one small family of leavers from Grieve's death squads in my loft so I can tell everyone on Twitter how woke and forgiving I am.
They say no. Fine then.
It isn't a terribly serious proposition, but then neither is having Corbyn as PM.
I did read one story, which may or may not be true, that the ERG said they would support her deal notwithstanding the backstop if she committed to stand down as leader by 30th June.
I don’t see how the Tory Party holds together in the longer term - but we may an election before then.
Oh wait...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/14/labour-referendum-tories-general-election-emily-thornberry
Starting to push the line that a PM who defies constitutional convention and refuses to resign when she’s manifestly lost the confidence of Parliament is in no position to protest about other deviations from constitutional norms.
Leave voting conservative mps have confirmed the party will vote 100% for the government and that the leadership of the party leader was resolved recently.
It does look as if any attempt by Corbyn to vnoc will lose and then he is going to come under huge pressure to decide on a second referendum. Indeed he may hold over the vnoc because he would be compromised
I can't prove this - there is as yet no reliable polling on it - but I sense that the public have started to really focus on the contents of the Withdrawal Treaty now, and in particular the Backstop. I think they might even be reading it.
Assuming there is a political imperative for no border in Ireland, all that the Backstop does is turn that political imperative into a legal commitment - is what is perhaps striking them.
Therefore, if the Backstop is as heinous a problem as is being made out, it implies that the political imperative is not an imperative but merely an aspiration.
And given that the public realize that it IS an imperative, they could be beginning to conclude that much of the bile directed against the Backstop, and thus against the Withdrawal Treaty, is entirely without reasonable justification.
Just a trickle of this line of thinking at the moment, perhaps, but it could soon be a flood.
I don't actually think May would use it but it is certainly not impossible.
The DUP have made a legitimate and peaceful request for cheese and pineapple on a stick.