After today, surely May needs a new Chief Whip and Leader of the House? Together they tried every underhanded trick they had at their disposal to stop this catastrophic defeat happening, and they failed.
To be fair, it might well be in the Tories' political interests for an Article 50 extension to be forced on them by Parliament, rather than them initiating it.
I only ever see the occasional clip of the House on social media.
I think there would be an audience for a weekly round up, well-edited, but free of commentary and voiceover, featuring the most interesting contributions in the Commons, the Lords, and in public speeches. Not in a satirical or trivial way but genuinely aiming to create an ongoing narrative of our political scene.
Except that they have said they are in favour of remaining within the CU, and almost all of their MPs are not sympathetic to hard brexit. Therefore the will of the people is far from clear. When you combine that with the MPs on the Conservative Party that are hostile to Brexit and the other parties including (I hate to have to mention them) the SNP it becomes clear that it is not clear at all. Brexit can't be Brexit, because there is no clear mandate for any one version
The 2016 referendum result does not represent the will of the people. The term is far too grandiose for a 52/48 majority answer to a poorly understood question.
What it represents is what it says on the tin. It is an instruction to parliament to take the UK out of the European Union on the best terms that can in practice by negotiated by the government with the EU27.
Arguing that it means anything more or less than this, from wherever and whoever the argument comes from, is special pleading and wholly without merit.
Birmingham Live reports that Eddie Hughes and Mike Wood will vote in favour of the Deal.
Have you a link? Mike Wood had previously said that he was opposed to the deal and so far as I'm aware Eddie Hughes has played his cards close to his chest.
The 2016 referendum result does not represent the will of the people. The term is far too grandiose for a 52/48 majority answer to a poorly understood question.
What it represents is what it says on the tin. It is an instruction to parliament to take the UK out of the European Union on the best terms that can in practice by negotiated by the government with the EU27.
Arguing that it means anything more or less than this, from wherever and whoever the argument comes from, is special pleading and wholly without merit.
TBH there's little reason now for Tory MPs to vote for the deal even if they think it's on balance the best option, given that it's going down big-time anyway.
If the vote against is 200+, I am really not sure how she is able to kick the can any further. After tonight’s defeat, if she attempts to come back to the House with another deferral, she should be deposed. It would be a form of negligence.
Birmingham Live reports that Eddie Hughes and Mike Wood will vote in favour of the Deal.
Have you a link? Mike Wood had previously said that he was opposed to the deal and so far as I'm aware Eddie Hughes has played his cards close to his chest.
"He tells me that he’s worried about the backstop but he’s more concerned about the prospect of Brexit not being delivered, and that’s why he expects to vote for Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement."
Except that they have said they are in favour of remaining within the CU, and almost all of their MPs are not sympathetic to hard brexit. Therefore the will of the people is far from clear. When you combine that with the MPs on the Conservative Party that are hostile to Brexit and the other parties including (I hate to have to mention them) the SNP it becomes clear that it is not clear at all. Brexit can't be Brexit, because there is no clear mandate for any one version
The 2016 referendum result does not represent the will of the people. The term is far too grandiose for a 52/48 majority answer to a poorly understood question.
What it represents is what it says on the tin. It is an instruction to parliament to take the UK out of the European Union on the best terms that can in practice by negotiated by the government with the EU27.
Arguing that it means anything more or less than this, from wherever and whoever the argument comes from, is special pleading and wholly without merit.
Unfortunately many of them are arguing for more than this. Even Theresa May played to the gallery when she thought it would curry favour with the headbangers.
TBH there's little reason now for Tory MPs to vote for the deal even if they think it's on balance the best option, given that it's going down big-time anyway.
Safety in numbers, etc. The Whip's Office's job has always been to convince waverers that the result was going to be close so that herd mentality flips waverers to Yes rather than No. But it seems they never came close to being able to do that, beyond a few vague and hard to believe briefings over christmas that the "mood was changing" and "the DUP were coming round".
The 2016 referendum result does not represent the will of the people. The term is far too grandiose for a 52/48 majority answer to a poorly understood question.
What it represents is what it says on the tin. It is an instruction to parliament to take the UK out of the European Union on the best terms that can in practice by negotiated by the government with the EU27.
Arguing that it means anything more or less than this, from wherever and whoever the argument comes from, is special pleading and wholly without merit.
The 2016 referendum result does not represent the will of the people. The term is far too grandiose for a 52/48 majority answer to a poorly understood question.
What it represents is what it says on the tin. It is an instruction to parliament to take the UK out of the European Union on the best terms that can in practice by negotiated by the government with the EU27.
Arguing that it means anything more or less than this, from wherever and whoever the argument comes from, is special pleading and wholly without merit.
Birmingham Live reports that Eddie Hughes and Mike Wood will vote in favour of the Deal.
Have you a link? Mike Wood had previously said that he was opposed to the deal and so far as I'm aware Eddie Hughes has played his cards close to his chest.
TBH there's little reason now for Tory MPs to vote for the deal even if they think it's on balance the best option, given that it's going down big-time anyway.
Safety in numbers, etc. The Whip's Office's job has always been to convince waverers that the result was going to be close so that herd mentality flips waverers to Yes rather than No. But it seems they never came close to being able to do that, beyond a few vague and hard to believe briefings over christmas that the "mood was changing" and "the DUP were coming round".
Another destructive dynamic is that the Tory leadership race has started already. Any senior Tory who harbours leadership ambitions is sending stage whispers to the headbangers that No Deal really wouldn’t be so bad.
If the vote against is 200+, I am really not sure how she is able to kick the can any further. After tonight’s defeat, if she attempts to come back to the House with another deferral, she should be deposed. It would be a form of negligence.
*How* exactly, is the PM supposed to take No Deal off the table?
Brexit is legislated for in UK law, and is set to take place in EU law. Only two things can prevent that and one can defer it.
A deferral requires the consent of the EU27, which may not be forthcoming. The PM can ask, but cannot unilaterally implement an A50 extension.
Revoking A50 would take No Deal off the table but it's far from clear whether the government has the power to do so unilaterally under UK law, given that the Notification Act only authorised the government to invoke A50, not to revoke it. (There is an argument that the government could revoke on executive authority, as revoking is simply retaining the status quo and not overriding existing legislation, however it would certainly override the spirit of the Notification Act and is at least a grey area). In any case, revoking A50 probably isn't politically possible for the PM.
And the only other way out is for the deal the PM has negotiated to be ratified by parliament, which again - very obviously - isn't within the PM's power alone.
So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?
Birmingham Live reports that Eddie Hughes and Mike Wood will vote in favour of the Deal.
Have you a link? Mike Wood had previously said that he was opposed to the deal and so far as I'm aware Eddie Hughes has played his cards close to his chest.
If the vote against is 200+, I am really not sure how she is able to kick the can any further. After tonight’s defeat, if she attempts to come back to the House with another deferral, she should be deposed. It would be a form of negligence.
*How* exactly, is the PM supposed to take No Deal off the table?
Brexit is legislated for in UK law, and is set to take place in EU law. Only two things can prevent that and one can defer it.
A deferral requires the consent of the EU27, which may not be forthcoming. The PM can ask, but cannot unilaterally implement an A50 extension.
Revoking A50 would take No Deal off the table but it's far from clear whether the government has the power to do so unilaterally under UK law, given that the Notification Act only authorised the government to invoke A50, not to revoke it. (There is an argument that the government could revoke on executive authority, as revoking is simply retaining the status quo and not overriding existing legislation, however it would certainly override the spirit of the Notification Act and is at least a grey area). In any case, revoking A50 probably isn't politically possible for the PM.
And the only other way out is for the deal the PM has negotiated to be ratified by parliament, which again - very obviously - isn't within the PM's power alone.
So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?
I think Lucy Powell's proposal to reach across the house is sensible actually - better than no deal or no Brexit nonsense perpetuated by plenty of others.
With the DUP and ERG's wishes clearly incompatible to an agreement with the EU it is an avenue worth persuing.
How many Labour backbenchers can she bring along ?
10 maybe. Labour want a general election. They don't want to reach agreement with the government.
The professional commentariat have been STUNNED to find this large group of Labour MPs they promised would be willing to commit career suicide to rush to the defence of a doomed Tory prime has utterly failed to materialise.
Tells you all you need to know about how little the professional commentariat understand about anything.
NPXMP called it a long time ago as up to six would vote for the deal. I see no reason to think that is underestimating the number.
For now, yes.
Question is: what do they do once all the other options have left the table and only Deal and No Deal remain?
Why do you think the "Extending Article 50" option will leave the table?
I don't think the EU27 will agree to an extension just to enable the UK to keep bickering (though I think they would keep open the option of agreeing the Deal even after 29/3).
An A50 extension is highly likely if parliament has already ratified, as it'll be needed to tidy up the legislative loose ends. I think the EU would accept that because there's a clear end point in sight then.
Birmingham Live reports that Eddie Hughes and Mike Wood will vote in favour of the Deal.
Have you a link? Mike Wood had previously said that he was opposed to the deal and so far as I'm aware Eddie Hughes has played his cards close to his chest.
So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?
It's a good question, but one better directed at the Labour, LibDem and SNP MPs who are adamant that they don't want No Deal but are voting against a deal.
So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?
It's a good question, but one better directed at the Labour, LibDem and SNP MPs who are adamant that they don't want No Deal but are voting against a deal.
Labour don't want no deal, but they also don't want to help the Tories. And they don't want that more.
At the next GE, the party forming a government could be elected with around 40% of the votes cast. When was the last time that the government was elected with more than 50% of the votes cast?
When, if ever. did the elected party get more than 17 million votes?
If the vote against is 200+, I am really not sure how she is able to kick the can any further. After tonight’s defeat, if she attempts to come back to the House with another deferral, she should be deposed. It would be a form of negligence.
*How* exactly, is the PM supposed to take No Deal off the table?
Brexit is legislated for in UK law, and is set to take place in EU law. Only two things can prevent that and one can defer it.
A deferral requires the consent of the EU27, which may not be forthcoming. The PM can ask, but cannot unilaterally implement an A50 extension.
Revoking A50 would take No Deal off the table but it's far from clear whether the government has the power to do so unilaterally under UK law, given that the Notification Act only authorised the government to invoke A50, not to revoke it. (There is an argument that the government could revoke on executive authority, as revoking is simply retaining the status quo and not overriding existing legislation, however it would certainly override the spirit of the Notification Act and is at least a grey area). In any case, revoking A50 probably isn't politically possible for the PM.
And the only other way out is for the deal the PM has negotiated to be ratified by parliament, which again - very obviously - isn't within the PM's power alone.
So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?
They haven't thought about that.
I think we are talking in the context of a Plan B. May would be derelict in my view not to rule out a No Deal in my opinion, at first rhetorically and then by seeking an amendment to the bill (Corbyn or Norway or ref or a combination) which might gain a majority in Parliament.
She cannot let the ERGers hold the country to ransom, and her grave responsibility is to pursue a path likely to command the support of both parliament and the people.
I think Lucy Powell's proposal to reach across the house is sensible actually - better than no deal or no Brexit nonsense perpetuated by plenty of others.
With the DUP and ERG's wishes clearly incompatible to an agreement with the EU it is an avenue worth persuing.
How many Labour backbenchers can she bring along ?
10 maybe. Labour want a general election. They don't want to reach agreement with the government.
The professional commentariat have been STUNNED to find this large group of Labour MPs they promised would be willing to commit career suicide to rush to the defence of a doomed Tory prime has utterly failed to materialise.
Tells you all you need to know about how little the professional commentariat understand about anything.
NPXMP called it a long time ago as up to six would vote for the deal. I see no reason to think that is underestimating the number.
For now, yes.
Question is: what do they do once all the other options have left the table and only Deal and No Deal remain?
Why do you think the "Extending Article 50" option will leave the table?
I don't think the EU27 will agree to an extension just to enable the UK to keep bickering (though I think they would keep open the option of agreeing the Deal even after 29/3).
An A50 extension is highly likely if parliament has already ratified, as it'll be needed to tidy up the legislative loose ends. I think the EU would accept that because there's a clear end point in sight then.
If they refuse an A50 extension, then we revoke A50 altogether while reserving the right to re-invoke in future, our right to do so having been confirmed by the ECJ.
Corbyn and Starmer have already indicated this is the stance they'll take if/when the no confidence motion fails.
The 2016 referendum result does not represent the will of the people. The term is far too grandiose for a 52/48 majority answer to a poorly understood question.
What it represents is what it says on the tin. It is an instruction to parliament to take the UK out of the European Union on the best terms that can in practice by negotiated by the government with the EU27.
Arguing that it means anything more or less than this, from wherever and whoever the argument comes from, is special pleading and wholly without merit.
At the next GE, the party forming a government could be elected with around 40% of the votes cast. When was the last time that the government was elected with more than 50% of the votes cast?
When, if ever. did the elected party get more than 17 million votes?
Except that they have said they are in favour of remaining within the CU, and almost all of their MPs are not sympathetic to hard brexit. Therefore the will of the people is far from clear. When you combine that with the MPs on the Conservative Party that are hostile to Brexit and the other parties including (I hate to have to mention them) the SNP it becomes clear that it is not clear at all. Brexit can't be Brexit, because there is no clear mandate for any one version
The 2016 referendum result does not represent the will of the people. The term is far too grandiose for a 52/48 majority answer to a poorly understood question.
What it represents is what it says on the tin. It is an instruction to parliament to take the UK out of the European Union on the best terms that can in practice by negotiated by the government with the EU27.
Arguing that it means anything more or less than this, from wherever and whoever the argument comes from, is special pleading and wholly without merit.
I agree that 52/48 is relatively close but in our our FPTP ballot system, that’s good enough. The ballot paper didn’t say anything about terms - it gave a simple choice. A deal was always going to be better than no deal but no deal was not specifically excluded. If May had focussed on trade she wouldn’t be in the position she is - in my view.
There was nothing wrong, per se, with the referendum. What has been a disaster is the failure of our politicians to negotiate with the EU or coalesce around an way to execute the referendum result in a manner that can gain majority approval.
The EU will allow an extension if we agree to run a second referendum (their usual response to votes that don't go their way?, or agree to kick the can out of sight for the foreseeable future. Putting in a legally enforceable end-point will not be allowed.
Hannan's claiming in that thread that he doesn't stand to gain from Brexit, which is the most astonishing lie.
His entire BUSINESS is selling rabid, pig-ignorant and stultifyingly ill-informed bollocks about the EU to gullible cretins. Talking bollocks about Brexit has made Hannan a very wealthy man.
If the vote against is 200+, I am really not sure how she is able to kick the can any further. After tonight’s defeat, if she attempts to come back to the House with another deferral, she should be deposed. It would be a form of negligence.
*How* exactly, is the PM supposed to take No Deal off the table?
Brexit is legislated for in UK law, and is set to take place in EU law. Only two things can prevent that and one can defer it.
A deferral requires the consent of the EU27, which may not be forthcoming. The PM can ask, but cannot unilaterally implement an A50 extension.
Revoking A50 would take No Deal off the table but it's far from clear whether the government has the power to do so unilaterally under UK law, given that the Notification Act only authorised the government to invoke A50, not to revoke it. (There is an argument that the government could revoke on executive authority, as revoking is simply retaining the status quo and not overriding existing legislation, however it would certainly override the spirit of the Notification Act and is at least a grey area). In any case, revoking A50 probably isn't politically possible for the PM.
And the only other way out is for the deal the PM has negotiated to be ratified by parliament, which again - very obviously - isn't within the PM's power alone.
So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?
They haven't thought about that.
I think we are talking in the context of a Plan B. May would be derelict in my view not to rule out a No Deal in my opinion, at first rhetorically and then by seeking an amendment to the bill (Corbyn or Norway or ref or a combination) which might gain a majority in Parliament.
She cannot let the ERGers hold the country to ransom, and her grave responsibility is to pursue a path likely to command the support of both parliament and the people.
Rule out No Deal - and you rule out ANY chance of the EU blinking frst.
Which is why negotaition by House of Commons is stupid. In a commercial negotaition, you have a small team undertaking that negotiation, reporting to the Board (Cabinet). Ultimately the CEO (PM) will carry the can if that fails . But what you can NEVER have is not just every member of the Board giving direction - but every shareholder (MP) too.
If the vote against is 200+, I am really not sure how she is able to kick the can any further. After tonight’s defeat, if she attempts to come back to the House with another deferral, she should be deposed. It would be a form of negligence.
*How* exactly, is the PM supposed to take No Deal off the table?
Brexit is legislated for in UK law, and is set to take place in EU law. Only two things can prevent that and one can defer it.
A deferral requires the consent of the EU27, which may not be forthcoming. The PM can ask, but cannot unilaterally implement an A50 extension.
Revoking A50 would take No Deal off the table but it's far from clear whether the government has the power to do so unilaterally under UK law, given that the Notification Act only authorised the government to invoke A50, not to revoke it. (There is an argument that the government could revoke on executive authority, as revoking is simply retaining the status quo and not overriding existing legislation, however it would certainly override the spirit of the Notification Act and is at least a grey area). In any case, revoking A50 probably isn't politically possible for the PM.
And the only other way out is for the deal the PM has negotiated to be ratified by parliament, which again - very obviously - isn't within the PM's power alone.
So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?
I suppose in theory the government could bring forward a one-line bill requiring Brexit to be revoked if no withdrawal agreement has been ratified by the exit date.
Rule out No Deal - and you rule out ANY chance of the EU blinking frst.
Which is why negotaition by House of Commons is stupid. In a commercial negotaition, you have a small team undertaking that negotiation, reporting to the Board (Cabinet). Ultimately the CEO (PM) will carry the can if that fails . But what you can NEVER have is not just every member of the Board giving direction - but every shareholder (MP) too.
In a commercial negotiation, the negotiators are given a clear set of objectives and constraints. Our negotiators have no clue what the end position is because our government has no clue.
The last two years have been a total waste of everyone's time. Whatever we settle on will be caused by force of circumstance rather than achieving what we wanted.
Rule out No Deal - and you rule out ANY chance of the EU blinking frst.
Which is why negotaition by House of Commons is stupid. In a commercial negotaition, you have a small team undertaking that negotiation, reporting to the Board (Cabinet). Ultimately the CEO (PM) will carry the can if that fails . But what you can NEVER have is not just every member of the Board giving direction - but every shareholder (MP) too.
In a commercial negotiation, the negotiators are given a clear set of objectives and constraints. Our negotiators have no clue what the end position is because our government has no clue.
The last two years have been a total waste of everyone's time. Whatever we settle on will be caused by force of circumstance rather than achieving what we wanted.
The end position is immaterial, the EU are refusing to negotiate on that until we are a third party.
Loud, shouty men do not impress me, nor do I take the amount of bombast they can convey as an indication of their dependability.
Sadly, vast numbers of mostly white, male Tories do not agree with us. Hence people being deeply impressed with Cox despite the fact that he's parroting the same shit as May's been feeding us for 18 months.
We are societally programmed to defer to people like Cox, and they are societally programmed to believe they deserve that deference.
Fuck that.
Loud shouty left-wing women don't impress me. And hell, there sure are plenty....
I am not a left-winger - unless you are implying that YOU are so far to the right that everyone is a left winger in comparison.
If the vote against is 200+, I am really not sure how she is able to kick the can any further. After tonight’s defeat, if she attempts to come back to the House with another deferral, she should be deposed. It would be a form of negligence.
*How* exactly, is the PM supposed to take No Deal off the table?
Brexit is legislated for in UK law, and is set to take place in EU law. Only two things can prevent that and one can defer it.
A deferral requires the consent of the EU27, which may not be forthcoming. The PM can ask, but cannot unilaterally implement an A50 extension.
Revoking A50 would take No Deal off the table but it's far from clear whether the government has the power to do so unilaterally under UK law, given that the Notification Act only authorised the government to invoke A50, not to revoke it. (There is an argument that the government could revoke on executive authority, as revoking is simply retaining the status quo and not overriding existing legislation, however it would certainly override the spirit of the Notification Act and is at least a grey area). In any case, revoking A50 probably isn't politically possible for the PM.
And the only other way out is for the deal the PM has negotiated to be ratified by parliament, which again - very obviously - isn't within the PM's power alone.
So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?
I suppose in theory the government could bring forward a one-line bill requiring Brexit to be revoked if no withdrawal agreement has been ratified by the exit date.
Which does nothing but encourage the EU to play silly buggers to encourage revocation.
Does anyone else think it really odd that Mrs May appears not to have told anybody what her next moves will be?
Cabinet seem to be completely in the dark.
That is almost certainly the case. I remember Sir Pat Mcloughlin (Party chair) categorically ruling out a General Election at an audience of the true blue faithful shortly before she called one.
Except that they have said they are in favour of remaining within the CU, and almost all of their MPs are not sympathetic to hard brexit. Therefore the will of the people is far from clear. When you combine that with the MPs on the Conservative Party that are hostile to Brexit and the other parties including (I hate to have to mention them) the SNP it becomes clear that it is not clear at all. Brexit can't be Brexit, because there is no clear mandate for any one version
The 2016 referendum result does not represent the will of the people. The term is far too grandiose for a 52/48 majority answer to a poorly understood question.
What it represents is what it says on the tin. It is an instruction to parliament to take the UK out of the European Union on the best terms that can in practice by negotiated by the government with the EU27.
Arguing that it means anything more or less than this, from wherever and whoever the argument comes from, is special pleading and wholly without merit.
I agree that 52/48 is relatively close but in our our FPTP ballot system, that’s good enough. The ballot paper didn’t say anything about terms - it gave a simple choice. A deal was always going to be better than no deal but no deal was not specifically excluded. If May had focussed on trade she wouldn’t be in the position she is - in my view.
There was nothing wrong, per se, with the referendum. What has been a disaster is the failure of our politicians to negotiate with the EU or coalesce around an way to execute the referendum result in a manner that can gain majority approval.
This was the Theresa May's "original sin". She treated a once in a generation referendum as a five-yearly general election. A general election it's fine to say sod you to the opposition and not take a scintilla of their demands into account when formulating policy (unless you can't get a majority at the GE!).
But with an epochal referendum, especially a close one, where there is (not expected to be) another vote any time soon, that is not the right approach. It was a fundamental mistake to apply an adversarial winner takes all approach to a far more complex situation.
Today's AG confirmation hearing worth a look for those with money on the Democratic nomination. Three probable contenders amongst the Senators questioning him:
Does anyone else think it really odd that Mrs May appears not to have told anybody what her next moves will be?
Cabinet seem to be completely in the dark.
Well, would you reveal your plans to a Cabinet which immediately leaks confidential discussions?
Of course, Cabinet is deep within leadership election mode and therefore don't have the same ends as her. But May's astonishing secretiveness is frequently cited as one of the things that got her into this hole
At a time where some openness might help win round a few waverers, she's doubling down on being as inscrutable and remote as possible, compounding the error.
If the vote against is 200+, I am really not sure how she is able to kick the can any further. After tonight’s defeat, if she attempts to come back to the House with another deferral, she should be deposed. It would be a form of negligence.
*How* exactly, is the PM supposed to take No Deal off the table?
Brexit is legislated for in UK law, and is set to take place in EU law. Only two things can prevent that and one can defer it.
A deferral requires the consent of the EU27, which may not be forthcoming. The PM can ask, but cannot unilaterally implement an A50 extension.
Revoking A50 would take No Deal off the table but it's far from clear whether the government has the power to do so unilaterally under UK law, given that the Notification Act only authorised the government to invoke A50, not to revoke it. (There is an argument that the government could revoke on executive authority, as revoking is simply retaining the status quo and not overriding existing legislation, however it would certainly override the spirit of the Notification Act and is at least a grey area). In any case, revoking A50 probably isn't politically possible for the PM.
And the only other way out is for the deal the PM has negotiated to be ratified by parliament, which again - very obviously - isn't within the PM's power alone.
So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?
They haven't thought about that.
I think we are talking in the context of a Plan B. May would be derelict in my view not to rule out a No Deal in my opinion, at first rhetorically and then by seeking an amendment to the bill (Corbyn or Norway or ref or a combination) which might gain a majority in Parliament.
She cannot let the ERGers hold the country to ransom, and her grave responsibility is to pursue
Rule out No Deal - and you rule out ANY chance of the EU blinking frst.
Which is why negotaition by House of Commons is stupid. In a commercial negotaition, you have a small team undertaking that negotiation, reporting to the Board (Cabinet). Ultimately the CEO (PM) will carry the can if that fails . But what you can NEVER have is not just every member of the Board giving direction - but every shareholder (MP) too.
Are you still peddling this crap? To use your analogy the CEO has gone rogue, and the saner members of the Board never wanted a negotiation in the first place.
By openly talking about Plan B being a return of Plan A, are the government trying to maximise their defeat?
It will be interesting to see the reaction of the EU when the Government loses by 200+ votes and yet wins the vote of No Confidence tomorrow lunchtime...
I think the most sensible thing Theresa May could do is hold a series of indicative votes, asking the children whether they want:
- To leave with no deal - To revoke Article 50 - To hold a Revoke vs Deal referendum. - Or whether they'd prefer the deal after all.
Those are the options. It's already ridiculously late to be be arguing about them, they need to choose one.
I think we'd need several goes around the block. Let's go full Papal Conclave: We should just lock all MPs in the Wesrninster Hall on bread and water rations until a winner finally emerges.
Rule out No Deal - and you rule out ANY chance of the EU blinking frst.
Which is why negotaition by House of Commons is stupid. In a commercial negotaition, you have a small team undertaking that negotiation, reporting to the Board (Cabinet). Ultimately the CEO (PM) will carry the can if that fails . But what you can NEVER have is not just every member of the Board giving direction - but every shareholder (MP) too.
In a commercial negotiation, the negotiators are given a clear set of objectives and constraints. Our negotiators have no clue what the end position is because our government has no clue.
The last two years have been a total waste of everyone's time. Whatever we settle on will be caused by force of circumstance rather than achieving what we wanted.
The end position is immaterial, the EU are refusing to negotiate on that until we are a third party.
I was referring to the Withdrawal Agreement. I suspect we also have not got the faintest idea about the next stage either and we will send another bunch of uninformed unfortunates to sit in Brussels to face a well-prepared EU team.
Frankly, I am getting to the point were I am amazed that those in govt can actually manage to write their names without help.
The problem for Mike and others using the GFA to justify the backstop is that they have things the wrong way round.
There is nothing in the GFA at all about the border between NI and Eire. As such a hard border might break the spirit of the GFA (And I think it does) but it does not break the letter of the agreement.
The backstop on the other hand breaks the letter of the GFA. Specifically section 1 iii in so far as it changes the status of NI without the consent of its people.
Now personally I still back the deal but to imply it is in accordance with the GFA is clearly wrong.
Not sure that’s true for trade - that’s why there is all the fuss about the customs union. It would be true for freedom of movement - the Common Travel Area was established in the 1920’s.
By openly talking about Plan B being a return of Plan A, are the government trying to maximise their defeat?
It will be interesting to see the reaction of the EU when the Government loses by 200+ votes and yet wins the vote of No Confidence tomorrow lunchtime...
If Theresa May were going to resign tonight after a crushing defeat, would she have done anything differently? Indeed, the talk about a return of Plan A in due course may be to tee up exactly that - "this is the only option, I have failed to persuade you of that so I need to hand over to someone more persuasive".
I think the most sensible thing Theresa May could do is hold a series of indicative votes, asking the children whether they want:
- To leave with no deal - To revoke Article 50 - To hold a Revoke vs Deal referendum. - Or whether they'd prefer the deal after all.
Those are the options. It's already ridiculously late to be be arguing about them, they need to choose one.
I think we'd need several goes around the block. Let's go full Papal Conclave: We should just lock all MPs in the Wesrninster Hall on bread and water rations until a winner finally emerges.
Bread and water? Naturally attrition would speed up the process somewhat...
Comments
But it's the quiet ones you need to watch out for...
https://twitter.com/Pauline_Latham/status/1085189861533921280
What it represents is what it says on the tin. It is an instruction to parliament to take the UK out of the European Union on the best terms that can in practice by negotiated by the government with the EU27.
Arguing that it means anything more or less than this, from wherever and whoever the argument comes from, is special pleading and wholly without merit.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-country/how-black-country-mps-expected-15530801
https://twitter.com/samcoatestimes/status/1085191455994343425?s=21
Not in the commonly accepted sense.
If the vote against is 200+, I am really not sure how she is able to kick the can any further. After tonight’s defeat, if she attempts to come back to the House with another deferral, she should be deposed. It would be a form of negligence.
Expect more of this.....
Danny boy doesn't seem to have noticed that yet...
Brexit is legislated for in UK law, and is set to take place in EU law. Only two things can prevent that and one can defer it.
A deferral requires the consent of the EU27, which may not be forthcoming. The PM can ask, but cannot unilaterally implement an A50 extension.
Revoking A50 would take No Deal off the table but it's far from clear whether the government has the power to do so unilaterally under UK law, given that the Notification Act only authorised the government to invoke A50, not to revoke it. (There is an argument that the government could revoke on executive authority, as revoking is simply retaining the status quo and not overriding existing legislation, however it would certainly override the spirit of the Notification Act and is at least a grey area). In any case, revoking A50 probably isn't politically possible for the PM.
And the only other way out is for the deal the PM has negotiated to be ratified by parliament, which again - very obviously - isn't within the PM's power alone.
So while it's fine to be against No Deal in principle, how do people like Rudd plan on preventing it in practice?
An A50 extension is highly likely if parliament has already ratified, as it'll be needed to tidy up the legislative loose ends. I think the EU would accept that because there's a clear end point in sight then.
Any moment now...
...
...
...
Any moment...
When, if ever. did the elected party get more than 17 million votes?
What's that? Oh, it's tumbleweed drifting across.
She cannot let the ERGers hold the country to ransom, and her grave responsibility is to pursue a path likely to command the support of both parliament and the people.
Corbyn and Starmer have already indicated this is the stance they'll take if/when the no confidence motion fails.
Abusing that poor old referendum. It's a national sport.
There was nothing wrong, per se, with the referendum. What has been a disaster is the failure of our politicians to negotiate with the EU or coalesce around an way to execute the referendum result in a manner that can gain majority approval.
If I were a Tory Remainer I would seriously consider supporting a VONC if she responds with “Nothing has Changed”.
His entire BUSINESS is selling rabid, pig-ignorant and stultifyingly ill-informed bollocks about the EU to gullible cretins. Talking bollocks about Brexit has made Hannan a very wealthy man.
Which is why negotaition by House of Commons is stupid. In a commercial negotaition, you have a small team undertaking that negotiation, reporting to the Board (Cabinet). Ultimately the CEO (PM) will carry the can if that fails . But what you can NEVER have is not just every member of the Board giving direction - but every shareholder (MP) too.
639 = 650 - SF(7) - Speaker - Deputy Speakers(3)
I remember hearing that Paul Flynn was sick, but determined to vote, and similarly Naz Shah is said to have delayed a scheduled cesarean.
The last two years have been a total waste of everyone's time. Whatever we settle on will be caused by force of circumstance rather than achieving what we wanted.
Cabinet seem to be completely in the dark.
I expect nothing of substance.
But with an epochal referendum, especially a close one, where there is (not expected to be) another vote any time soon, that is not the right approach. It was a fundamental mistake to apply an adversarial winner takes all approach to a far more complex situation.
- To leave with no deal
- To revoke Article 50
- To hold a Revoke vs Deal referendum.
- Or whether they'd prefer the deal after all.
Those are the options. It's already ridiculously late to be be arguing about them, they need to choose one.
At a time where some openness might help win round a few waverers, she's doubling down on being as inscrutable and remote as possible, compounding the error.
So absolute maximum is 635.
To use your analogy the CEO has gone rogue, and the saner members of the Board never wanted a negotiation in the first place.
Frankly, I am getting to the point were I am amazed that those in govt can actually manage to write their names without help.