That looks like a sensible compromise to me. There is no other deal, and I believe there is a majority for it in the HoC [not to mention the country at large], once one of the other two options is definitively ruled out. Which option, and how to rule it out, is now the million-dollar question.
Adam Boulton was last night discussing the possibility of indicative votes in Parliament to see what options have the broadest support and might show a way forward. It was an interesting idea but the likelihood at the moment is that there is not a majority for anything.
I think when the Plan B vote fails (as it invariably must) then what other choice possibly remains?
May HAS to show the EU what there's a majority for in Parliament before any progress can be made. And there's no majority for ANYTHING right now.
If you can reduce something to two options there must be a majority for one of them.
The easiest way to a deal is to lop bits off May's deal until the ERG and DUP can support it. Far easier than some nonsense that will get Labour to switch sides.
A minimalist 2 year fudge deal with temporary arrangements for ports and trade in return for some UK £ would suffice.
Kick the can down the road - force Berlin to choose between that deal and keeping the Irish happy.
The critical question is whether or not Plan B (ie adding a customs union element to May's deal) will tempt over Lab MPs in Tuesday's vote. May is of course doing all she can to ensure another stonking defeat but maybe sense will out.
It won't. Labour MPs are never going to commit career suicide by helping the Tories deliver Brexit. Irrespective of the fact that adding a permanent customs union to the non-binding political declaration doesn't meet Labour's six tests, it's just never, ever going to happen.
It won't remove the need for a backstop, so the DUP will vote against.
All adding a customs union to her deal will achieve is alienate more of her party who think she's already conceded too much.
May puts her deal+CU to a vote she's going to lose even harder than her previous galactic-scale shellacking.
Of course there is already a customs element to her deal and this is a withdrawal agreement, not the final trade deal so plenty of scope to come up with something better over the next five years. The CU solves the DUP problem as there would be no NI carve out. Of course the ERG would go mad(der) but it is a route to passing.
Now, would as you say, Lab MPs be mad to support anything that May brings forward? Well yes of course. But it is at least a route out of our problems* or some of them.
That looks like a sensible compromise to me. There is no other deal, and I believe there is a majority for it in the HoC [not to mention the country at large], once one of the other two options is definitively ruled out. Which option, and how to rule it out, is now the million-dollar question.
One option does command a big majority.
Blaming one's opponents.
To be fair, I think some of the present opponents of the deal also want to demonstrate that they tried to get [alternative option x] before they will consider voting for the deal as a least-worst option.
For all the criticisms of Corbyn, it is May’s stubborness and inflexibility which are preventing a solution.
Someone needs to take her to one side and say that if one person dies as a result of not having the right medecine after a No Deal Brexit, their blood will be on her hands. No-one can give a guarantee that such a thing won’t happen, though I fervently hope that matters won’t get so bad.
She has to move. She lost the vote. She has to stop acting like a dictator. And if she won’t the Cabinet need to grow a pair and force her out.
The critical question is whether or not Plan B (ie adding a customs union element to May's deal) will tempt over Lab MPs in Tuesday's vote. May is of course doing all she can to ensure another stonking defeat but maybe sense will out.
It won't. Labour MPs are never going to commit career suicide by helping the Tories deliver Brexit. Irrespective of the fact that adding a permanent customs union to the non-binding political declaration doesn't meet Labour's six tests, it's just never, ever going to happen.
It won't remove the need for a backstop, so the DUP will vote against.
All adding a customs union to her deal will achieve is alienate more of her party who think she's already conceded too much.
May puts her deal+CU to a vote she's going to lose even harder than her previous galactic-scale shellacking.
Of course there is already a customs element to her deal and this is a withdrawal agreement, not the final trade deal so plenty of scope to come up with something better over the next five years. The CU solves the DUP problem as there would be no NI carve out. Of course the ERG would go mad(der) but it is a route to passing.
Now, would as you say, Lab MPs be mad to support anything that May brings forward? Well yes of course. But it is at least a route out of our problems* or some of them.
Not the way she is playing it, obvs.
I don't see any way the Tories can go for a CU without putting it in a manifesto in a General Election first. It is 180 degrees counter to what we voted for in 2017.
Only 8 in favour of a second ref? Fewer than DUP 10 + There's the handful of Labour MP's that would be against a second Ref.
So after all this never ending "People's Vote" talk for the past year it's by no means certain there's even a majority for it in the Commons?
Well indeed. That shows to me (though the EU are against it) what remains likely to garner a clear majority is a deal with the EU stripping back/out the backstop and setting the stage for a Canada-style deal in the future.
If that wins over the Canada/Better Deal and No Backstop factions as I suspect it would then that swings immediately 81 votes (162 net change). Almost there then.
If those 81 publicly embraced the deal that would put immense pressure then upon the 18 WTOers that a Canada Brexit is better than risking no Brexit (36 net change). That's a net change of 198, bloody close to being there.
DUP 10 would also switch with that being resolved. 10 more. Net change of 218 - within touching distance.
A few more from all sides wanting this to be over would be enough to get it over the line.
All along the backstop is the issue stopping a deal and risking what the backstop is meant to prevent - a possible future no deal.
Adam Boulton was last night discussing the possibility of indicative votes in Parliament to see what options have the broadest support and might show a way forward. It was an interesting idea but the likelihood at the moment is that there is not a majority for anything.
I think when the Plan B vote fails (as it invariably must) then what other choice possibly remains?
May HAS to show the EU what there's a majority for in Parliament before any progress can be made. And there's no majority for ANYTHING right now.
If you can reduce something to two options there must be a majority for one of them.
That looks like a sensible compromise to me. There is no other deal, and I believe there is a majority for it in the HoC [not to mention the country at large], once one of the other two options is definitively ruled out. Which option, and how to rule it out, is now the million-dollar question.
One option does command a big majority.
Blaming one's opponents.
To be fair, I think some of the present opponents of the deal also want to demonstrate that they tried to get [alternative option x] before they will consider voting for the deal as a least-worst option.
I think it's exactly that. Some of us reached the point a while ago it was the least worst option. Shit, yes - but the least worst option.
The reason I would make Remain narrow favourite is because a fresh referendum would not be Remain v Leave but Remain v A Specific Option. A Specific Option is not as popular as Leave.
Otherwise I agree completely.
I agree.
If the focus of the campaign is on Leave, then I think Leave would win. If the focus is on a specific option, I would expect Remain to win.
My concern would be that if a specific option for Leave won, there would still be relentless guerrilla action against it in Parliament (MPs can say they would honour the result, but it's very easy to rationalise why in practice, you can't honour it).
It would have to be a specific option, surely, or the EU would not agree to the required extension to A50 ?
The only justification for having a second referendum would be in settling the national debate about what to do next. You can't just rerun the last referendum.
The only possible option would be May's Deal vs Remain. The former is leaving, the latter staying. Anything else would cause more confusion than we have today which would be A LOT of confusion.
I'm coming round to the idea. I don't particularly like it - but I can't see many alternatives which I dislike less.
Despite the SNP's Westminster leader Ian Blackford meeting the premier last night, Mrs Sturgeon today pulled the SNP out of the talks, claiming she would not be 'complicit in more time wasting'.
Only 8 in favour of a second ref? Fewer than DUP 10 + There's the handful of Labour MP's that would be against a second Ref.
So after all this never ending "People's Vote" talk for the past year it's by no means certain there's even a majority for it in the Commons?
Well indeed. That shows to me (though the EU are against it) what remains likely to garner a clear majority is a deal with the EU stripping back/out the backstop and setting the stage for a Canada-style deal in the future.
If that wins over the Canada/Better Deal and No Backstop factions as I suspect it would then that swings immediately 81 votes (162 net change). Almost there then.
If those 81 publicly embraced the deal that would put immense pressure then upon the 18 WTOers that a Canada Brexit is better than risking no Brexit (36 net change). That's a net change of 198, bloody close to being there.
DUP 10 would also switch with that being resolved. 10 more. Net change of 218 - within touching distance.
A few more from all sides wanting this to be over would be enough to get it over the line.
All along the backstop is the issue stopping a deal and risking what the backstop is meant to prevent - a possible future no deal.
Correct. And the Uk going to the EU with a deal that can pass is a powerful position.
If the EU says sod off - well then they take the blame.
The easiest way to a deal is to lop bits off May's deal until the ERG and DUP can support it. Far easier than some nonsense that will get Labour to switch sides.
A minimalist 2 year fudge deal with temporary arrangements for ports and trade in return for some UK £ would suffice.
Kick the can down the road - force Berlin to choose between that deal and keeping the Irish happy.
"The easiest deal in the world."
Easiest deal to get through the HOC...
I doubt it. But even so, it would end up being a 'deal' not agreed by one of the two principle parties (the EU).
Adam Boulton was last night discussing the possibility of indicative votes in Parliament to see what options have the broadest support and might show a way forward. It was an interesting idea but the likelihood at the moment is that there is not a majority for anything.
I think when the Plan B vote fails (as it invariably must) then what other choice possibly remains?
May HAS to show the EU what there's a majority for in Parliament before any progress can be made. And there's no majority for ANYTHING right now.
If you can reduce something to two options there must be a majority for one of them.
In a referendum, yes. Not in a parliamentary vote.
Adam Boulton was last night discussing the possibility of indicative votes in Parliament to see what options have the broadest support and might show a way forward. It was an interesting idea but the likelihood at the moment is that there is not a majority for anything.
I can see that just muddying the waters, as just like the public polling I can see contradicting results.
The critical question is whether or not Plan B (ie adding a customs union element to May's deal) will tempt over Lab MPs in Tuesday's vote. May is of course doing all she can to ensure another stonking defeat but maybe sense will out.
It won't. Labour MPs are never going to commit career suicide by helping the Tories deliver Brexit. Irrespective of the fact that adding a permanent customs union to the non-binding political declaration doesn't meet Labour's six tests, it's just never, ever going to happen.
It won't remove the need for a backstop, so the DUP will vote against.
All adding a customs union to her deal will achieve is alienate more of her party who think she's already conceded too much.
May puts her deal+CU to a vote she's going to lose even harder than her previous galactic-scale shellacking.
Of course there is already a customs element to her deal and this is a withdrawal agreement, not the final trade deal so plenty of scope to come up with something better over the next five years. The CU solves the DUP problem as there would be no NI carve out. Of course the ERG would go mad(der) but it is a route to passing.
Now, would as you say, Lab MPs be mad to support anything that May brings forward? Well yes of course. But it is at least a route out of our problems* or some of them.
Not the way she is playing it, obvs.
I don't see any way the Tories can go for a CU without putting it in a manifesto in a General Election first. It is 180 degrees counter to what we voted for in 2017.
It's the Withdrawal Agreement and the backstop. Not the final trade deal.
Only 8 in favour of a second ref? Fewer than DUP 10 + There's the handful of Labour MP's that would be against a second Ref.
So after all this never ending "People's Vote" talk for the past year it's by no means certain there's even a majority for it in the Commons?
Well indeed. That shows to me (though the EU are against it) what remains likely to garner a clear majority is a deal with the EU stripping back/out the backstop and setting the stage for a Canada-style deal in the future.
If that wins over the Canada/Better Deal and No Backstop factions as I suspect it would then that swings immediately 81 votes (162 net change). Almost there then.
If those 81 publicly embraced the deal that would put immense pressure then upon the 18 WTOers that a Canada Brexit is better than risking no Brexit (36 net change). That's a net change of 198, bloody close to being there.
DUP 10 would also switch with that being resolved. 10 more. Net change of 218 - within touching distance.
A few more from all sides wanting this to be over would be enough to get it over the line.
All along the backstop is the issue stopping a deal and risking what the backstop is meant to prevent - a possible future no deal.
Correct. And the Uk going to the EU with a deal that can pass is a powerful position.
If the EU says sod off - well then they take the blame.
Yes if May was smart she would be holding talks with the ERG and DUP finding a phrasing they can back to amend the WA and make that Plan B. Say to Parliament "back this amendment to the Withdrawal Agreement and we will seek it with the EU". Then go to the EU and say your choice, this deal or no deal.
The reason I would make Remain narrow favourite is because a fresh referendum would not be Remain v Leave but Remain v A Specific Option. A Specific Option is not as popular as Leave.
Otherwise I agree completely.
I agree.
If the focus of the campaign is on Leave, then I think Leave would win. If the focus is on a specific option, I would expect Remain to win.
My concern would be that if a specific option for Leave won, there would still be relentless guerrilla action against it in Parliament (MPs can say they would honour the result, but it's very easy to rationalise why in practice, you can't honour it).
It would have to be a specific option, surely, or the EU would not agree to the required extension to A50 ?
The only justification for having a second referendum would be in settling the national debate about what to do next. You can't just rerun the last referendum.
The only possible option would be May's Deal vs Remain. The former is leaving, the latter staying. Anything else would cause more confusion than we have today which would be A LOT of confusion.
I'm coming round to the idea. I don't particularly like it - but I can't see many alternatives which I dislike less.
It's the only way May stands any chance of getting her deal through.
Adam Boulton was last night discussing the possibility of indicative votes in Parliament to see what options have the broadest support and might show a way forward. It was an interesting idea but the likelihood at the moment is that there is not a majority for anything.
I think when the Plan B vote fails (as it invariably must) then what other choice possibly remains?
May HAS to show the EU what there's a majority for in Parliament before any progress can be made. And there's no majority for ANYTHING right now.
If you can reduce something to two options there must be a majority for one of them.
In a referendum, yes. Not in a parliamentary vote.
Even in a Parliamentary vote, if it is absolutely clear what rejection means. We're nowhere near that point yet.
Adam Boulton was last night discussing the possibility of indicative votes in Parliament to see what options have the broadest support and might show a way forward. It was an interesting idea but the likelihood at the moment is that there is not a majority for anything.
I think when the Plan B vote fails (as it invariably must) then what other choice possibly remains?
May HAS to show the EU what there's a majority for in Parliament before any progress can be made. And there's no majority for ANYTHING right now.
If you can reduce something to two options there must be a majority for one of them.
Only 8 in favour of a second ref? Fewer than DUP 10 + There's the handful of Labour MP's that would be against a second Ref.
So after all this never ending "People's Vote" talk for the past year it's by no means certain there's even a majority for it in the Commons?
Well indeed. That shows to me (though the EU are against it) what remains likely to garner a clear majority is a deal with the EU stripping back/out the backstop and setting the stage for a Canada-style deal in the future.
If that wins over the Canada/Better Deal and No Backstop factions as I suspect it would then that swings immediately 81 votes (162 net change). Almost there then.
If those 81 publicly embraced the deal that would put immense pressure then upon the 18 WTOers that a Canada Brexit is better than risking no Brexit (36 net change). That's a net change of 198, bloody close to being there.
DUP 10 would also switch with that being resolved. 10 more. Net change of 218 - within touching distance.
A few more from all sides wanting this to be over would be enough to get it over the line.
All along the backstop is the issue stopping a deal and risking what the backstop is meant to prevent - a possible future no deal.
Correct. And the Uk going to the EU with a deal that can pass is a powerful position.
If the EU says sod off - well then they take the blame.
Yes if May was smart she would be holding talks with the ERG and DUP finding a phrasing they can back to amend the WA and make that Plan B. Say to Parliament "back this amendment to the Withdrawal Agreement and we will seek it with the EU". Then go to the EU and say your choice, this deal or no deal.
1. Parliament wouldn't back it. 2. The EU would say stuff-off.
Gove was quite funny but also rather personally offensive last night. It was almost inviting an Opposition MP to intervene with something on the lines of 'the longer the Rt Hon Gentleman speaks the more obvious it becomes why he was put up for Adoption!'
He's my man for next Con leader, they'd be nuts to go for anyone else IMO, nevertheless I was not impressed by that speech. Tom Watson's was much better. MG's effort lacked gravitas and it came across as phony. It was like watching Bob Dylan straining to get his crowd bopping with a Rick Astley cover. I would imagine that it was anyway. Because of course Bob would never do that. Well, neither should Michael.
Punters, however, disagree. Just checked BF on next tory leader and he has come storming in to clear favourite at 6/1. I'm on at miles better than that so, you know ... smug city.
Corbyn’s no confidence motion didn’t go to plan for him in more ways than one yesterday, while taking beatings from Tory Remainers and even one of his own MPs, Dawn Butler felt the need to tug him off the dispatch box, and back to his seat when he forgot to sit down.
Only 8 in favour of a second ref? Fewer than DUP 10 + There's the handful of Labour MP's that would be against a second Ref.
So after all this never ending "People's Vote" talk for the past year it's by no means certain there's even a majority for it in the Commons?
Well indeed. That shows to me (though the EU are against it) what remains likely to garner a clear majority is a deal with the EU stripping back/out the backstop and setting the stage for a Canada-style deal in the future.
If that wins over the Canada/Better Deal and No Backstop factions as I suspect it would then that swings immediately 81 votes (162 net change). Almost there then.
If those 81 publicly embraced the deal that would put immense pressure then upon the 18 WTOers that a Canada Brexit is better than risking no Brexit (36 net change). That's a net change of 198, bloody close to being there.
DUP 10 would also switch with that being resolved. 10 more. Net change of 218 - within touching distance.
A few more from all sides wanting this to be over would be enough to get it over the line.
All along the backstop is the issue stopping a deal and risking what the backstop is meant to prevent - a possible future no deal.
Correct. And the Uk going to the EU with a deal that can pass is a powerful position.
If the EU says sod off - well then they take the blame.
Yes if May was smart she would be holding talks with the ERG and DUP finding a phrasing they can back to amend the WA and make that Plan B. Say to Parliament "back this amendment to the Withdrawal Agreement and we will seek it with the EU". Then go to the EU and say your choice, this deal or no deal.
1. Parliament wouldn't back it. 2. The EU would say stuff-off.
Why wouldn't Parliament back it?
The EU would struggle to say stuff-off if Parliament had backed it.
The easiest way to a deal is to lop bits off May's deal until the ERG and DUP can support it. Far easier than some nonsense that will get Labour to switch sides.
A minimalist 2 year fudge deal with temporary arrangements for ports and trade in return for some UK £ would suffice.
Kick the can down the road - force Berlin to choose between that deal and keeping the Irish happy.
"The easiest deal in the world."
Easiest deal to get through the HOC...
I doubt it. But even so, it would end up being a 'deal' not agreed by one of the two principle parties (the EU).
Well thats where we are now - a deal acceptable to the EU but not the HoC.
Only 8 in favour of a second ref? Fewer than DUP 10 + There's the handful of Labour MP's that would be against a second Ref.
So after all this never ending "People's Vote" talk for the past year it's by no means certain there's even a majority for it in the Commons?
Well indeed. That shows to me (though the EU are against it) what remains likely to garner a clear majority is a deal with the EU stripping back/out the backstop and setting the stage for a Canada-style deal in the future.
If that wins over the Canada/Better Deal and No Backstop factions as I suspect it would then that swings immediately 81 votes (162 net change). Almost there then.
If those 81 publicly embraced the deal that would put immense pressure then upon the 18 WTOers that a Canada Brexit is better than risking no Brexit (36 net change). That's a net change of 198, bloody close to being there.
DUP 10 would also switch with that being resolved. 10 more. Net change of 218 - within touching distance.
A few more from all sides wanting this to be over would be enough to get it over the line.
All along the backstop is the issue stopping a deal and risking what the backstop is meant to prevent - a possible future no deal.
Correct. And the Uk going to the EU with a deal that can pass is a powerful position.
If the EU says sod off - well then they take the blame.
So if we go to the EU with a proposal that they pay us £39bn instead and they tell us to get lost they take the blame do they?
They are under no obligation to accept any deal. They have offered a deal which was acceptable to the UK government if not the HoC. That meets any obligation they might have under Art 50. We have to accept we have no room for maneuver here. The next stage during the transition may be different but the WA is take it or leave it.
Adam Boulton was last night discussing the possibility of indicative votes in Parliament to see what options have the broadest support and might show a way forward. It was an interesting idea but the likelihood at the moment is that there is not a majority for anything.
I think when the Plan B vote fails (as it invariably must) then what other choice possibly remains?
May HAS to show the EU what there's a majority for in Parliament before any progress can be made. And there's no majority for ANYTHING right now.
If you can reduce something to two options there must be a majority for one of them.
That isn't how Parliament works though. Parliament can only answer Aye or No to each question that is put.
A special Parliamentary procedure would almost certainly need to be convened to allow these indicative votes, the standard division process probably won't cut it.
Gove was quite funny but also rather personally offensive last night. It was almost inviting an Opposition MP to intervene with something on the lines of 'the longer the Rt Hon Gentleman speaks the more obvious it becomes why he was put up for Adoption!'
He's my man for next Con leader, they'd be nuts to go for anyone else IMO, nevertheless I was not impressed by that speech. Tom Watson's was much better. MG's effort lacked gravitas and it came across as phony. It was like watching Bob Dylan straining to get his crowd bopping with a Rick Astley cover. I would imagine that it was anyway. Because of course Bob would never do that. Well, neither should Michael.
Punters, however, disagree. Just checked BF on next tory leader and he has come storming in to clear favourite at 6/1. I'm on at miles better than that so, you know ... smug city.
Still can't see the Tory members electing the Most P****able Face in Politics as next leader.
How the hell do they sell him on the doorsteps? "Vote for Michael Gove as your next Prime Minister because....er.....eek......"
For all the criticisms of Corbyn, it is May’s stubborness and inflexibility which are preventing a solution.
Someone needs to take her to one side and say that if one person dies as a result of not having the right medecine after a No Deal Brexit, their blood will be on her hands. No-one can give a guarantee that such a thing won’t happen, though I fervently hope that matters won’t get so bad.
She has to move. She lost the vote. She has to stop acting like a dictator. And if she won’t the Cabinet need to grow a pair and force her out.
Indeed. She has invited opposition leaders and representatives. Pausing only to draw a series of red lines around what is acceptable for discussion. Seems to be a personality trait.
Adam Boulton was last night discussing the possibility of indicative votes in Parliament to see what options have the broadest support and might show a way forward. It was an interesting idea but the likelihood at the moment is that there is not a majority for anything.
I can see that just muddying the waters, as just like the public polling I can see contradicting results.
As the rather brilliant Matt cartoon highlighted yesterday the object is to get people saying what they are for rather than what they are against.
That’s just delusional. The EU have set out a deal. If we don’t want it, we have no deal. Why anyone would choose that in order to appease a party which is out of step with the majority of voters in its province beats me?
The government is prevaricating. The options are what I set out yesterday not all this sound and fury signifying nothing.
The critical question is whether or not Plan B (ie adding a customs union element to May's deal) will tempt over Lab MPs in Tuesday's vote. May is of course doing all she can to ensure another stonking defeat but maybe sense will out.
It won't. Labour MPs are never going to commit career suicide by helping the Tories deliver Brexit. Irrespective of the fact that adding a permanent customs union to the non-binding political declaration doesn't meet Labour's six tests, it's just never, ever going to happen.
It won't remove the need for a backstop, so the DUP will vote against.
All adding a customs union to her deal will achieve is alienate more of her party who think she's already conceded too much.
May puts her deal+CU to a vote she's going to lose even harder than her previous galactic-scale shellacking.
Of course there is already a customs element to her deal and this is a withdrawal agreement, not the final trade deal so plenty of scope to come up with something better over the next five years. The CU solves the DUP problem as there would be no NI carve out. Of course the ERG would go mad(der) but it is a route to passing.
Now, would as you say, Lab MPs be mad to support anything that May brings forward? Well yes of course. But it is at least a route out of our problems* or some of them.
Not the way she is playing it, obvs.
I don't see any way the Tories can go for a CU without putting it in a manifesto in a General Election first. It is 180 degrees counter to what we voted for in 2017.
It's the Withdrawal Agreement and the backstop. Not the final trade deal.
Gove was quite funny but also rather personally offensive last night. It was almost inviting an Opposition MP to intervene with something on the lines of 'the longer the Rt Hon Gentleman speaks the more obvious it becomes why he was put up for Adoption!'
He's my man for next Con leader, they'd be nuts to go for anyone else IMO, nevertheless I was not impressed by that speech. Tom Watson's was much better. MG's effort lacked gravitas and it came across as phony. It was like watching Bob Dylan straining to get his crowd bopping with a Rick Astley cover. I would imagine that it was anyway. Because of course Bob would never do that. Well, neither should Michael.
Punters, however, disagree. Just checked BF on next tory leader and he has come storming in to clear favourite at 6/1. I'm on at miles better than that so, you know ... smug city.
Still can't see the Tory members electing the Most P****able Face in Politics as next leader.
How the hell do they sell him on the doorsteps? "Vote for Michael Gove as your next Prime Minister because....er.....eek......"
In my case it would be let's talk about the GCSEs we are saddled with for the next 10 years.... Now I like the Gove and he probably is the only person who is bright enough to get us out of this mess but he has too much baggage and isn't a person who can be sold to the general public.
Only 8 in favour of a second ref? Fewer than DUP 10 + There's the handful of Labour MP's that would be against a second Ref.
So after all this never ending "People's Vote" talk for the past year it's by no means certain there's even a majority for it in the Commons?
Well indeed. That shows to me (though the EU are against it) what remains likely to garner a clear majority is a deal with the EU stripping back/out the backstop and setting the stage for a Canada-style deal in the future.
If that wins over the Canada/Better Deal and No Backstop factions as I suspect it would then that swings immediately 81 votes (162 net change). Almost there then.
If those 81 publicly embraced the deal that would put immense pressure then upon the 18 WTOers that a Canada Brexit is better than risking no Brexit (36 net change). That's a net change of 198, bloody close to being there.
DUP 10 would also switch with that being resolved. 10 more. Net change of 218 - within touching distance.
A few more from all sides wanting this to be over would be enough to get it over the line.
All along the backstop is the issue stopping a deal and risking what the backstop is meant to prevent - a possible future no deal.
Correct. And the Uk going to the EU with a deal that can pass is a powerful position.
If the EU says sod off - well then they take the blame.
Yes if May was smart she would be holding talks with the ERG and DUP finding a phrasing they can back to amend the WA and make that Plan B. Say to Parliament "back this amendment to the Withdrawal Agreement and we will seek it with the EU". Then go to the EU and say your choice, this deal or no deal.
1. Parliament wouldn't back it. 2. The EU would say stuff-off.
Why wouldn't Parliament back it?
The EU would struggle to say stuff-off if Parliament had backed it.
Two reasons:
1. There are some in the ERG who want a clean break, no payments, no transition, No Deal. Nothing May could ever offer will satisfy them. 2. There are Tory Remainers who would not back an amended WA that risks the EU saying 'Non' with the consequent No Deal.
For all the criticisms of Corbyn, it is May’s stubborness and inflexibility which are preventing a solution.
Someone needs to take her to one side and say that if one person dies as a result of not having the right medecine after a No Deal Brexit, their blood will be on her hands. No-one can give a guarantee that such a thing won’t happen, though I fervently hope that matters won’t get so bad.
She has to move. She lost the vote. She has to stop acting like a dictator. And if she won’t the Cabinet need to grow a pair and force her out.
Indeed. She has invited opposition leaders and representatives. Pausing only to draw a series of red lines around what is acceptable for discussion. Seems to be a personality trait.
Her behaviour, her personality traits are now actively dangerous to the country.
That’s just delusional. The EU have set out a deal. If we don’t want it, we have no deal. Why anyone would choose that in order to appease a party which is out of step with the majority of voters in its province beats me?
The government is prevaricating. The options are what I set out yesterday not all this sound and fury signifying nothing.
Does anyone have an estimate of the date at which a sense of urgency will kick in among politicians?
This is another problem. May was relying on ' TARP 2 ' after a market event following the MV defeat. But the scale of the defeat was such that the markets are pricing in extension not the cliff edge. Something else that's gone wrong.
That’s just delusional. The EU have set out a deal. If we don’t want it, we have no deal. Why anyone would choose that in order to appease a party which is out of step with the majority of voters in its province beats me?
The government is prevaricating. The options are what I set out yesterday not all this sound and fury signifying nothing.
That’s just delusional. The EU have set out a deal. If we don’t want it, we have no deal. Why anyone would choose that in order to appease a party which is out of step with the majority of voters in its province beats me?
The government is prevaricating. The options are what I set out yesterday not all this sound and fury signifying nothing.
Not quite true, If we don't want it, there is no deal - we can either crash out via No Deal or Revoke and work out WTF we want to do and then try again.
Personally I would be looking at doing the latter but with this bunch of idiot - who knows where we will end up. January 29/30th is going to be fun...
Only 8 in favour of a second ref? Fewer than DUP 10 + There's the handful of Labour MP's that would be against a second Ref.
So after all this never ending "People's Vote" talk for the past year it's by no means certain there's even a majority for it in the Commons?
Well indeed. That shows to me (though the EU are against it) what remains likely to garner a clear majority is a deal with the EU stripping back/out the backstop and setting the stage for a Canada-style deal in the future.
If that wins over the Canada/Better Deal and No Backstop factions as I suspect it would then that swings immediately 81 votes (162 net change). Almost there then.
If those 81 publicly embraced the deal that would put immense pressure then upon the 18 WTOers that a Canada Brexit is better than risking no Brexit (36 net change). That's a net change of 198, bloody close to being there.
DUP 10 would also switch with that being resolved. 10 more. Net change of 218 - within touching distance.
A few more from all sides wanting this to be over would be enough to get it over the line.
All along the backstop is the issue stopping a deal and risking what the backstop is meant to prevent - a possible future no deal.
Correct. And the Uk going to the EU with a deal that can pass is a powerful position.
If the EU says sod off - well then they take the blame.
Yes if May was smart she would be holding talks with the ERG and DUP finding a phrasing they can back to amend the WA and make that Plan B. Say to Parliament "back this amendment to the Withdrawal Agreement and we will seek it with the EU". Then go to the EU and say your choice, this deal or no deal.
1. Parliament wouldn't back it. 2. The EU would say stuff-off.
Why wouldn't Parliament back it?
The EU would struggle to say stuff-off if Parliament had backed it.
The only thing they'd struggle with is not using a ruder word than "stuff".
Yet more evidence what a bad idea referendums are. They never seem to resolve anything.
To be fair to referendums the current pickle is mostly a result of Cameron's twattery. Normally governments call them on things they want to do, and it does help them do them, and it's clear who takes responsibility if they go wrong. It took a special kind of Etonian genius to call a referendum on something he wished people would STFU about.
If Rory Stewart still hasn't yet figured out why people are opposed to May's deal, despite being usually surrounded by 400+ MPs he could have asked at any time if the thought had only occurred to him, he must be astonishingly, astronomically thick.
They've told you a million times. They hate the backstop and would rather crash out with No Deal than agree to it.
It's not those MPs he's talking about. In the interview he says c. 80 for No Deal, maybe 180 for a 2nd ref, so c. 400 in favour of some sort of Deal. Only 200 of those voted for this Deal.
Adam Boulton was last night discussing the possibility of indicative votes in Parliament to see what options have the broadest support and might show a way forward. It was an interesting idea but the likelihood at the moment is that there is not a majority for anything.
I actually think the Plaid Cymru proposal is the best. This would involve a cross-party group agreeing what the options with any support are, that are known to be achievable. (e.g. apply for A50 extension to negotiate a customs union staying outside the single market) Then put them to the vote in an exhaustive ballot, similar to the Tory MP leadership votes. Crucially, this eliminates any 'no' or 'against' option - you vote for what you support. Then eliminate options with the least support and repeat with the narrower field. You guarantee a majority at the end. If you don't like any of the remaining options you can't be forced to vote - but you are then abstaining.
I think some way of forcing choices without simply allowing people to be against anything, is what is needed.
And just imagine the AV threads that would give us.
Yet more evidence what a bad idea referendums are. They never seem to resolve anything.
To be fair to referendums the current pickle is mostly a result of Cameron's twattery. Normally governments call them on things they want to do, and it does help them do them, and it's clear who takes responsibility if they go wrong. It took a special kind of Etonian genius to call a referendum on something he wished people would STFU about.
He wanted to be able to say STFU, you've had your chance. The outcome was, from his perspective, somewhat sub-optimal.
Gove was quite funny but also rather personally offensive last night. It was almost inviting an Opposition MP to intervene with something on the lines of 'the longer the Rt Hon Gentleman speaks the more obvious it becomes why he was put up for Adoption!'
He's my man for next Con leader, they'd be nuts to go for anyone else IMO, nevertheless I was not impressed by that speech. Tom Watson's was much better. MG's effort lacked gravitas and it came across as phony. It was like watching Bob Dylan straining to get his crowd bopping with a Rick Astley cover. I would imagine that it was anyway. Because of course Bob would never do that. Well, neither should Michael.
Punters, however, disagree. Just checked BF on next tory leader and he has come storming in to clear favourite at 6/1. I'm on at miles better than that so, you know ... smug city.
Still can't see the Tory members electing the Most P****able Face in Politics as next leader.
How the hell do they sell him on the doorsteps? "Vote for Michael Gove as your next Prime Minister because....er.....eek......"
In my case it would be let's talk about the GCSEs we are saddled with for the next 10 years.... Now I like the Gove and he probably is the only person who is bright enough to get us out of this mess but he has too much baggage and isn't a person who can be sold to the general public.
Yet more evidence what a bad idea referendums are. They never seem to resolve anything.
To be fair to referendums the current pickle is mostly a result of Cameron's twattery. Normally governments call them on things they want to do, and it does help them do them, and it's clear who takes responsibility if they go wrong. It took a special kind of Etonian genius to call a referendum on something he wished people would STFU about.
He wanted to be able to say STFU, you've had your chance. The outcome was, from his perspective, somewhat sub-optimal.
Gove was quite funny but also rather personally offensive last night. It was almost inviting an Opposition MP to intervene with something on the lines of 'the longer the Rt Hon Gentleman speaks the more obvious it becomes why he was put up for Adoption!'
He's my man for next Con leader, they'd be nuts to go for anyone else IMO, nevertheless I was not impressed by that speech. Tom Watson's was much better. MG's effort lacked gravitas and it came across as phony. It was like watching Bob Dylan straining to get his crowd bopping with a Rick Astley cover. I would imagine that it was anyway. Because of course Bob would never do that. Well, neither should Michael.
Punters, however, disagree. Just checked BF on next tory leader and he has come storming in to clear favourite at 6/1. I'm on at miles better than that so, you know ... smug city.
Still can't see the Tory members electing the Most P****able Face in Politics as next leader.
How the hell do they sell him on the doorsteps? "Vote for Michael Gove as your next Prime Minister because....er.....eek......"
In my case it would be let's talk about the GCSEs we are saddled with for the next 10 years.... Now I like the Gove and he probably is the only person who is bright enough to get us out of this mess but he has too much baggage and isn't a person who can be sold to the general public.
That’s just delusional. The EU have set out a deal. If we don’t want it, we have no deal. Why anyone would choose that in order to appease a party which is out of step with the majority of voters in its province beats me?
The government is prevaricating. The options are what I set out yesterday not all this sound and fury signifying nothing.
The lunchtime news live from Downing Street listing and showing all the leaders and mps attending TM meetings, while at the same time highlighting Corbyn's refusal to be there and instead delivering a speech to the party faithful in Hastings, is very poor optics for him to the public at large.
Most seem to be stuck in their own positions and this is evidenced on here this morning
Some view TM addressing the HOC on monday then votes taking place the following monday as can kicking but I do not. As I understand it a week on monday votes will be taken on various options and to organise, publish and circulate these amendments to all mps before that day's debate takes time and is not unreasonable
Furthermore, TM final position can only be resolved following the debate and votes, and for her to listen to all view points, interact with various factions, and then see the bigger picture is what you would expect from any PM in these circumstances
Of course her reputation for not listening ( which is obvious) is now being presumed in her present role but as far as I am concerned I believe she should be given more slack on this and see how it evolves by a week on monday.
I expect her to return to the EU to discuss the backstop, but also expect she may agreee to a short extension to A50 and of course may see mps impose a referendum on the process through the amendments
I may be wrong and am certain many have other views but this is my honest opinion
They've told you a million times. They hate the backstop and would rather crash out with No Deal than agree to it.
It's not those MPs he's talking about. In the interview he says c. 80 for No Deal, maybe 180 for a 2nd ref, so c. 400 in favour of some sort of Deal. Only 200 of those voted for this Deal.
But the 400 could never agree on what sort of deal to accept. They range from those who want SM/CU and full economic integration to those who want little more than managed no deal. And May has made no effort to try to build consensus.
There will not be a deal. Parliament had to choose between no deal crash out and revokation/extension of article 50. And in extremis it will choose the latter.
For all the criticisms of Corbyn, it is May’s stubborness and inflexibility which are preventing a solution.
Someone needs to take her to one side and say that if one person dies as a result of not having the right medecine after a No Deal Brexit, their blood will be on her hands. No-one can give a guarantee that such a thing won’t happen, though I fervently hope that matters won’t get so bad.
She has to move. She lost the vote. She has to stop acting like a dictator. And if she won’t the Cabinet need to grow a pair and force her out.
Indeed. She has invited opposition leaders and representatives. Pausing only to draw a series of red lines around what is acceptable for discussion. Seems to be a personality trait.
Her behaviour, her personality traits are now actively dangerous to the country.
She is obviously completely and medically brainfucked. She needs to go.
The critical question is whether or not Plan B (ie adding a customs union element to May's deal) will tempt over Lab MPs in Tuesday's vote. May is of course doing all she can to ensure another stonking defeat but maybe sense will out.
It won't. Labour MPs are never going to commit career suicide by helping the Tories deliver Brexit. Irrespective of the fact that adding a permanent customs union to the non-binding political declaration doesn't meet Labour's six tests, it's just never, ever going to happen.
It won't remove the need for a backstop, so the DUP will vote against.
All adding a customs union to her deal will achieve is alienate more of her party who think she's already conceded too much.
May puts her deal+CU to a vote she's going to lose even harder than her previous galactic-scale shellacking.
Nothing could ever meet the six tests. They’re unmeetable. That’s the point of them.
That looks like a sensible compromise to me. There is no other deal, and I believe there is a majority for it in the HoC [not to mention the country at large], once one of the other two options is definitively ruled out. Which option, and how to rule it out, is now the million-dollar question.
I was just thinking something along these lines - the indicative votes should merely be on-the-table/off-the-table, with at least two options and all 50% options on the table at all times.
So one could envisage an order based on the number of contingencies needed to enact - 1 is the default, 2-4 need parliamentary work, 5 and above are contingent on the EU and so may collapse as possibilties:
1. No deal without referendum on the table 2. Keep May Deal without referendum on the table (one assumes merely keeping on the table gets somewhat > 202 votes) 3. Revoke without referendum... 4. Variants of the above (e.g. May deal plus Mann amendment etc etc) 5. Seek extension to A50 to hold 3 way referendum, method by further indication. 6. Seek extension to A50 to hold binding Deal Vs No Deal referendum 7. Seek extension to A50 to hold binding referendum with revoke (for me, not remain - revoke is a point in time option) option vs other on the table option. 8. Seek extension to A50 to discuss Norway/CU deal and return to parliament with result for further indication 9. Seek extension to A50 to discuss removal of the backstop and return (if EU reject, this will then come off the table anyway. In fact, MPs may determine this is already off the table)
Repeat until only 2 options are on the table, at least one of which must be implementable without seeking extension.
Btw, is seeking to extend A50 a one shot thing or could we ask multiple times for different reasons?
Corbyn's position is pathetic. May's deal may be ropey but at least she has a plausible position. Disruption may occur with no deal, but that's also a realistic possibility. Remaining throws up significant democratic questions, but it's also a credible turn of events.
Corbyn's position is utter bullshit. If he wants a customs union and to stay in EU regulations, he should grow some balls and come out for staying in.
He doesn't want May's deal. He doesn't want no deal. He doesn't want to remain. He wants vague nonsense that doesn't survive contact with reality.
They've told you a million times. They hate the backstop and would rather crash out with No Deal than agree to it.
It's not those MPs he's talking about. In the interview he says c. 80 for No Deal, maybe 180 for a 2nd ref, so c. 400 in favour of some sort of Deal. Only 200 of those voted for this Deal.
But the 400 could never agree on what sort of deal to accept. They range from those who want SM/CU and full economic integration to those who want little more than managed no deal. And May has made no effort to try to build consensus.
There will not be a deal. Parliament had to choose between no deal crash out and revokation/extension of article 50. And in extremis it will choose the latter.
Macron and others will ask "Why should we extend? To do what? Give you more time to form a circle jerk? Non...."
Comments
Blaming one's opponents.
Now, would as you say, Lab MPs be mad to support anything that May brings forward? Well yes of course. But it is at least a route out of our problems* or some of them.
Not the way she is playing it, obvs.
Someone needs to take her to one side and say that if one person dies as a result of not having the right medecine after a No Deal Brexit, their blood will be on her hands. No-one can give a guarantee that such a thing won’t happen, though I fervently hope that matters won’t get so bad.
She has to move. She lost the vote. She has to stop acting like a dictator. And if she won’t the Cabinet need to grow a pair and force her out.
If that wins over the Canada/Better Deal and No Backstop factions as I suspect it would then that swings immediately 81 votes (162 net change). Almost there then.
If those 81 publicly embraced the deal that would put immense pressure then upon the 18 WTOers that a Canada Brexit is better than risking no Brexit (36 net change). That's a net change of 198, bloody close to being there.
DUP 10 would also switch with that being resolved. 10 more. Net change of 218 - within touching distance.
A few more from all sides wanting this to be over would be enough to get it over the line.
All along the backstop is the issue stopping a deal and risking what the backstop is meant to prevent - a possible future no deal.
I don't particularly like it - but I can't see many alternatives which I dislike less.
https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/1085868521249169409
If the EU says sod off - well then they take the blame.
Not in a parliamentary vote.
2. The EU would say stuff-off.
Punters, however, disagree. Just checked BF on next tory leader and he has come storming in to clear favourite at 6/1. I'm on at miles better than that so, you know ... smug city.
https://order-order.com/2019/01/17/dawn-pulled-jez/
The EU would struggle to say stuff-off if Parliament had backed it.
Worth approaching from the other direction.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/141059/the-vettel-benchmark-leclerc-must-rise-to
While this seems like harsh criticism, it is worth noting that Leclerc's 2019 Ferrari team-mate Sebastian Vettel led the way for both theoretical-best metrics.
Vettel combined his three best sectors in 11 of 21 qualifying sessions, three more than any other driver....
Worth bearing in mind for next season's betting.
They are under no obligation to accept any deal. They have offered a deal which was acceptable to the UK government if not the HoC. That meets any obligation they might have under Art 50. We have to accept we have no room for maneuver here. The next stage during the transition may be different but the WA is take it or leave it.
A special Parliamentary procedure would almost certainly need to be convened to allow these indicative votes, the standard division process probably won't cut it.
How the hell do they sell him on the doorsteps? "Vote for Michael Gove as your next Prime Minister because....er.....eek......"
Seems to be a personality trait.
The government is prevaricating. The options are what I set out yesterday not all this sound and fury signifying nothing.
Which is where we came in.....
Now I like the Gove and he probably is the only person who is bright enough to get us out of this mess but he has too much baggage and isn't a person who can be sold to the general public.
Now Gove as Chancellor....
1. There are some in the ERG who want a clean break, no payments, no transition, No Deal. Nothing May could ever offer will satisfy them.
2. There are Tory Remainers who would not back an amended WA that risks the EU saying 'Non' with the consequent No Deal.
Corbyn is campaigning for the next election and, given how marginal Hastings is, he’s being very canny.
Personally I would be looking at doing the latter but with this bunch of idiot - who knows where we will end up.
January 29/30th is going to be fun...
Reason seems to be completely out of fashion though.
https://twitter.com/TimOBrien/status/1085869856681910272
Too late.
This would involve a cross-party group agreeing what the options with any support are, that are known to be achievable. (e.g. apply for A50 extension to negotiate a customs union staying outside the single market)
Then put them to the vote in an exhaustive ballot, similar to the Tory MP leadership votes.
Crucially, this eliminates any 'no' or 'against' option - you vote for what you support. Then eliminate options with the least support and repeat with the narrower field.
You guarantee a majority at the end. If you don't like any of the remaining options you can't be forced to vote - but you are then abstaining.
I think some way of forcing choices without simply allowing people to be against anything, is what is needed.
And just imagine the AV threads that would give us.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1085866990995210240
The DUP are boxing May in.
The ERG are boxing May in.
Lib Dems and SNP are boxing Corbyn in.
This cross-party consensus building business is going swimmingly.
Most seem to be stuck in their own positions and this is evidenced on here this morning
Some view TM addressing the HOC on monday then votes taking place the following monday as can kicking but I do not. As I understand it a week on monday votes will be taken on various options and to organise, publish and circulate these amendments to all mps before that day's debate takes time and is not unreasonable
Furthermore, TM final position can only be resolved following the debate and votes, and for her to listen to all view points, interact with various factions, and then see the bigger picture is what you would expect from any PM in these circumstances
Of course her reputation for not listening ( which is obvious) is now being presumed in her present role but as far as I am concerned I believe she should be given more slack on this and see how it evolves by a week on monday.
I expect her to return to the EU to discuss the backstop, but also expect she may agreee to a short extension to A50 and of course may see mps impose a referendum on the process through the amendments
I may be wrong and am certain many have other views but this is my honest opinion
There will not be a deal. Parliament had to choose between no deal crash out and revokation/extension of article 50. And in extremis it will choose the latter.
So one could envisage an order based on the number of contingencies needed to enact - 1 is the default, 2-4 need parliamentary work, 5 and above are contingent on the EU and so may collapse as possibilties:
1. No deal without referendum on the table
2. Keep May Deal without referendum on the table (one assumes merely keeping on the table gets somewhat > 202 votes)
3. Revoke without referendum...
4. Variants of the above (e.g. May deal plus Mann amendment etc etc)
5. Seek extension to A50 to hold 3 way referendum, method by further indication.
6. Seek extension to A50 to hold binding Deal Vs No Deal referendum
7. Seek extension to A50 to hold binding referendum with revoke (for me, not remain - revoke is a point in time option) option vs other on the table option.
8. Seek extension to A50 to discuss Norway/CU deal and return to parliament with result for further indication
9. Seek extension to A50 to discuss removal of the backstop and return (if EU reject, this will then come off the table anyway. In fact, MPs may determine this is already off the table)
Repeat until only 2 options are on the table, at least one of which must be implementable without seeking extension.
Btw, is seeking to extend A50 a one shot thing or could we ask multiple times for different reasons?
Corbyn's position is utter bullshit. If he wants a customs union and to stay in EU regulations, he should grow some balls and come out for staying in.
He doesn't want May's deal. He doesn't want no deal. He doesn't want to remain. He wants vague nonsense that doesn't survive contact with reality.