I am really surprised at tonights votes and it would be churlish to deny TM has had a good day
How ? Please explain to me and everyone else how the Prime Minister has had a "good day"?
The Spelman amendment is meaningless and Brady little better. The EU have made their position abundantly clear this evening - the WA is not open for re-negotiation. We know that with some unspecified "changes" (basically getting rid of) the backstop the WA would pass - yes, that's not the WA on offer right now.
All I can see now is the Conservative spin machine getting ready to blame the nasty Europeans when May is sent back from Brussels with a flea in her ear having got the sum total of bugger all.
In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.
Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.
Either way: good.
Rule One: the government is to blame.
Except that "The Governemnt" is our EU overlords*. That's why we will be prepared to suffer No Deal Brexit - to escape their evil clutches..... And blame them for all our subsequent ills. Vindictive bastards that they will be seen to be.
Terrible day for Theresa. The humiliation of grovelling to the EU for a second chance in the fully knowledge that it's already doomed will be agonizing. When will Boris start measuring up the Number Ten curtains?
I am really surprised at tonights votes and it would be churlish to deny TM has had a good day
How ? Please explain to me and everyone else how the Prime Minister has had a "good day"?
The Spelman amendment is meaningless and Brady little better. The EU have made their position abundantly clear this evening - the WA is not open for re-negotiation. We know that with some unspecified "changes" (basically getting rid of) the backstop the WA would pass - yes, that's not the WA on offer right now.
All I can see now is the Conservative spin machine getting ready to blame the nasty Europeans when May is sent back from Brussels with a flea in her ear having got the sum total of bugger all.
You are seeing right in terms of your last para imho.
Mrs May is seen by a sizeable part of the public to have gone above and beyond in trying to get her deal through. It is now the EU that will be seen by many of those people as having rejected that deal not a large part of the parliamentary Conservative party, egged on by an overwhelming part of the membership. She is putting the Conservative party in a position to fight a GE.
Terrible day for Theresa. The humiliation of grovelling to the EU for a second chance in the fully knowledge that it's already doomed will be agonizing. When will Boris start measuring up the Number Ten curtains?
A good day for May actually as Parliament has voted down Grieve's amendment for any alternative Brexit proposals or potentially EU ref2, as well as voting down Cooper's amendment to extend Article 50 while voting for Spelman's amendment rejecting No Deal.
That leaves May's Deal as the only solution still left, if Brady's no backstop amendment is rejected that will prove the best way to avoid No Deal is to back May's Deal as stands
And the Tories split. From here it’s that or No Deal.
They won't split, unless a new centrist party is formed in the event of No Deal comprising the likes of Soubry and Tory Remainers and Umunna and Labour Remainers and the LDs or Brexit is revoked without a referendum, that is not impossible however 17 Tory MPs voted against No Deal but only 3 Labour MPs for No Deal suggesting anything could be on the table if May's Deal continues to be rejected
Commons in student union mode tonight, voting against bad stuff, but not voting to do anything about it.
I think that's very unfair. Aberystwyth Students' Union did pass one good law, back in 1967.
In 1996 they voted to ban KitKats from being sold in the Union’s shop. That takes some beating.
Powdered milk i assume?
Indeed.
My first introduction to petty student politics.
Though banning kitkats from the Union shop is actually more consequential than voting against no-deal in principle, but not for a mechanism to avoid no-deal.
In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.
Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.
Either way: good.
How are the EU being intransigent? It's not their problem our Prime Minister can't get the deal she agreed to through her own Parliament.
No doubt we're going to be subjected to the usual anti-European vitriol from the usual suspects if we leave without a Deal in 60 or so days.
I have some sympathy for the EU position but they are being a bit contradictory by running this line about “oh well the UK needs to tell us what it wants” and as soon as it tells them what it wants they turn around and say “well we’re not going to change anything.”
Just on a point of order. The EU are in unison saying that the Withdrawal agreement cannot be re-opened. Two days ago they were saying that the backstop could only be removed if the UK moved towards accepting a permanent customs union. So which is it?
Early in my career, a seasoned old diplomat told me that you know you have the right compromise when everyone is unhappy. On the other hand, the Devil's Dictionary defines compromise as something grown people agree to despite both knowing it to be wrong.
Wonder which version of compromise this Brexit will turn out to be ...
Just on a point of order. The EU are in unison saying that the Withdrawal agreement cannot be re-opened. Two days ago they were saying that the backstop could only be removed if the UK moved towards accepting a permanent customs union. So which is it?
They never said the backstop could be removed, but Juncker suggested it could be changed back to the EU's original NI-only version before May renegotiated it to be UK-wide.
In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.
Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.
Either way: good.
How are the EU being intransigent? It's not their problem our Prime Minister can't get the deal she agreed to through her own Parliament.
No doubt we're going to be subjected to the usual anti-European vitriol from the usual suspects if we leave without a Deal in 60 or so days.
I have some sympathy for the EU position but they are being a bit contradictory by running this line about “oh well the UK needs to tell us what it wants” and as soon as it tells them what it wants they turn around and say “well we’re not going to change anything.”
The rolling shitshow in Parliament makes it difficult for anyone to credibly claim it's the EU's fault. Not that it will stop the usual morons from trying.
Terrible day for Theresa. The humiliation of grovelling to the EU for a second chance in the fully knowledge that it's already doomed will be agonizing. When will Boris start measuring up the Number Ten curtains?
A good day for May actually as Parliament has voted down Grieve's amendment for any alternative Brexit proposals or potentially EU ref2, as well as voting down Cooper's amendment to extend Article 50 while voting for Spelman's amendment rejecting No Deal.
That leaves May's Deal as the only solution still left, if Brady's no backstop amendment is rejected that will prove the best way to avoid No Deal is to back May's Deal as stands
And the Tories split. From here it’s that or No Deal.
They won't split, unless a new centrist party is formed or Brexit is revoked without a referendum, however 17 Tory MPs voted against No Deal but only 3 Labour MPs for No Deal suggesting anything could be on the table if May's Deal continues to be rejected
They have to split - either formally or, more likely, become two parties in one. It’s that or No Deal.
So Brussels - how is that No Deal Brexit looking down your end of the telescope?
I assume they will deal with it in the same way as they have dealt with every other UK proposal since Cameron's renegotiation: bemusement followed by refusal. Are you expecting something different?
Frankly, yes. Past forms says something will happen in the final 48 hours of dealing with the EU. That needs No Deal still to be on the table - tick. Irish panicking - tick. Other heads of EU countries wondering "is it worth dying in a ditch for the backstop?" - tick.
Having to be anxious when travelling on the tube again - tick
Just on a point of order. The EU are in unison saying that the Withdrawal agreement cannot be re-opened. Two days ago they were saying that the backstop could only be removed if the UK moved towards accepting a permanent customs union. So which is it?
They never said the backstop could be removed, but Juncker suggested it could be changed back to the EU's original NI-only version before May renegotiated it to be UK-wide.
So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.
The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.
The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.
And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.
The Eu should start trolling by offering to remove the backstop in exchange for something even more hateful.
It won't be trolling. It would be the obvious move for any negotiation. Have yet to hear a single specific thing we would be willing to trade for the backstops removal. Has anyone heard a single politician even accept that it would need to be a trade off?
The Eu should start trolling by offering to remove the backstop in exchange for something even more hateful.
It won't be trolling. It would be the obvious move for any negotiation. Have yet to hear a single specific thing we would be willing to trade for the backstops removal. Has anyone heard a single politician even accept that it would need to be a trade off?
Maybe the EU can measure our desire to rid ourselves of the backstop in billions of pounds sterling.
The Eu should start trolling by offering to remove the backstop in exchange for something even more hateful.
It won't be trolling. It would be the obvious move for any negotiation. Have yet to hear a single specific thing we would be willing to trade for the backstops removal. Has anyone heard a single politician even accept that it would need to be a trade off?
Maybe the EU can measure our desire to rid ourselves of the backstop in billions of pounds sterling.
Tbh, if they put a monetary value on it then it's somewhere to start.
So that just puts the timetable back to what it would have been without the previous devious grevious amendment. In 2 weeks we go again with the same question - are we serious about leaving the European Union?
You are seeing right in terms of your last para imho.
Mrs May is seen by a sizeable part of the public to have gone above and beyond in trying to get her deal through. It is now the EU that will be seen by many of those people as having rejected that deal not a large part of the parliamentary Conservative party, egged on by an overwhelming part of the membership. She is putting the Conservative party in a position to fight a GE.
A lot will depend on what comes out of the wash in the next few days as I suspect there are a lot of stories to be told about what has happened and why it has happened.
IF we leave and disruption follows, then I presume you and May will go round the country telling everyone it's all the fault of "Europe" and all would have been fine if the WA had been passed - had it not been for over 100 Conservatives plus the DUP it would have been.
I am really surprised at tonights votes and it would be churlish to deny TM has had a good day
How ? Please explain to me and everyone else how the Prime Minister has had a "good day"?
The Spelman amendment is meaningless and Brady little better. The EU have made their position abundantly clear this evening - the WA is not open for re-negotiation. We know that with some unspecified "changes" (basically getting rid of) the backstop the WA would pass - yes, that's not the WA on offer right now.
All I can see now is the Conservative spin machine getting ready to blame the nasty Europeans when May is sent back from Brussels with a flea in her ear having got the sum total of bugger all.
In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.
Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.
Either way: good.
Rule One: the government is to blame.
Except that "The Governemnt" is our EU overlords*. That's why we will be prepared to suffer No Deal Brexit - to escape their evil clutches..... And blame them for all our subsequent ills. Vindictive bastards that they will be seen to be.
So Brussels - how is that No Deal Brexit looking down your end of the telescope?
I assume they will deal with it in the same way as they have dealt with every other UK proposal since Cameron's renegotiation: bemusement followed by refusal. Are you expecting something different?
Frankly, yes. Past forms says something will happen in the final 48 hours of dealing with the EU. That needs No Deal still to be on the table - tick. Irish panicking - tick. Other heads of EU countries wondering "is it worth dying in a ditch for the backstop?" - tick.
Having to be anxious when travelling on the tube again - tick
Remind me what the terrorist threat level is again?
I wonder if falling over the Brexit cliff edge will be like the US shutdown. Initial resolve and determination simply being overwhelmed by an accumulation of pain that can't be endured any more.
3rd week of April, we sue for peace. What does that even mean? We can't go through an Article 49 application process to rejoin the EU, as we don't have fuel medicine or food to last the weekend. I hope that someone in Brussels has wargamed this very carefully.
So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.
The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.
The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.
And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.
The issue is that - as drafted - the EU gets to decide when we can leave the backstop.
In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.
Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.
Either way: good.
How are the EU being intransigent? It's not their problem our Prime Minister can't get the deal she agreed to through her own Parliament.
No doubt we're going to be subjected to the usual anti-European vitriol from the usual suspects if we leave without a Deal in 60 or so days.
They're being intransigent in that because they have the upper hand they have more scope, politically, to be flexible, rather than insisting on something which might cause the thing they claim the backstop is needed to prevent. If the outcome is a hard brexit anyway what good was their principled stand to have a backstop to prevent a hard border in Ireland?
That said, they are not obliged to give in further, and even if they do it is not certain we'd get it through, since they could quite reasonably ask for a further concession from us in exchange, but the 'it's not their problem' line is still amazingly dumb - it is their problem if we cannot sort shit out, they have the power to influence it and so potentially avoid getting splash damage.
Tusk throwing a wobbly! Tough shit mate, its deal or no deal (although Merkel will tell Tusk exactly what he can and cant do).
They'll no deal. Unfortunate. But they are even more stubborn than we are, even to the point of causing what they claim not to want. Because they could reopen things if they wanted, everyone knows the EU loves last minute fudges. It's a choice not to.Perhaps reasonable, but their reasoning has been pretty weak, especially when they complain about it being agreed. It wasn't agreed by Parliament and they know that.
But at what point will MPs believe the EU? May told them they won't reopen things and they didn't believe it.
Why should we believe it? As you said these fudges always happen at the last minute so why should this time be any different?
So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.
The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.
The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.
And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.
The issue is that - as drafted - the EU gets to decide when we can leave the backstop.
The issue is that - as drafted - the backstop doesn't simply protect the Good Friday Agreement on the island of Ireland, but constrains the whole of the UK. That was May's doing.
Tusk throwing a wobbly! Tough shit mate, its deal or no deal (although Merkel will tell Tusk exactly what he can and cant do).
They'll no deal. Unfortunate. But they are even more stubborn than we are, even to the point of causing what they claim not to want. Because they could reopen things if they wanted, everyone knows the EU loves last minute fudges. It's a choice not to.Perhaps reasonable, but their reasoning has been pretty weak, especially when they complain about it being agreed. It wasn't agreed by Parliament and they know that.
But at what point will MPs believe the EU? May told them they won't reopen things and they didn't believe it.
Why should we believe it? As you said these fudges always happen at the last minute so why should this time be any different?
So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.
The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.
The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.
And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.
The issue is that - as drafted - the EU gets to decide when we can leave the backstop.
Not actually the case. We can choose to stay in the backstop for ever.
So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.
The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.
The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.
And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.
The issue is that - as drafted - the EU gets to decide when we can leave the backstop.
The issue is that - as drafted - the backstop doesn't simply protect the Good Friday Agreement on the island of Ireland, but constrains the whole of the UK. That was May's doing.
It does so to limit the differential between NI and the rest of the UK, which is primarily a Unionist concern because otherwise NI would be more closely aligned with ROI than rUK.
So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.
The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.
The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.
And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.
The issue is that - as drafted - the EU gets to decide when we can leave the backstop.
Not actually the case. We can choose to stay in the backstop for ever.
Good point. As Michael Gove said, we've "got them over a barrel".
If May now gets nothing in terms of changes to the WDA , can we expect Harrington, Rudd et al to resign in two weeks time?
The interesting thing is 17 Tory MPs defied the Government and voted to rule out No Deal, more than counterbalancing the 3 Labour MPs who voted for No Deal and giving a rejection of No Deal an 8 vote majority.
If May gets nothing from the EU as is likely and her Deal fails again there lies your potential majority for permanent Customs Union as the likes of Minister Margot James has suggested as an alternative this week or potentially even a successful VONC in the government and a forced general election as a last resort to stop No Deal
I am really surprised at tonights votes and it would be churlish to deny TM has had a good day
How ? Please explain to me and everyone else how the Prime Minister has had a "good day"?
The Spelman amendment is meaningless and Brady little better. The EU have made their position abundantly clear this evening - the WA is not open for re-negotiation. We know that with some unspecified "changes" (basically getting rid of) the backstop the WA would pass - yes, that's not the WA on offer right now.
All I can see now is the Conservative spin machine getting ready to blame the nasty Europeans when May is sent back from Brussels with a flea in her ear having got the sum total of bugger all.
In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.
Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.
Either way: good.
Rule One: the government is to blame.
Except that "The Governemnt" is our EU overlords*. That's why we will be prepared to suffer No Deal Brexit - to escape their evil clutches..... And blame them for all our subsequent ills. Vindictive bastards that they will be seen to be.
*says Hartlepool Man.
I bet you believe in UFOs as well.
Of course I do. There are hundreds that have been designated as "unidentified".
So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.
The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.
The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.
And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.
The issue is that - as drafted - the EU gets to decide when we can leave the backstop.
I believed it was by both of us agreeing, was it not?
So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.
The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.
The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.
And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.
The issue is that - as drafted - the EU gets to decide when we can leave the backstop.
The issue is that - as drafted - the backstop doesn't simply protect the Good Friday Agreement on the island of Ireland, but constrains the whole of the UK. That was May's doing.
It does so to limit the differential between NI and the rest of the UK, which is primarily a Unionist concern because otherwise NI would be more closely aligned with ROI than rUK.
But the unionists voted against it anyway, which suggests their real concern was imposing divergence between NI and Ireland and sabotaging the Good Friday Agreement.
So Brussels - how is that No Deal Brexit looking down your end of the telescope?
I assume they will deal with it in the same way as they have dealt with every other UK proposal since Cameron's renegotiation: bemusement followed by refusal. Are you expecting something different?
Frankly, yes. Past forms says something will happen in the final 48 hours of dealing with the EU. That needs No Deal still to be on the table - tick. Irish panicking - tick. Other heads of EU countries wondering "is it worth dying in a ditch for the backstop?" - tick.
Having to be anxious when travelling on the tube again - tick
Remind me what the terrorist threat level is again?
Not the highest. We have that to look forward to when the IRA reactivates.
Terrible day for Theresa. The humiliation of grovelling to the EU for a second chance in the fully knowledge that it's already doomed will be agonizing. When will Boris start measuring up the Number Ten curtains?
A good day for May actually as Parliament has voted down Grieve's amendment for any alternative Brexit proposals or potentially EU ref2, as well as voting down Cooper's amendment to extend Article 50 while voting for Spelman's amendment rejecting No Deal.
That leaves May's Deal as the only solution still left, if Brady's no backstop amendment is rejected that will prove the best way to avoid No Deal is to back May's Deal as stands
And the Tories split. From here it’s that or No Deal.
They won't split, unless a new centrist party is formed or Brexit is revoked without a referendum, however 17 Tory MPs voted against No Deal but only 3 Labour MPs for No Deal suggesting anything could be on the table if May's Deal continues to be rejected
They have to split - either formally or, more likely, become two parties in one. It’s that or No Deal.
They may do all they can to stop No Deal, that does not mean they will split.
However if we do go to No Deal a new En Marche style party led by Unumma, Soubry and Moran is possible
If May now gets nothing in terms of changes to the WDA , can we expect Harrington, Rudd et al to resign in two weeks time?
The interesting thing is 17 Tory MPs defied the Government and voted to rule out No Deal, more than counterbalancing the 3 Labour MPs who voted for No Deal and giving a rejection of No Deal an 8 vote majority.
If May gets nothing from the EU as is likely and her Deal fails again there lies your potential majority for permanent Customs Union as the likes of Minister Margot James has suggested as an alternative this week or potentially even a successful VONC in the government and a forced general election as a last resort to stop No Deal
How does a successful VONC and a forced general election stop No Deal??? You can't pass legislation when MPs are no longer MPs once Parliament is prorogued. And only legislation is going to stop No Deal Brexit.....
So Brussels - how is that No Deal Brexit looking down your end of the telescope?
I assume they will deal with it in the same way as they have dealt with every other UK proposal since Cameron's renegotiation: bemusement followed by refusal. Are you expecting something different?
Frankly, yes. Past forms says something will happen in the final 48 hours of dealing with the EU. That needs No Deal still to be on the table - tick. Irish panicking - tick. Other heads of EU countries wondering "is it worth dying in a ditch for the backstop?" - tick.
Having to be anxious when travelling on the tube again - tick
Remind me what the terrorist threat level is again?
Not the highest. We have that to look forward to when the IRA reactivates.
Go and look at what the highest level actually means .......
If May now gets nothing in terms of changes to the WDA , can we expect Harrington, Rudd et al to resign in two weeks time?
The interesting thing is 17 Tory MPs defied the Government and voted to rule out No Deal, more than counterbalancing the 3 Labour MPs who voted for No Deal and giving a rejection of No Deal an 8 vote majority.
If May gets nothing from the EU as is likely and her Deal fails again there lies your potential majority for permanent Customs Union as the likes of Minister Margot James has suggested as an alternative this week or potentially even a successful VONC in the government and a forced general election as a last resort to stop No Deal
I don't think a permanent Customs Union is the alternative arrangement Brady had in mind. However, it is something that the EU ought to agree to and parliament should give a majority to. Jezza needs to tell Tezzie that it is the only way to get a deal.
Getting interesting at both ends of the table. Fulham have left it a little late, but I can see Southampton being sucked back into the relegation zone.
If May now gets nothing in terms of changes to the WDA , can we expect Harrington, Rudd et al to resign in two weeks time?
The interesting thing is 17 Tory MPs defied the Government and voted to rule out No Deal, more than counterbalancing the 3 Labour MPs who voted for No Deal and giving a rejection of No Deal an 8 vote majority.
If May gets nothing from the EU as is likely and her Deal fails again there lies your potential majority for permanent Customs Union as the likes of Minister Margot James has suggested as an alternative this week or potentially even a successful VONC in the government and a forced general election as a last resort to stop No Deal
How does a successful VONC and a forced general election stop No Deal??? You can't pass legislation when MPs are no longer MPs once Parliament is prorogued. And only legislation is going to stop No Deal Brexit.....
As Corbyn backs permanent Customs Union which if he became PM after a general election Juncker has agreed could be the basis of renegotiation of the Deal or else May gets a mandate for her Deal
In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.
Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.
Either way: good.
How are the EU being intransigent? It's not their problem our Prime Minister can't get the deal she agreed to through her own Parliament.
No doubt we're going to be subjected to the usual anti-European vitriol from the usual suspects if we leave without a Deal in 60 or so days.
Of course it is. She should have refused to sign it but they knew full well it wasn't supported and she was saying so until she folded.
If we leave without a deal it will be because the EU have chosen not to compromise.
That's true. They're not compromising between the deal that it took two years to negotiate and that we actually asked for, and the deal we just made up which sounds really great in our head.
So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.
The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.
The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.
And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.
The issue is that - as drafted - the EU gets to decide when we can leave the backstop.
The issue is that - as drafted - the backstop doesn't simply protect the Good Friday Agreement on the island of Ireland, but constrains the whole of the UK. That was May's doing.
It does so to limit the differential between NI and the rest of the UK, which is primarily a Unionist concern because otherwise NI would be more closely aligned with ROI than rUK.
But the unionists voted against it anyway, which suggests their real concern was imposing divergence between NI and Ireland and sabotaging the Good Friday Agreement.
Divergence is not the end of the world. It is what we voted for with Brexit.
Do tonight's votes fulfill the governments obligations to have another vote following the Meaningful Vote or are they obliged to come back and do this all over again?
So Brussels - how is that No Deal Brexit looking down your end of the telescope?
I assume they will deal with it in the same way as they have dealt with every other UK proposal since Cameron's renegotiation: bemusement followed by refusal. Are you expecting something different?
Frankly, yes. Past forms says something will happen in the final 48 hours of dealing with the EU. That needs No Deal still to be on the table - tick. Irish panicking - tick. Other heads of EU countries wondering "is it worth dying in a ditch for the backstop?" - tick.
Having to be anxious when travelling on the tube again - tick
Remind me what the terrorist threat level is again?
Not the highest. We have that to look forward to when the IRA reactivates.
Go and look at what the highest level actually means .......
I know what the highest level means and the first IRA bomb on a border post will raise it to that level. For that we have only the Tories and a dozen or so Labour incompetents to blame.
So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.
The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.
The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.
And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.
The issue is that - as drafted - the EU gets to decide when we can leave the backstop.
The issue is that - as drafted - the backstop doesn't simply protect the Good Friday Agreement on the island of Ireland, but constrains the whole of the UK. That was May's doing.
It does so to limit the differential between NI and the rest of the UK, which is primarily a Unionist concern because otherwise NI would be more closely aligned with ROI than rUK.
But the unionists voted against it anyway, which suggests their real concern was imposing divergence between NI and Ireland and sabotaging the Good Friday Agreement.
Divergence is not the end of the world. It is what we voted for with Brexit.
Do tonight's votes fulfill the governments obligations to have another vote following the Meaningful Vote or are they obliged to come back and do this all over again?
So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.
The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.
The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.
And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.
The issue is that - as drafted - the EU gets to decide when we can leave the backstop.
The issue is that - as drafted - the backstop doesn't simply protect the Good Friday Agreement on the island of Ireland, but constrains the whole of the UK. That was May's doing.
That is also an issue
I seem to recall it being sold as a triumph at the time 😖
If May now gets nothing in terms of changes to the WDA , can we expect Harrington, Rudd et al to resign in two weeks time?
The interesting thing is 17 Tory MPs defied the Government and voted to rule out No Deal, more than counterbalancing the 3 Labour MPs who voted for No Deal and giving a rejection of No Deal an 8 vote majority.
If May gets nothing from the EU as is likely and her Deal fails again there lies your potential majority for permanent Customs Union as the likes of Minister Margot James has suggested as an alternative this week or potentially even a successful VONC in the government and a forced general election as a last resort to stop No Deal
How does a successful VONC and a forced general election stop No Deal??? You can't pass legislation when MPs are no longer MPs once Parliament is prorogued. And only legislation is going to stop No Deal Brexit.....
As Corbyn backs permanent Customs Union which if he became PM after a general election Juncker has agreed could be the basis of renegotiation of the Deal or else May gets a mandate for her Deal
The point was that by the time a General Election happens we'll already have left.
If May now gets nothing in terms of changes to the WDA , can we expect Harrington, Rudd et al to resign in two weeks time?
The interesting thing is 17 Tory MPs defied the Government and voted to rule out No Deal, more than counterbalancing the 3 Labour MPs who voted for No Deal and giving a rejection of No Deal an 8 vote majority.
If May gets nothing from the EU as is likely and her Deal fails again there lies your potential majority for permanent Customs Union as the likes of Minister Margot James has suggested as an alternative this week or potentially even a successful VONC in the government and a forced general election as a last resort to stop No Deal
I don't think a permanent Customs Union is the alternative arrangement Brady had in mind. However, it is something that the EU ought to agree to and parliament should give a majority to. Jezza needs to tell Tezzie that it is the only way to get a deal.
Permanent Customs Union does look like it may have a Parliamentary majority based on all those MPs who rejected No Deal tonight it could scrape home with a small majority, I don't think EUref2 or Norway Plus has the numbers, ironically if that becomes a prospect that may increase the chances of the Deal as No Dealers move to stop BINO
So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.
The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.
The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.
And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.
The issue is that - as drafted - the EU gets to decide when we can leave the backstop.
Not actually the case. We can choose to stay in the backstop for ever.
If May now gets nothing in terms of changes to the WDA , can we expect Harrington, Rudd et al to resign in two weeks time?
The interesting thing is 17 Tory MPs defied the Government and voted to rule out No Deal, more than counterbalancing the 3 Labour MPs who voted for No Deal and giving a rejection of No Deal an 8 vote majority.
If May gets nothing from the EU as is likely and her Deal fails again there lies your potential majority for permanent Customs Union as the likes of Minister Margot James has suggested as an alternative this week or potentially even a successful VONC in the government and a forced general election as a last resort to stop No Deal
How does a successful VONC and a forced general election stop No Deal??? You can't pass legislation when MPs are no longer MPs once Parliament is prorogued. And only legislation is going to stop No Deal Brexit.....
As Corbyn backs permanent Customs Union which if he became PM after a general election Juncker has agreed could be the basis of renegotiation of the Deal or else May gets a mandate for her Deal
Your scenario requires you to engineer an election that delivers a polling day before 29th March.
If May now gets nothing in terms of changes to the WDA , can we expect Harrington, Rudd et al to resign in two weeks time?
The interesting thing is 17 Tory MPs defied the Government and voted to rule out No Deal, more than counterbalancing the 3 Labour MPs who voted for No Deal and giving a rejection of No Deal an 8 vote majority.
If May gets nothing from the EU as is likely and her Deal fails again there lies your potential majority for permanent Customs Union as the likes of Minister Margot James has suggested as an alternative this week or potentially even a successful VONC in the government and a forced general election as a last resort to stop No Deal
How does a successful VONC and a forced general election stop No Deal??? You can't pass legislation when MPs are no longer MPs once Parliament is prorogued. And only legislation is going to stop No Deal Brexit.....
As Corbyn backs permanent Customs Union which if he became PM after a general election Juncker has agreed could be the basis of renegotiation of the Deal or else May gets a mandate for her Deal
The point was that by the time a General Election happens we'll already have left.
So what, we can still do a Deal after leaving, post Brexit is only really a problem for EUref2 with a Remain option as the EU could add the Euro, Schengen etc to rejoin
If May now gets nothing in terms of changes to the WDA , can we expect Harrington, Rudd et al to resign in two weeks time?
The interesting thing is 17 Tory MPs defied the Government and voted to rule out No Deal, more than counterbalancing the 3 Labour MPs who voted for No Deal and giving a rejection of No Deal an 8 vote majority.
If May gets nothing from the EU as is likely and her Deal fails again there lies your potential majority for permanent Customs Union as the likes of Minister Margot James has suggested as an alternative this week or potentially even a successful VONC in the government and a forced general election as a last resort to stop No Deal
How does a successful VONC and a forced general election stop No Deal??? You can't pass legislation when MPs are no longer MPs once Parliament is prorogued. And only legislation is going to stop No Deal Brexit.....
As Corbyn backs permanent Customs Union which if he became PM after a general election Juncker has agreed could be the basis of renegotiation of the Deal or else May gets a mandate for her Deal
Your scenario requires you to engineer an election that delivers a polling day before 29th March.
Comments
*says Hartlepool Man.
Mrs May is seen by a sizeable part of the public to have gone above and beyond in trying to get her deal through. It is now the EU that will be seen by many of those people as having rejected that deal not a large part of the parliamentary Conservative party, egged on by an overwhelming part of the membership. She is putting the Conservative party in a position to fight a GE.
Feels like a very good set of results for Theresa May, and a terrible set for the country.
It really would help matters if the PM's interests and the country's interests weren't so far far apart. Alas.
Wonder which version of compromise this Brexit will turn out to be ...
Now she's going back to her 70% LEAVE backing constituency in defeat?
Who of those would actually leave the Conservatives? Soubry, Allen, Wollaston, Sandbach maybe. That’s not a split, that’s a couple of defections.
The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.
The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.
And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.
Mood: dejected
Have yet to hear a single specific thing we would be willing to trade for the backstops removal.
Has anyone heard a single politician even accept that it would need to be a trade off?
A little bit jumbled and jivey...
As:
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1090355988153155584
IF we leave and disruption follows, then I presume you and May will go round the country telling everyone it's all the fault of "Europe" and all would have been fine if the WA had been passed - had it not been for over 100 Conservatives plus the DUP it would have been.
3rd week of April, we sue for peace. What does that even mean? We can't go through an Article 49 application process to rejoin the EU, as we don't have fuel medicine or food to last the weekend. I hope that someone in Brussels has wargamed this very carefully.
Brave prediction.
That said, they are not obliged to give in further, and even if they do it is not certain we'd get it through, since they could quite reasonably ask for a further concession from us in exchange, but the 'it's not their problem' line is still amazingly dumb - it is their problem if we cannot sort shit out, they have the power to influence it and so potentially avoid getting splash damage.
If May gets nothing from the EU as is likely and her Deal fails again there lies your potential majority for permanent Customs Union as the likes of Minister Margot James has suggested as an alternative this week or potentially even a successful VONC in the government and a forced general election as a last resort to stop No Deal
Not that I disagree the government is chasing fairytales, but I dislike it when people only call it MPs asserting themselves when it is something in their favour against the government. MPs did assert themselves, in support of the government. Cannot say I think it a viable plan, but it was just as much parliament asserting itself as any other vote.
Doesn't mean they contain aliens.
Is that a correct reading of tonight?
Glad I have the keys to a food bank.
https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/360556/hundreds-of-jobs-for-limerick-as-regeneron-to-pump-200m-into-plant-expansion.html
If we leave without a deal it will be because the EU have chosen not to compromise.
However if we do go to No Deal a new En Marche style party led by Unumma, Soubry and Moran is possible
The game being played is convincing Tory MPs opposed to no deal that she is doing everything she can to reach a deal. They're still buying it.
Arghhhhhhh!
I seem to recall it being sold as a triumph at the time 😖