Another Brexit morning after the night before. At least Corbyn will make it to no. 10 today, probably for the only time.
I wonder if an enterprising bookie might put a market up for how long the UK will tolerate a no deal scenario. I reckon after 3 weeks we'll be hungry, stuck (although with Chris Grayling in charge that may not be all due to the failed Brexit), sick, short on power and very very angry.
Surely, just like the US shutdown the pain will accumulate beyond breaking point? I just hope someone in Brussels has a 'please sign here' piece of paper for an emergency membership reprieve for the UK, although I dread to think what the Ts and Cs would be.
There is no quick mechanism to rejoin. The only way back is accession talks, probably accepting the Euro and other matters. A multi-year process.
If we No-Deal then we will be on WTO for years, which could actually help focus minds on what we do as a country. We have to pay our way in the world - how do we best do that?
That's just my point though. You're absolutely right legally, once out we are out.
But I'm talking about the scenario where we don't have food or medicine to last the week. A multi-year rejoining application isn't an option. How do we get out of that? And how would the EU respond if we had no choice but to throw ourselves on their mercy?
Create a new status just for us that mimics the setup of the Withdrawal Agreement to the letter. Or allow us to backdate a signature of the Withdrawal Agreement and say that there was a quasi-legal status in retrospect between Brexit Day and the day of signature.
Although technically we'd legally be a third party country from the moment of No Deal Brexit, that's exactly the sort of fudge the EU would do.
I’m surprised the fact that May was told by the EU that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement before she addressed the Commons yesterday has not received more attention.
It wasn't news.
This is a charade she has to go through. In a couple of weeks time she'll come back with the message to MPs that EU aren't going to change the Withdrawal Agreement, so nothing has changed and There Is No Alternative. Admittedly it would be far cheaper, easier and quicker for MPs to discover this for themselves by reading a newspaper or looking at Tusk's twitter feed, but for some reason they seem incapable of doing so.
Still wouldn't believe it. Why should we believe Tusk just because he says so?
A change will only happen when the EU think it is necessary. That is not prematurely. Give me one good reason to trust Tusk please.
Well, it's not just Tusk of course. It's anyone significant in the EU you care to ask.
The main reason to believe them is that there is no institutional means for them to change tack at this stage. The EU's decision-making process is very heavily constrained.
Yeah.. I think that's an underestimated factor. The EU's negotiating position was framed, pretty minimistically, to suit 27 different countries. It ain't gonna change on the whim of Barnier, Tusk, Macron or anyone else. And I suspect that's why they appear so intransigent to some - even if a change was objectively for the good, they'd be mindful of the danger of Bulgaria or Latvia chucking in a unicorn requisition form.
By comparison, UK Gov, sitting there on day one with a parliamentary majority, must have looked on paper like the easier party to agree among itself. Ho ho.
It's frightening; the country is on the verge of the greatest change it's ever made and the main issue is how to maintain the unity of the governing party. No doubt Corbyn could have been more forthcoming, but the PM must have some concept of what the other European leaders think. However, it doesn't appear that she does. Or cares.
We are behaving like the perfidious Albion some foreigners have always claimed we are. This will have real live consequences for Britain. We are making it very hard for other countries to take us seriously.
And last night’s delusional Parliamentary shenanigans have not helped.
This is not a game. Even if people did not like the decision to leave the EU, we could have earned some credit in the manner of our leaving. We are doing the complete opposite. It does us no credit at all. The fact that the reaction of some is to abuse those foreign politicians who point this out is not an example of some bulldog spirit but of someone who has been on the spirits, meths probably, to judge by the incoherent and delusional ramblings of the British politicians interviewed today.
Could not disagree more.
We are standing up for ourselves which is exactly what we should do. No other nation is going to stand up for us. The backstop is an entirely unreasonable disgrace. The EU threatening no deal at all immediately because of something designed to prevent the potential risk of no deal years from now is entirely illogical.
The only reason ever given as to why the UK should sign up to the backstop is because we are weak and more desperate than they are. To refuse that isn't perfidiousness, it is brave.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
It's frightening; the country is on the verge of the greatest change it's ever made and the main issue is how to maintain the unity of the governing party. No doubt Corbyn could have been more forthcoming, but the PM must have some concept of what the other European leaders think. However, it doesn't appear that she does. Or cares.
We are behaving like the perfidious Albion some foreigners have always claimed we are. This will have real live consequences for Britain. We are making it very hard for other countries to take us seriously.
And last night’s delusional Parliamentary shenanigans have not helped.
This is not a game. Even if people did not like the decision to leave the EU, we could have earned some credit in the manner of our leaving. We are doing the complete opposite. It does us no credit at all. The fact that the reaction of some is to abuse those foreign politicians who point this out is not an example of some bulldog spirit but of someone who has been on the spirits, meths probably, to judge by the incoherent and delusional ramblings of the British politicians interviewed today.
Could not disagree more.
We are standing up for ourselves which is exactly what we should do. No other nation is going to stand up for us. The backstop is an entirely unreasonable disgrace. The EU threatening no deal at all immediately because of something designed to prevent the potential risk of no deal years from now is entirely illogical.
The only reason ever given as to why the UK should sign up to the backstop is because we are weak and more desperate than they are. To refuse that isn't perfidiousness, it is brave.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
Parliament never agreed to it.
Indeed, the EU would always have known that it was not in May's gift to sign up to anything.
It's frightening; the country is on the verge of the greatest change it's ever made and the main issue is how to maintain the unity of the governing party. No doubt Corbyn could have been more forthcoming, but the PM must have some concept of what the other European leaders think. However, it doesn't appear that she does. Or cares.
We are behaving like the perfidious Albion some foreigners have always claimed we are. This will have real live consequences for Britain. We are making it very hard for other countries to take us seriously.
And last night’s delusional Parliamentary shenanigans have not helped.
This is not a game. Even if people did not like the decision to leave the EU, we could have earned some credit in the manner of our leaving. We are doing the complete opposite. It does us no credit at all. The fact that the reaction of some is to abuse those foreign politicians who point this out is not an example of some bulldog spirit but of someone who has been on the spirits, meths probably, to judge by the incoherent and delusional ramblings of the British politicians interviewed today.
Could not disagree more.
We are standing up for ourselves which is exactly what we should do. No other nation is going to stand up for us. The backstop is an entirely unreasonable disgrace. The EU threatening no deal at all immediately because of something designed to prevent the potential risk of no deal years from now is entirely illogical.
The only reason ever given as to why the UK should sign up to the backstop is because we are weak and more desperate than they are. To refuse that isn't perfidiousness, it is brave.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
Parliament never agreed to it.
Comes back to May's handing of things. If she'd been a bit more open it wouldn't have come to this.
We are behaving like the perfidious Albion some foreigners have always claimed we are. This will have real live consequences for Britain. We are making it very hard for other countries to take us seriously.
And last night’s delusional Parliamentary shenanigans have not helped.
This is not a game. Even if people did not like the decision to leave the EU, we could have earned some credit in the manner of our leaving. We are doing the complete opposite. It does us no credit at all. The fact that the reaction of some is to abuse those foreign politicians who point this out is not an example of some bulldog spirit but of someone who has been on the spirits, meths probably, to judge by the incoherent and delusional ramblings of the British politicians interviewed today.
Unfortunately there are votes and plenty of them in being seen to be "tough" with Europe and the EU. Cultural and historical stereotypes get wheeled out at times like this not to mention the gratuitous personal insults heaped on Sabine Weygand by at least one member of this forum.
The Conservative Party has clearly decided being anti-European in extremis is the only chance it has to preserve its voting coalition. It will take us to No Deal and blame the EU for any and all disruption that follows.
The apologists and sycophants for May both in the media (the Mail front page today is truly stomach churning) and on this forum would have us believe the Prime Minister won some great victory yesterday. Far from it, by passing the Brady amendment, her party has shown they love unicorns as much as the Corbyn fantasists. The belief is if we shout loud enough, the EU will cave in and give us everything we want.
Simple question, why should they? Second question, why would they?
The nub of this is the tale of two Unions and the fact neither understands how the other operates and both have a romanticised view of how they themselves operate.
I wonder how long those votes will last if a No Deal exit turns out to be chaotic.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
We are ridiculous. We're a ridiculous country run by absurd people chasing magic unicorns off cliffs.
It would make absolutely no difference. The idea that the UK's negotiation has been screwed up because of Olly Robbins or anyone else is for the birds. The negotiation has actually been quite good - the change they got to the EU's original backstop was a remarkable achievement from a weak negotiating position.
I think it's incredibly rum to blame civil servants for doing their job. Robbins has worked tirelessly to put together some kind of deal within the contradictory and absurd red lines laid down by May, as well as the infighting, political dysfunction, delusion and obstruction being thrown in every direction by the political class. The fact that the deal is terrible and everyone hates it is not something he deserves blame for.
He deserves a medal for putting up with this insanity, frankly.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
It's worse than that. Parliament has the ability to remove her and replace her with a new executive. But it won't because various factions are too scared of letting their opponents take power.
So May goes to Brussels and gets told no renegotiation of the WA or, more probably, if you reopen it we’ll reopen it as well and you’ll get something even worse than now.
Frankly she may as well go there to stock up on chocolate as have these talks.
She comes back and says “I told you so.”
Why can’t there be 4 motions put before Parliament:-
1. Agree to the WA and exit the EU. 2. Have a referendum on whether to agree to the WA or remain on current terms (and then authorise the government to seek an extension of Article 50 to allow such a referendum to take place). 3. Revoke Article 50. 4. Leave the EU with no WA.
MPs vote - they can have a free vote, as far as I’m concerned - and the one which gains a majority wins.
Is there any reason why this cannot be done? Instead of all this faffing about with footling incomprehensible amendments no-one understands, just lay out the options and get Parliament to choose one.
Why can’t there be 4 motions put before Parliament:-
1. Agree to the WA and exit the EU. 2. Have a referendum on whether to agree to the WA or remain on current terms (and then authorise the government to seek an extension of Article 50 to allow such a referendum to take place). 3. Revoke Article 50. 4. Leave the EU with no WA.
MPs vote - they can have a free vote, as far as I’m concerned - and the one which gains a majority wins.
So May goes to Brussels and gets told no renegotiation of the WA or, more probably, if you reopen it we’ll reopen it as well and you’ll get something even worse than now.
Frankly she may as well go there to stock up on chocolate as have these talks.
She comes back and says “I told you so.”
Why can’t there be 4 motions put before Parliament:-
1. Agree to the WA and exit the EU. 2. Have a referendum on whether to agree to the WA or remain on current terms (and then authorise the government to seek an extension of Article 50 to allow such a referendum to take place). 3. Revoke Article 50. 4. Leave the EU with no WA.
MPs vote - they can have a free vote, as far as I’m concerned - and the one which gains a majority wins.
Is there any reason why this cannot be done? Instead of all this faffing about with footling incomprehensible amendments no-one understands, just lay out the options and get Parliament to choose one.
I’m probably missing something......
I think the problem is that none of them would get a majority.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She's spent months telling us that this was the best deal and the only deal possible.
Now she's saying SURPRISE! ACTUALLY I LIED! UNICORNS ARE REAL AFTER ALL!
That's going back on her word in the stupidest way possible. Which is the way May likes to do things.
Another Brexit morning after the night before. At least Corbyn will make it to no. 10 today, probably for the only time.
I wonder if an enterprising bookie might put a market up for how long the UK will tolerate a no deal scenario. I reckon after 3 weeks we'll be hungry, stuck (although with Chris Grayling in charge that may not be all due to the failed Brexit), sick, short on power and very very angry.
Surely, just like the US shutdown the pain will accumulate beyond breaking point? I just hope someone in Brussels has a 'please sign here' piece of paper for an emergency membership reprieve for the UK, although I dread to think what the Ts and Cs would be.
There is no quick mechanism to rejoin. The only way back is accession talks, probably accepting the Euro and other matters. A multi-year process.
If we No-Deal then we will be on WTO for years, which could actually help focus minds on what we do as a country. We have to pay our way in the world - how do we best do that?
That's just my point though. You're absolutely right legally, once out we are out.
But I'm talking about the scenario where we don't have food or medicine to last the week. A multi-year rejoining application isn't an option. How do we get out of that? And how would the EU respond if we had no choice but to throw ourselves on their mercy?
Create a new status just for us that mimics the setup of the Withdrawal Agreement to the letter. Or allow us to backdate a signature of the Withdrawal Agreement and say that there was a quasi-legal status in retrospect between Brexit Day and the day of signature.
Although technically we'd legally be a third party country from the moment of No Deal Brexit, that's exactly the sort of fudge the EU would do.
That's my hope as well if it really came to it. Although @TheValiant 's comment about a potential migration crisis in northern France is sobering stuff.
It's frightening; the country is on the verge of the greatest change it's ever made and the main issue is how to maintain the unity of the governing party. No doubt Corbyn could have been more forthcoming, but the PM must have some concept of what the other European leaders think. However, it doesn't appear that she does. Or cares.
We are behaving like the perfidious Albion some foreigners have always claimed we are. This will have real live consequences for Britain. We are making it very hard for other countries to take us seriously.
And last night’s delusional Parliamentary shenanigans have not helped.
This is not a game. Even if people did not like the decision to leave the EU, we could have earned some credit in the manner of our leaving. We are doing the complete opposite. It does us no credit at all. The fact that the reaction of some is to abuse those foreign politicians who point this out is not an example of some bulldog spirit but of someone who has been on the spirits, meths probably, to judge by the incoherent and delusional ramblings of the British politicians interviewed today.
Could not disagree more.
We are standing up for ourselves which is exactly what we should do. No other nation is going to stand up for us. The backstop is an entirely unreasonable disgrace. The EU threatening no deal at all immediately because of something designed to prevent the potential risk of no deal years from now is entirely illogical.
The only reason ever given as to why the UK should sign up to the backstop is because we are weak and more desperate than they are. To refuse that isn't perfidiousness, it is brave.
The backstop is there to prevent the issue of the Irish border being used for leverage by any side during the subsequent negotiations, and this primarily benefits the U.K. The Tory party’s rejection of it creates an issue of trust.
Bullshit. It is there to bind the UK and NI to the Single Market and Customs Union when the vote to leave the EU was a vote to leave those.
Only in the mind of headbangers like you. So your's is the bovine excrement. Norway and Switzerland are not "in" the EU. Such an arrangement would easily meet the vagueness of the referendum question. Nut jobs, and Mrs May in her haste to please them, have tried to say that the referendum said things it did not. There was no supplementary question about the single market or CU. It was Leave or Remain, in the EU. That was all. Perhaps you should advocate another referendum to see if people also want out of the other things that the liars and charlatans have said that the question included.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She's spent months telling us that this was the best deal and the only deal possible.
Now she's saying SURPRISE! ACTUALLY I LIED! UNICORNS ARE REAL AFTER ALL!
That's going back on her word in the stupidest way possible. Which is the way May likes to do things.
No, she's saying 'Well, since you insist, I'll go back and ask again, maybe I'm wrong and you are right'. It can't be true both that she doesn't listen enough and that her fault is that she has listened.
It's frightening; the country is on the verge of the greatest change it's ever made and the main issue is how to maintain the unity of the governing party. No doubt Corbyn could have been more forthcoming, but the PM must have some concept of what the other European leaders think. However, it doesn't appear that she does. Or cares.
We are behaving like the perfidious Albion some foreigners have always claimed we are. This will have real live consequences for Britain. We are making it very hard for other countries to take us seriously.
And last night’s delusional Parliamentary shenanigans have not helped.
This is not a game. Even if people did not like the decision to leave the EU, we could have earned some credit in the manner of our leaving. We are doing the complete opposite. It does us no credit at all. The fact that the reaction of some is to abuse those foreign politicians who point this out is not an example of some bulldog spirit but of someone who has been on the spirits, meths probably, to judge by the incoherent and delusional ramblings of the British politicians interviewed today.
This is all a consequence of the way in which the Leave campaign was fought in the referendum. Having been entirely negative, there is nothing uniting Leavers. So the inevitable consequence has been to retreat into negativity, never being prepared to compromise because Leavers do not know what their real priorities are.
I think it’s worse than that. All you say is true. But I think some of the Brexiteers always wanted a No Deal exit but deliberately lied about wanting a deal, easiest trade deal in history, blah blah and having won the referendum have since then done everything possible to achieve what they wanted all along. There were Leninists in the Leave campaign, even if they didn’t show their hand at the time.
The reason is that May does not want it to be done and not enough MPs who are willing to vote against her deal have the will to replace her with a different PM who would take us on a different path.
May does not want it to be done because she wants to leave the EU (to respect the referendum/impose immigration controls) and she wants to hold her party together - and both would be put at risk under your - otherwise entirely admirable - plan.
No, she's saying 'Well, since you insist, I'll go back and ask again, maybe I'm wrong and you are right'. It can't be true both that she doesn't listen enough and that her fault is that she has listened.
She's just wasting time for another two weeks because putting off the moment of reckoning for her party, clinging on to power for another few days, and constructive can-kicking is the sum total of the horizon of her imagination.
So May goes to Brussels and gets told no renegotiation of the WA or, more probably, if you reopen it we’ll reopen it as well and you’ll get something even worse than now.
Frankly she may as well go there to stock up on chocolate as have these talks.
She comes back and says “I told you so.”
Why can’t there be 4 motions put before Parliament:-
1. Agree to the WA and exit the EU. 2. Have a referendum on whether to agree to the WA or remain on current terms (and then authorise the government to seek an extension of Article 50 to allow such a referendum to take place). 3. Revoke Article 50. 4. Leave the EU with no WA.
MPs vote - they can have a free vote, as far as I’m concerned - and the one which gains a majority wins.
Is there any reason why this cannot be done? Instead of all this faffing about with footling incomprehensible amendments no-one understands, just lay out the options and get Parliament to choose one.
I’m probably missing something......
I think the problem is that none of them would get a majority.
It's frightening; the country is on the verge of the greatest change it's ever made and the main issue is how to maintain the unity of the governing party. No doubt Corbyn could have been more forthcoming, but the PM must have some concept of what the other European leaders think. However, it doesn't appear that she does. Or cares.
We are behaving like the perfidious Albion some foreigners have always claimed we are. This will have real live consequences for Britain. We are making it very hard for other countries to take us seriously.
And last night’s delusional Parliamentary shenanigans have not helped.
This is not a game. Even if people did not like the decision to leave the EU, we could have earned some credit in the manner of our leaving. We are doing the complete opposite. It does us no credit at all. The fact that the reaction of some is to abuse those foreign politicians who point this out is not an example of some bulldog spirit but of someone who has been on the spirits, meths probably, to judge by the incoherent and delusional ramblings of the British politicians interviewed today.
This is all a consequence of the way in which the Leave campaign was fought in the referendum. Having been entirely negative, there is nothing uniting Leavers. So the inevitable consequence has been to retreat into negativity, never being prepared to compromise because Leavers do not know what their real priorities are.
I think it’s worse than that. All you say is true. But I think some of the Brexiteers always wanted a No Deal exit but deliberately lied about wanting a deal, easiest trade deal in history, blah blah and having won the referendum have since then done everything possible to achieve what they wanted all along. There were Leninists in the Leave campaign, even if they didn’t show their hand at the time.
They're not that clever. They're bluffers for whom defending not having reached an agreement is easier than defending the terms of any specific agreement. They have only come to that conclusion by default, not by design.
(snip entirely sensible stuff about indicative votes)
Is there any reason why this cannot be done? Instead of all this faffing about with footling incomprehensible amendments no-one understands, just lay out the options and get Parliament to choose one.
I’m probably missing something......
Feels to me like it's all about the game and maximising chance of victory. The aye or noe nature of Commons votes* means it's adversarial, winner-takes-all stuff.
I think the difference in perception of the deal between MPs and The People (at least at the start) is that the former group saw it as a suboptimal second choice to be defeated, whereas the latter saw a reasonable compromise.
This process should flag up the inadequacies of our system and lead to the binning of some parliamentary traditions (I mean, we've survived without Bercow wearing a wig). But I doubt it.
(* I appreciate they can be amended, and workarounds found.. but I still don't think you get many HoC brownie points for compromising)
No, she's saying 'Well, since you insist, I'll go back and ask again, maybe I'm wrong and you are right'. It can't be true both that she doesn't listen enough and that her fault is that she has listened.
She's just wasting time for another two weeks because putting off the moment of reckoning for her party, clinging on to power for another few days, and constructive can-kicking is the sum total of the horizon of her imagination.
Nothing has changed.
Come to think of it, you remind me of someone.....
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She was pushing for an amendment last night which said that the backstop should be reopened. And the papers are acclaiming this as a triumph for May. To me - and I think to other European leaders, especially the Irish - she, the government she “leads” and Britain look perfidious and untrustworthy and unreliable partners.
I think it’s worse than that. All you say is true. But I think some of the Brexiteers always wanted a No Deal exit but deliberately lied about wanting a deal, easiest trade deal in history, blah blah and having won the referendum have since then done everything possible to achieve what they wanted all along. There were Leninists in the Leave campaign, even if they didn’t show their hand at the time.
I don't think that is right, actually. I'm very sure that they believed the 'easiest trade deal in history' garbage.
So May goes to Brussels and gets told no renegotiation of the WA or, more probably, if you reopen it we’ll reopen it as well and you’ll get something even worse than now.
Frankly she may as well go there to stock up on chocolate as have these talks.
She comes back and says “I told you so.”
Why can’t there be 4 motions put before Parliament:-
1. Agree to the WA and exit the EU. 2. Have a referendum on whether to agree to the WA or remain on current terms (and then authorise the government to seek an extension of Article 50 to allow such a referendum to take place). 3. Revoke Article 50. 4. Leave the EU with no WA.
MPs vote - they can have a free vote, as far as I’m concerned - and the one which gains a majority wins.
Is there any reason why this cannot be done? Instead of all this faffing about with footling incomprehensible amendments no-one understands, just lay out the options and get Parliament to choose one.
I’m probably missing something......
I think the problem is that none of them would get a majority.
Sorry - but one of these options must get more Ayes than the others. That one wins.
Why can’t there be 4 motions put before Parliament:-
1. Agree to the WA and exit the EU. 2. Have a referendum on whether to agree to the WA or remain on current terms (and then authorise the government to seek an extension of Article 50 to allow such a referendum to take place). 3. Revoke Article 50. 4. Leave the EU with no WA.
Parliament would vote no, no, no, and no :-)
The cycle of indicative votes has plenty merits for this reason imo. Make em vote repeatedly, narrow the options until something passes.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She's spent months telling us that this was the best deal and the only deal possible.
Now she's saying SURPRISE! ACTUALLY I LIED! UNICORNS ARE REAL AFTER ALL!
That's going back on her word in the stupidest way possible. Which is the way May likes to do things.
I think she is trying to demonstrate to her MPs that what was negotiated is, in fact, the best available deal. It's like Canute demonstrating that he can't actually stop the tide.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She was pushing for an amendment last night which said that the backstop should be reopened. And the papers are acclaiming this as a triumph for May. To me - and I think to other European leaders, especially the Irish - she, the government she “leads” and Britain look perfidious and untrustworthy and unreliable partners.
The Brexiteers assure us all on a regular basis that these company moves only involve a brass nameplate, two or three employees and a coffee machine.
[Pauses and awaits the frantic denials....]
In 2017, they held £1.133 trillion. So 190 billion Euro is significant - but its hardly down to its last few coppers in London....
Shall I tell you about the number of Multinationals moving their European HQs from the U.K.? Have you considered the secondary effects of that? No, of course you haven’t because when it comes to it Duncan-Smith is the voice of Brexit.
The reason is that May does not want it to be done and not enough MPs who are willing to vote against her deal have the will to replace her with a different PM who would take us on a different path.
May does not want it to be done because she wants to leave the EU (to respect the referendum/impose immigration controls) and she wants to hold her party together - and both would be put at risk under your - otherwise entirely admirable - plan.
How can someone who claims to be in favour of Parliamentary democracy object to Parliament making the decision?
But I suppose you are, sadly, right: May puts her wishes and the interests of the Tory party above any other consideratiom. It is really quite disgraceful.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She was pushing for an amendment last night which said that the backstop should be reopened. And the papers are acclaiming this as a triumph for May. To me - and I think to other European leaders, especially the Irish - she, the government she “leads” and Britain look perfidious and untrustworthy and unreliable partners.
Of course we are untrustworthy and unreliable. That's the inevitable consequence of negotiating a very tricky international agreement with a hung parliament (thanks, voters!) which has multiple different factions pursuing their own political ends and with no majority for anything. How could we be anything other than unreliable?
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She's spent months telling us that this was the best deal and the only deal possible.
Now she's saying SURPRISE! ACTUALLY I LIED! UNICORNS ARE REAL AFTER ALL!
That's going back on her word in the stupidest way possible. Which is the way May likes to do things.
No, she's saying 'Well, since you insist, I'll go back and ask again, maybe I'm wrong and you are right'. It can't be true both that she doesn't listen enough and that her fault is that she has listened.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
There is a sense in which she would be criticised whatever she did.
If she goes back to Brussels, she's perfidious. If she doesn't, she's stupidly persisting with a deal that the Commons doesn't want.
The Brexiteers assure us all on a regular basis that these company moves only involve a brass nameplate, two or three employees and a coffee machine.
[Pauses and awaits the frantic denials....]
In 2017, they held £1.133 trillion. So 190 billion Euro is significant - but its hardly down to its last few coppers in London....
It’s significant because, like most no-deal plans, it means that a large British business is spending quite a lot of money on making a change to a business model that it thought sub-optimal in a pre-Brexit context. At best, it’s an unproductive waste of money; at worst it’s an irreversible shift of valuable business away from the U.K. that damages jobs and tax revenue. It’s a direct result of May’s ‘run the clock down’ strategy.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She was pushing for an amendment last night which said that the backstop should be reopened. And the papers are acclaiming this as a triumph for May. To me - and I think to other European leaders, especially the Irish - she, the government she “leads” and Britain look perfidious and untrustworthy and unreliable partners.
May sets down lots of red lines She spends 18 months negotiating a deal according to her red lines. Gets a hard-won agreement. Signs the deal. EU signs the deal. Asks the EU to help her sell the deal. The EU spends months going out on a limb to help her sell her deal. She then votes against her deal. Now she comes back demanding that the EU re-open negotiations. Offers no new concessions, no relaxed red lines. Threatens economic ruin to her EU partners Demands they make more concessions to her
I wonder where the EU might have gotten the impression May is untrustworthy and unreliable? It's a mystery.
....a source of potential danger and conflict. They are testing Rockets (last week) and more, and are coming very close to the edge. There economy is now crashing, which is the only thing holding them back. Be careful of Iran. Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!
You’ve hit on the key point which seems to have been, repeatedly, missed. I’ve no doubt it’s deliberate because our MPs aren’t that cretinous. Are they?
Why can’t there be 4 motions put before Parliament:-
1. Agree to the WA and exit the EU. 2. Have a referendum on whether to agree to the WA or remain on current terms (and then authorise the government to seek an extension of Article 50 to allow such a referendum to take place). 3. Revoke Article 50. 4. Leave the EU with no WA.
Parliament would vote no, no, no, and no :-)
The cycle of indicative votes has plenty merits for this reason imo. Make em vote repeatedly, narrow the options until something passes.
I'd say no, don't narrow the options. Don't take anything off the table artificially. Keep all the options there but keep voting on them until something wins. You'd have people changing their minds organically, not because their first preference was denied them on a second vote but because it was clearly not going to garner enough support and in order to support a second-best outcome so as to forestall a worse alternative. It'd be like the papal conclaves of old. In fact, lock em in until they sort it out.
....a source of potential danger and conflict. They are testing Rockets (last week) and more, and are coming very close to the edge. There economy is now crashing, which is the only thing holding them back. Be careful of Iran. Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!
The Brexiteers assure us all on a regular basis that these company moves only involve a brass nameplate, two or three employees and a coffee machine.
[Pauses and awaits the frantic denials....]
In 2017, they held £1.133 trillion. So 190 billion Euro is significant - but its hardly down to its last few coppers in London....
Which headline do YOU think the press will go with? Barclays move £190bn out of the UK" or "Barclays does not move 83% of its assets out of the UK"?
Which bank will be next?
Dublin is about to become a very important financial trading centre, and why not? It speaks English, it is in the globally favoured central time zone (GMT), it has a highly educated population and its government only asks for a small amount of corp tax, and it is in the EU. The only thing against it is that it rains a bit more than in London. It might be in Dublin's interest to keep the backstop crisis running as long as possible
So May goes to Brussels and gets told no renegotiation of the WA or, more probably, if you reopen it we’ll reopen it as well and you’ll get something even worse than now.
Frankly she may as well go there to stock up on chocolate as have these talks.
She comes back and says “I told you so.”
Why can’t there be 4 motions put before Parliament:-
1. Agree to the WA and exit the EU. 2. Have a referendum on whether to agree to the WA or remain on current terms (and then authorise the government to seek an extension of Article 50 to allow such a referendum to take place). 3. Revoke Article 50. 4. Leave the EU with no WA.
MPs vote - they can have a free vote, as far as I’m concerned - and the one which gains a majority wins.
Is there any reason why this cannot be done? Instead of all this faffing about with footling incomprehensible amendments no-one understands, just lay out the options and get Parliament to choose one.
I’m probably missing something......
I think the problem is that none of them would get a majority.
Sorry - but one of these options must get more Ayes than the others. That one wins.
Surely?
It would take a majority in Parliament to authorise the process. Unless there’s a majority for one of those options, there won’t be a majority for a process that could lead to an option opposed by a majority being chosen. And if there is a majority for one of the options, it’ll happen anyway.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She was pushing for an amendment last night which said that the backstop should be reopened. And the papers are acclaiming this as a triumph for May. To me - and I think to other European leaders, especially the Irish - she, the government she “leads” and Britain look perfidious and untrustworthy and unreliable partners.
May sets down lots of red lines She spends 18 months negotiating a deal according to her red lines. Gets a hard-won agreement. Signs the deal. EU signs the deal. Asks the EU to help her sell the deal. The EU spends months going out on a limb to help her sell her deal. She then votes against her deal. Now she comes back demanding that the EU re-open negotiations. Offers no new concessions, no relaxed red lines. Threatens economic ruin to her EU partners Demands they make more concessions to her
I wonder where the EU might have gotten the impression May is untrustworthy and unreliable? It's a mystery.
I'm sure it's just an oversight on your part, but the Commons voted her deal down by 2/1, despite her arguing for it.
Explain how she ratifies the WA regardless of that vote in the Commons.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She was pushing for an amendment last night which said that the backstop should be reopened. And the papers are acclaiming this as a triumph for May. To me - and I think to other European leaders, especially the Irish - she, the government she “leads” and Britain look perfidious and untrustworthy and unreliable partners.
Of course we are untrustworthy and unreliable. That's the inevitable consequence of negotiating a very tricky international agreement with a hung parliament (thanks, voters!) which has multiple different factions pursuing their own political ends and with no majority for anything. How could we be anything other than unreliable?
I expect there's a fair degree of personal sympathy floating around for Theresa May. There are plenty of other heads of government with nebulous control of their parliaments and governments who will empathise.
Not that sympathy or empathy will be converted into helpful action. Their own difficulties will make it difficult for them to do anything for her even if they were so inclined, which they aren't.
I think it’s worse than that. All you say is true. But I think some of the Brexiteers always wanted a No Deal exit but deliberately lied about wanting a deal, easiest trade deal in history, blah blah and having won the referendum have since then done everything possible to achieve what they wanted all along. There were Leninists in the Leave campaign, even if they didn’t show their hand at the time.
I don't think that is right, actually. I'm very sure that they believed the 'easiest trade deal in history' garbage.
Some did. But I think some never wanted anything which would involve compromise with the EU and having got withdrawal onto the statute book have shown their hand, blatantly so in recent weeks.
The Brexiteers assure us all on a regular basis that these company moves only involve a brass nameplate, two or three employees and a coffee machine.
[Pauses and awaits the frantic denials....]
In 2017, they held £1.133 trillion. So 190 billion Euro is significant - but its hardly down to its last few coppers in London....
It’s significant because, like most no-deal plans, it means that a large British business is spending quite a lot of money on making a change to a business model that it thought sub-optimal in a pre-Brexit context. At best, it’s an unproductive waste of money; at worst it’s an irreversible shift of valuable business away from the U.K. that damages jobs and tax revenue. It’s a direct result of May’s ‘run the clock down’ strategy.
The latter I think, in most cases. International business no longer sees the U.K. as a stable base for their European operations and once they have spent the money moving things elsewhere they will not reverse the process. Even if Brexit is cancelled significant economic damage is unavoidable now.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She was pushing for an amendment last night which said that the backstop should be reopened. And the papers are acclaiming this as a triumph for May. To me - and I think to other European leaders, especially the Irish - she, the government she “leads” and Britain look perfidious and untrustworthy and unreliable partners.
May sets down lots of red lines She spends 18 months negotiating a deal according to her red lines. Gets a hard-won agreement. Signs the deal. EU signs the deal. Asks the EU to help her sell the deal. The EU spends months going out on a limb to help her sell her deal. She then votes against her deal. Now she comes back demanding that the EU re-open negotiations. Offers no new concessions, no relaxed red lines. Threatens economic ruin to her EU partners Demands they make more concessions to her
I wonder where the EU might have gotten the impression May is untrustworthy and unreliable? It's a mystery.
I'm sure it's just an oversight on your part, but the Commons voted her deal down by 2/1, despite her arguing for it.
Explain how she ratifies the WA regardless of that vote in the Commons.
She modifies her made-up red lines. If she wants political cover for that, she puts the red lines to votes in parliament and then returns to the EU saying that she now has room to renegotiate.
I think it’s worse than that. All you say is true. But I think some of the Brexiteers always wanted a No Deal exit but deliberately lied about wanting a deal, easiest trade deal in history, blah blah and having won the referendum have since then done everything possible to achieve what they wanted all along. There were Leninists in the Leave campaign, even if they didn’t show their hand at the time.
I don't think that is right, actually. I'm very sure that they believed the 'easiest trade deal in history' garbage.
Some did. But I think some never wanted anything which would involve compromise with the EU and having got withdrawal onto the statute book have shown their hand, blatantly so in recent weeks.
It was all going to be so easy, wasn't it? And we were going to make our own rules again!
Dublin is about to become a very important financial trading centre, and why not? It speaks English, it is in the globally favoured central time zone (GMT), it has a highly educated population and its government only asks for a small amount of corp tax, and it is in the EU. The only thing against it is that it rains a bit more than in London. It might be in Dublin's interest to keep the backstop crisis running as long as possible
It might become the Singapore of Europe, thanks to our big heave pushing banks and other businesses out of the UK.
Which would be ironic, given what the Brexiteers promised.
I expect there's a fair degree of personal sympathy floating around for Theresa May. There are plenty of other heads of government with nebulous control of their parliaments and governments who will empathise.
Not that sympathy or empathy will be converted into helpful action. Their own difficulties will make it difficult for them to do anything for her even if they were so inclined, which they aren't.
It’s not the hung parliament that makes this difficult, it’s the party splits. If May had not gone to the polls in 2017 and thereby retained Dave’s majority we would be in the same place.
May failed to take her party with her. That’s why we are where we are.
....a source of potential danger and conflict. They are testing Rockets (last week) and more, and are coming very close to the edge. There economy is now crashing, which is the only thing holding them back. Be careful of Iran. Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!
Funny thing is he could just as easily be talking about the US.
His lack of punctuation, poor grammar, inappropriate use of capitals for non-proper nouns and spelling mistakes reminds me of someone.....Alanbrooke, you are Donald Trump and I claim my £5
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She was pushing for an amendment last night which said that the backstop should be reopened. And the papers are acclaiming this as a triumph for May. To me - and I think to other European leaders, especially the Irish - she, the government she “leads” and Britain look perfidious and untrustworthy and unreliable partners.
May sets down lots of red lines She spends 18 months negotiating a deal according to her red lines. Gets a hard-won agreement. Signs the deal. EU signs the deal. Asks the EU to help her sell the deal. The EU spends months going out on a limb to help her sell her deal. She then votes against her deal. Now she comes back demanding that the EU re-open negotiations. Offers no new concessions, no relaxed red lines. Threatens economic ruin to her EU partners Demands they make more concessions to her
I wonder where the EU might have gotten the impression May is untrustworthy and unreliable? It's a mystery.
I'm sure it's just an oversight on your part, but the Commons voted her deal down by 2/1, despite her arguing for it.
Explain how she ratifies the WA regardless of that vote in the Commons.
She modifies her made-up red lines. If she wants political cover for that, she puts the red lines to votes in parliament and then returns to the EU saying that she now has room to renegotiate.
The Commons voted by a majority of 200 to reject EEA membership. That limits the extent to which red lines can be modified.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She was pushing for an amendment last night which said that the backstop should be reopened. And the papers are acclaiming this as a triumph for May. To me - and I think to other European leaders, especially the Irish - she, the government she “leads” and Britain look perfidious and untrustworthy and unreliable partners.
May sets down lots of red lines She spends 18 months negotiating a deal according to her red lines. Gets a hard-won agreement. Signs the deal. EU signs the deal. Asks the EU to help her sell the deal. The EU spends months going out on a limb to help her sell her deal. She then votes against her deal. Now she comes back demanding that the EU re-open negotiations. Offers no new concessions, no relaxed red lines. Threatens economic ruin to her EU partners Demands they make more concessions to her
I wonder where the EU might have gotten the impression May is untrustworthy and unreliable? It's a mystery.
I'm sure it's just an oversight on your part, but the Commons voted her deal down by 2/1, despite her arguing for it.
Explain how she ratifies the WA regardless of that vote in the Commons.
She modifies her made-up red lines. If she wants political cover for that, she puts the red lines to votes in parliament and then returns to the EU saying that she now has room to renegotiate.
They're not our red lines, they're the EUs.
We won the referendum on two main arguments - control over our laws (including immigration) and control over signing new trade deals. The EU spent months and months after the referendum (before May made any commitments) reiterating their red lines that the four freedoms are indivisible and if we want to control immigration (let alone any other laws) we must leave the Single Market.
So May made the decision to leave the Single Market. On their red lines. If they want to make the four freedoms divisible I'm sure May would be happy to revisit her red lines.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She was pushing for an amendment last night which said that the backstop should be reopened. And the papers are acclaiming this as a triumph for May. To me - and I think to other European leaders, especially the Irish - she, the government she “leads” and Britain look perfidious and untrustworthy and unreliable partners.
May sets down lots of red lines She spends 18 months negotiating a deal according to her red lines. Gets a hard-won agreement. Signs the deal. EU signs the deal. Asks the EU to help her sell the deal. The EU spends months going out on a limb to help her sell her deal. She then votes against her deal. Now she comes back demanding that the EU re-open negotiations. Offers no new concessions, no relaxed red lines. Threatens economic ruin to her EU partners Demands they make more concessions to her
I wonder where the EU might have gotten the impression May is untrustworthy and unreliable? It's a mystery.
I'm sure it's just an oversight on your part, but the Commons voted her deal down by 2/1, despite her arguing for it.
Explain how she ratifies the WA regardless of that vote in the Commons.
She modifies her made-up red lines. If she wants political cover for that, she puts the red lines to votes in parliament and then returns to the EU saying that she now has room to renegotiate.
The Commons voted by a majority of 200 to reject EEA membership. That limits the extent to which red lines can be modified.
Not true. The Commons voted against instructing May to adopt a particular negotiating position to avoid tying her hands. That in no way precludes her from pursuing single market membership as an objective.
It’s not the hung parliament that makes this difficult, it’s the party splits. If May had not gone to the polls in 2017 and thereby retained Dave’s majority we would be in the same place.
Would it have made any difference to the arithmetic though? 100% loyal party line split would have been 328-311. Optimistic world, 10 Labour ayes. The ERG only need 19 rebels to block it.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She was pushing for an amendment last night which said that the backstop should be reopened. And the papers are acclaiming this as a triumph for May. To me - and I think to other European leaders, especially the Irish - she, the government she “leads” and Britain look perfidious and untrustworthy and unreliable partners.
May sets down lots of red lines She spends 18 months negotiating a deal according to her red lines. Gets a hard-won agreement. Signs the deal. EU signs the deal. Asks the EU to help her sell the deal. The EU spends months going out on a limb to help her sell her deal. She then votes against her deal. Now she comes back demanding that the EU re-open negotiations. Offers no new concessions, no relaxed red lines. Threatens economic ruin to her EU partners Demands they make more concessions to her
I wonder where the EU might have gotten the impression May is untrustworthy and unreliable? It's a mystery.
I'm sure it's just an oversight on your part, but the Commons voted her deal down by 2/1, despite her arguing for it.
Explain how she ratifies the WA regardless of that vote in the Commons.
She modifies her made-up red lines. If she wants political cover for that, she puts the red lines to votes in parliament and then returns to the EU saying that she now has room to renegotiate.
The Commons voted by a majority of 200 to reject EEA membership. That limits the extent to which red lines can be modified.
Not true. The Commons voted against instructing May to adopt a particular negotiating position to avoid tying her hands. That in no way precludes her from pursuing single market membership as an objective.
In light of that vote, I think it is most unlikely that there is a Commons majority for EEA membership. Where do you think the Commons votes are for accepting free movement, for example?
It's frightening; the country is on the verge of the greatest change it's ever made and the main issue is how to maintain the unity of the governing party. No doubt Corbyn could have been more forthcoming, but the PM must have some concept of what the other European leaders think. However, it doesn't appear that she does. Or cares.
We are behaving like the perfidious Albion some foreigners have always claimed we are. This will have real live consequences for Britain. We are making it very hard for other countries to take us seriously.
And last night’s delusional Parliamentary shenanigans have not helped.
This is not a game. Even if people did not like the decision to leave the EU, we could have earned some credit in the manner of our leaving. We are doing the complete opposite. It does us no credit at all. The fact that the reaction of some is to abuse those foreign politicians who point this out is not an example of some bulldog spirit but of someone who has been on the spirits, meths probably, to judge by the incoherent and delusional ramblings of the British politicians interviewed today.
This is all a consequence of the way in which the Leave campaign was fought in the referendum. Having been entirely negative, there is nothing uniting Leavers. So the inevitable consequence has been to retreat into negativity, never being prepared to compromise because Leavers do not know what their real priorities are.
I think it’s worse than that. All you say is true. But I think some of the Brexiteers always wanted a No Deal exit but deliberately lied about wanting a deal, easiest trade deal in history, blah blah and having won the referendum have since then done everything possible to achieve what they wanted all along. There were Leninists in the Leave campaign, even if they didn’t show their hand at the time.
They're not that clever. They're bluffers for whom defending not having reached an agreement is easier than defending the terms of any specific agreement. They have only come to that conclusion by default, not by design.
Maybe you’re right. I wonder though.....I would not be surprised to find some that have been used. If they were just bluffers I would have expected more panic.
Mr Thompson, your evidence please that "you" won the referendum on our ability to sign trade deals? Where is the detail? Once again, male bovine excrement in quantities that would make Boris Johnson blush.
The only reason ever given as to why the UK should sign up to the backstop is because we are weak and more desperate than they are. To refuse that isn't perfidiousness, it is brave.
That's not true. People (who you don't agree with) have argued that we should sign up to the backstop (or the Northern Ireland Peace Agreement Guarantee as they've suggested it should be known) so that we have a guarantee that the EU will not use the threat of a hard border in Northern Ireland to force us to sign a trade deal that we don't want.
I don't see it as a concession on our part. It's in what I perceive as our national interest too.
And if there is no deal due to the unacceptability of the backstop, then how does that protect the Good Friday Agreement?
Don't forget in the no deal scenario there is of course no backstop.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She was pushing for an amendment last night which said that the backstop should be reopened. And the papers are acclaiming this as a triumph for May. To me - and I think to other European leaders, especially the Irish - she, the government she “leads” and Britain look perfidious and untrustworthy and unreliable partners.
Of course we are untrustworthy and unreliable. That's the inevitable consequence of negotiating a very tricky international agreement with a hung parliament (thanks, voters!) which has multiple different factions pursuing their own political ends and with no majority for anything. How could we be anything other than unreliable?
I expect there's a fair degree of personal sympathy floating around for Theresa May. There are plenty of other heads of government with nebulous control of their parliaments and governments who will empathise.
Not that sympathy or empathy will be converted into helpful action. Their own difficulties will make it difficult for them to do anything for her even if they were so inclined, which they aren't.
The personal sympathy is misplaced. I could be sympathetic if she was merely out of her depth, but she lost me when she delayed the vote. She prefers politicking and tactics to finding genuine consensus. She engages in fear and dangerous brinkmanship. She offers no creativity or imagination.
It’s not the hung parliament that makes this difficult, it’s the party splits. If May had not gone to the polls in 2017 and thereby retained Dave’s majority we would be in the same place.
Would it have made any difference to the arithmetic though? 100% loyal party line split would have been 328-311. ERG could block that easily.
I think that if May had won a working majority, her degree of control over the party would be much stronger. But, I don't know if it would be strong enough to overcome opposition from the ERG.
His lack of punctuation, poor grammar, inappropriate use of capitals for non-proper nouns and spelling mistakes reminds me of someone.....Alanbrooke, you are Donald Trump and I claim my £5
It's what happens when you overdo it on the hamberders and covfefe.
I think that if May had won a working majority, her degree of control over the party would be much stronger. But, I don't know if it would be strong enough to overcome opposition from the ERG.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She was pushing for an amendment last night which said that the backstop should be reopened. And the papers are acclaiming this as a triumph for May. To me - and I think to other European leaders, especially the Irish - she, the government she “leads” and Britain look perfidious and untrustworthy and unreliable partners.
Of course we are untrustworthy and unreliable. That's the inevitable consequence of negotiating a very tricky international agreement with a hung parliament (thanks, voters!) which has multiple different factions pursuing their own political ends and with no majority for anything. How could we be anything other than unreliable?
I expect there's a fair degree of personal sympathy floating around for Theresa May. There are plenty of other heads of government with nebulous control of their parliaments and governments who will empathise.
Not that sympathy or empathy will be converted into helpful action. Their own difficulties will make it difficult for them to do anything for her even if they were so inclined, which they aren't.
The personal sympathy is misplaced. I could be sympathetic if she was merely out of her depth, but she lost me when she delayed the vote. She prefers politicking and tactics to finding genuine consensus. She engages in fear and dangerous brinkmanship. She offers no creativity or imagination.
In short, she is the problem.
I'm basically at the same place as you, though to be fair she is not the biggest problem.
Of course there is. They can do a last minute fudge which is what they are experts at. If Varadkar/Coveney accept we are serious they will have to blink at which point things can move rapidly. That will only happen if we are serious.
You won't convince anyone a last minute deal isn't possible if we don't reach the last minute. We could agree a deal on 27/3 and get it ratified in 24 hours if need be.
Sure, they might come up with some face-saving fudge. They are very good at that. But I don't think they'll do very much for the obvious reason that even if they do, it's unlikely to get through parliament anyway. The ERG will just bank anything and claim that it shows the EU is on the run, so we should go for more, or will say it's just cosmetic, or both. Labour will continue to be cynical, and in any case the backstop isn't really an issue for them. So why would the EU engage with this charade?
As for 'last minute', we are already past the last minute. Serious damage is already being done, as businesses trigger their panic plans. A lot of that damage is irreversible.
If we're already past the last minute we may as well proceed to no deal then. Otherwise we're not yet at the last minute.
Yesterday Parliament voted to ratify the deal so long as the backstop is dealt with. I have more faith in Parliament than you do that if the backstop is dealt with it absolutely will ratify the deal.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She was pushing for an amendment last night which said that the backstop should be reopened. And the papers are acclaiming this as a triumph for May. To me - and I think to other European leaders, especially the Irish - she, the government she “leads” and Britain look perfidious and untrustworthy and unreliable partners.
Of course we are untrustworthy and unreliable. That's the inevitable consequence of negotiating a very tricky international agreement with a hung parliament (thanks, voters!) which has multiple different factions pursuing their own political ends and with no majority for anything. How could we be anything other than unreliable?
I expect there's a fair degree of personal sympathy floating around for Theresa May. There are plenty of other heads of government with nebulous control of their parliaments and governments who will empathise.
Not that sympathy or empathy will be converted into helpful action. Their own difficulties will make it difficult for them to do anything for her even if they were so inclined, which they aren't.
The personal sympathy is misplaced. I could be sympathetic if she was merely out of her depth, but she lost me when she delayed the vote. She prefers politicking and tactics to finding genuine consensus. She engages in fear and dangerous brinkmanship. She offers no creativity or imagination.
It’s not the hung parliament that makes this difficult, it’s the party splits. If May had not gone to the polls in 2017 and thereby retained Dave’s majority we would be in the same place.
Would it have made any difference to the arithmetic though? 100% loyal party line split would have been 328-311. ERG could block that easily.
I think that if May had won a working majority, her degree of control over the party would be much stronger. But, I don't know if it would be strong enough to overcome opposition from the ERG.
I think the question is whether the DUP view would have bled into the ERG in the same way if the Tories had a majority. On the other hand, adopting a rigid UK-wide approach was May’s idea.
CHEMNITZ, Germany (Reuters) - With Brexit less than two months away, and no divorce deal in sight, some German companies are taking matters into their own hands to limit any damage to their businesses.
The small and mid-sized firms - albeit a small minority - say they can’t wait any longer to see what agreement, if any, will emerge between London and Brussels. They are taking steps to protect themselves should a chaotic British withdrawal lead to traffic tailbacks, heavier customs bureaucracy and rising delivery costs after March 29, the planned break-up date.
Kieselstein International, a maker of metalworking machines, has for example successfully introduced a clause into a contract to deliver goods to British Steel that puts the onus on the UK firm to bear the costs of any extra red tape linked to Brexit.
Funny thing is he could just as easily be talking about the US.
I find it incredible that Trump is arguing he knows better than the entire US intelligence community, the bosses of which are mostly his appointees. He's not merely downplaying the conclusions of the report presented to the Senate yesterday, he's essentially saying it's all wrong.
I have no idea how people work for a someone who will so frequently rubbish their work and their characters.
The reason is that May does not want it to be done and not enough MPs who are willing to vote against her deal have the will to replace her with a different PM who would take us on a different path.
May does not want it to be done because she wants to leave the EU (to respect the referendum/impose immigration controls) and she wants to hold her party together - and both would be put at risk under your - otherwise entirely admirable - plan.
How can someone who claims to be in favour of Parliamentary democracy object to Parliament making the decision?
But I suppose you are, sadly, right: May puts her wishes and the interests of the Tory party above any other consideratiom. It is really quite disgraceful.
Well, under the way that our constitution had operated up until now, if Parliament doesn't like what the Executive is doing then it votes out the Executive and forms a new one that will do what it wants. That's the mechanism under which Parliament makes the decisions.
For various reasons - the referendum, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, Corbyn's leadership of the Opposition - this part of our constitution is no longer operating as it should.
For example, if you had a more moderate/imaginative leader of the Opposition I expect you would have seen some Tories cross the floor to join the Opposition. Enough to topple May? It's possible.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She was pushing for an amendment last night which said that the backstop should be reopened. And the papers are acclaiming this as a triumph for May. To me - and I think to other European leaders, especially the Irish - she, the government she “leads” and Britain look perfidious and untrustworthy and unreliable partners.
Of course we are untrustworthy and unreliable. That's the inevitable consequence of negotiating a very tricky international agreement with a hung parliament (thanks, voters!) which has multiple different factions pursuing their own political ends and with no majority for anything. How could we be anything other than unreliable?
I expect there's a fair degree of personal sympathy floating around for Theresa May. There are plenty of other heads of government with nebulous control of their parliaments and governments who will empathise.
Not that sympathy or empathy will be converted into helpful action. Their own difficulties will make it difficult for them to do anything for her even if they were so inclined, which they aren't.
The personal sympathy is misplaced. I could be sympathetic if she was merely out of her depth, but she lost me when she delayed the vote. She prefers politicking and tactics to finding genuine consensus. She engages in fear and dangerous brinkmanship. She offers no creativity or imagination.
In short, she is the problem.
I'm basically at the same place as you, though to be fair she is not the biggest problem.
Never underestimate the power of political leadership to set the tone and make things possible. Successful PMs, Wilson, Thatcher or Blair would not be in this position.
We won the referendum on two main arguments - control over our laws (including immigration) and control over signing new trade deals.
Neither of those were on the ballot paper (as you Brexiteers are so fond of pointing out)
May painted her own red lines to appease the headbangers, which is why we are now in such deep trouble
No leaving the EU was on the ballot paper, and all parties to the referendum unanimously agreed that meant leaving the Single Market. Not one person during the referendum made the claim that we would remain in the Single Market if we left the EU - if you believe otherwise please provide a source with a date for when that was said.
His lack of punctuation, poor grammar, inappropriate use of capitals for non-proper nouns and spelling mistakes reminds me of someone.....Alanbrooke, you are Donald Trump and I claim my £5
It's what happens when you overdo it on the hamberders and covfefe.
possbly or as e dosnt drink acohol it may be that he is just stupid or suffring early alze alze whadya call it demensha.
Mr Thompson, your evidence please that "you" won the referendum on our ability to sign trade deals? Where is the detail? Once again, male bovine excrement in quantities that would make Boris Johnson blush.
Why have to quoted the word "you"? I never used either the word "you" or "I".
Signing trade deals was prominent in Vote Leave's list of arguments used and Vote Leave was the OFFICIAL Leave campaign. So yeah that's a detail.
Two fucking years we've been doing this and he still hasn't realised that this *isn't* the trade negotiations.
The Irish border is a trade issue.
The issue would not have arisen had the Withdrawal Agreement been negotiated in parallel with the Free Trade Deal.
That option was not available.
It's not legally possible. The EU doesn't have legal authority to negotiate an FTA with a member state, only with a third country. The UK has to leave first, legally, politically and practically.
That's why Article 50 gives the EU a two year window for the EU to trap the departing state in an impotent WA first. Departing member states would be in too powerful a position otherwise. Article 50 empowers the EU to first weaken the departing state via the WA process, and then only once they're trapped in a WA and legally bound to align with the EU's every demand will EU countenance the start of trade talks, having an enormous and insurmountable inbuilt advantage to shaft the departing state even harder.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She was pushing for an amendment last night which said that the backstop should be reopened. And the papers are acclaiming this as a triumph for May. To me - and I think to other European leaders, especially the Irish - she, the government she “leads” and Britain look perfidious and untrustworthy and unreliable partners.
Of course we are untrustworthy and unreliable. That's the inevitable consequence of negotiating a very tricky international agreement with a hung parliament (thanks, voters!) which has multiple different factions pursuing their own political ends and with no majority for anything. How could we be anything other than unreliable?
I expect there's a fair degree of personal sympathy floating around for Theresa May. There are plenty of other heads of government with nebulous control of their parliaments and governments who will empathise.
Not that sympathy or empathy will be converted into helpful action. Their own difficulties will make it difficult for them to do anything for her even if they were so inclined, which they aren't.
The personal sympathy is misplaced. I could be sympathetic if she was merely out of her depth, but she lost me when she delayed the vote. She prefers politicking and tactics to finding genuine consensus. She engages in fear and dangerous brinkmanship. She offers no creativity or imagination.
In short, she is the problem.
I'm basically at the same place as you, though to be fair she is not the biggest problem.
Never underestimate the power of political leadership to set the tone and make things possible. Successful PMs, Wilson, Thatcher or Blair would not be in this position.
Her interpersonal skills are certainly non-existent, and good interpersonal skills are essential in a hung Parliament. Someone like Wilson would be the best PM in current circumstances.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She was pushing for an amendment last night which said that the backstop should be reopened. And the papers are acclaiming this as a triumph for May. To me - and I think to other European leaders, especially the Irish - she, the government she “leads” and Britain look perfidious and untrustworthy and unreliable partners.
Of course we are untrustworthy and unreliable. That's the inevitable consequence of negotiating a very tricky international agreement with a hung parliament (thanks, voters!) which has multiple different factions pursuing their own political ends and with no majority for anything. How could we be anything other than unreliable?
I expect there's a fair degree of personal sympathy floating around for Theresa May. There are plenty of other heads of government with nebulous control of their parliaments and governments who will empathise.
Not that sympathy or empathy will be converted into helpful action. Their own difficulties will make it difficult for them to do anything for her even if they were so inclined, which they aren't.
The personal sympathy is misplaced. I could be sympathetic if she was merely out of her depth, but she lost me when she delayed the vote. She prefers politicking and tactics to finding genuine consensus. She engages in fear and dangerous brinkmanship. She offers no creativity or imagination.
In short, she is the problem.
+ 1.
And she is not straight with people, either.
To be fair, the opposition's no help. If she'd been facing a Foot, Healy, Blair or Cook she'd have been in a lot more trouble. Or even a Jeremy Thorpe or Charlie Kennedy.
Only in the mind of headbangers like you. So your's is the bovine excrement. Norway and Switzerland are not "in" the EU. Such an arrangement would easily meet the vagueness of the referendum question. Nut jobs, and Mrs May in her haste to please them, have tried to say that the referendum said things it did not. There was no supplementary question about the single market or CU. It was Leave or Remain, in the EU. That was all. Perhaps you should advocate another referendum to see if people also want out of the other things that the liars and charlatans have said that the question included.
Only if you slept through the referendum.
All parties in the referendum (Leavers and Remainers) unanimously made the argument that we would leave the Single Market if we left the EU. Remainers said we should remain in the EU to stay in the Single Market as Leaving meant leaving the SM. Leavers said we should leave the EU to control immigration and our laws which meant leaving the SM. The debate was had.
Name a single person and a single day from either side of the debate during the referendum who said otherwise. Please include a date.
Two fucking years we've been doing this and he still hasn't realised that this *isn't* the trade negotiations.
The Irish border is a trade issue.
The issue would not have arisen had the Withdrawal Agreement been negotiated in parallel with the Free Trade Deal.
That option was not available.
It's not legally possible. The EU doesn't have legal authority to negotiate an FTA with a member state, only with a third country. The UK has to leave first, legally, politically and practically.
That's why Article 50 gives the EU a two year window for the EU to trap the departing state in an impotent WA first. Departing member states would be in too powerful a position otherwise. Article 50 empowers the EU to first weaken the departing state via the WA process, and then only once they're trapped in a WA and legally bound to align with the EU's every demand will EU countenance the start of trade talks, having an enormous and insurmountable inbuilt advantage to shaft the departing state even harder.
The people who drafted Article 50 were geniuses.
But, perhaps, too clever by half, as per @Alistair Meeks excellent header about Sevres.
Two fucking years we've been doing this and he still hasn't realised that this *isn't* the trade negotiations.
The Irish border is a trade issue.
The issue would not have arisen had the Withdrawal Agreement been negotiated in parallel with the Free Trade Deal.
That option was not available.
It's not legally possible. The EU doesn't have legal authority to negotiate an FTA with a member state, only with a third country. The UK has to leave first, legally, politically and practically.
That's why Article 50 gives the EU a two year window for the EU to trap the departing state in an impotent WA first. Departing member states would be in too powerful a position otherwise. Article 50 empowers the EU to first weaken the departing state via the WA process, and then only once they're trapped in a WA and legally bound to align with the EU's every demand will EU countenance the start of trade talks, having an enormous and insurmountable inbuilt advantage to shaft the departing state even harder.
The people who drafted Article 50 were geniuses.
Sounds like a good argument to No Deal Brexit then.
We agreed to a backstop in December 2017. Now the PM who agreed it is going back on her word with 58 days to go. Yeah - I’d describe that as perfidious.
We are not standing up for ourselves. We are making ourselves look ridiculous.
There I would strongly disagree. She's not going back on her word - quite the opposite, she's been pushing like hell to get the deal through. Unfortunately parliament in its wisdom has decided to exercise its sovereignty by sabotaging the agreed deal. It's a bit rich to blame her for that.
She was pushing for an amendment last night which said that the backstop should be reopened. And the papers are acclaiming this as a triumph for May. To me - and I think to other European leaders, especially the Irish - she, the government she “leads” and Britain look perfidious and untrustworthy and unreliable partners.
Of course we are untrustworthy and unreliable. That's the inevitable consequence of negotiating a very tricky international agreement with a hung parliament (thanks, voters!) which has multiple different factions pursuing their own political ends and with no majority for anything. How could we be anything other than unreliable?
I expect there's a fair degree of personal sympathy floating around for Theresa May. There are plenty of other heads of government with nebulous control of their parliaments and governments who will empathise.
Not that sympathy or empathy will be converted into helpful action. Their own difficulties will make it difficult for them to do anything for her even if they were so inclined, which they aren't.
The personal sympathy is misplaced. I could be sympathetic if she was merely out of her depth, but she lost me when she delayed the vote. She prefers politicking and tactics to finding genuine consensus. She engages in fear and dangerous brinkmanship. She offers no creativity or imagination.
In short, she is the problem.
+ 1.
And she is not straight with people, either.
To be fair, the opposition's no help. If she'd been facing a Foot, Healy, Blair or Cook she'd have been in a lot more trouble. Or even a Jeremy Thorpe or Charlie Kennedy.
Mr Thompson, your evidence please that "you" won the referendum on our ability to sign trade deals? Where is the detail? Once again, male bovine excrement in quantities that would make Boris Johnson blush.
Why have to quoted the word "you"? I never used either the word "you" or "I".
Signing trade deals was prominent in Vote Leave's list of arguments used and Vote Leave was the OFFICIAL Leave campaign. So yeah that's a detail.
Its bollox and you know it. Farage (remember him) and Hannon and numerous others banged on about Norway during the campaign. I put "you" because you said "we won the referendum".
Comments
Although technically we'd legally be a third party country from the moment of No Deal Brexit, that's exactly the sort of fudge the EU would do.
By comparison, UK Gov, sitting there on day one with a parliamentary majority, must have looked on paper like the easier party to agree among itself. Ho ho.
We do not deserve to be taken seriously.
Frankly she may as well go there to stock up on chocolate as have these talks.
She comes back and says “I told you so.”
Why can’t there be 4 motions put before Parliament:-
1. Agree to the WA and exit the EU.
2. Have a referendum on whether to agree to the WA or remain on current terms (and then authorise the government to seek an extension of Article 50 to allow such a referendum to take place).
3. Revoke Article 50.
4. Leave the EU with no WA.
MPs vote - they can have a free vote, as far as I’m concerned - and the one which gains a majority wins.
Is there any reason why this cannot be done? Instead of all this faffing about with footling incomprehensible amendments no-one understands, just lay out the options and get Parliament to choose one.
I’m probably missing something......
It’s almost like in the final analysis human beings choose the least worst of options available to them
Parliament voted not to do that...
Now she's saying SURPRISE! ACTUALLY I LIED! UNICORNS ARE REAL AFTER ALL!
That's going back on her word in the stupidest way possible. Which is the way May likes to do things.
https://twitter.com/GuardianHeather/status/1090616129272377344
May does not want it to be done because she wants to leave the EU (to respect the referendum/impose immigration controls) and she wants to hold her party together - and both would be put at risk under your - otherwise entirely admirable - plan.
Nothing has changed.
I think the difference in perception of the deal between MPs and The People (at least at the start) is that the former group saw it as a suboptimal second choice to be defeated, whereas the latter saw a reasonable compromise.
This process should flag up the inadequacies of our system and lead to the binning of some parliamentary traditions (I mean, we've survived without Bercow wearing a wig). But I doubt it.
(* I appreciate they can be amended, and workarounds found.. but I still don't think you get many HoC brownie points for compromising)
Which bank will be next?
Surely?
Parliament would vote no, no, no, and no :-)
The cycle of indicative votes has plenty merits for this reason imo. Make em vote repeatedly, narrow the options until something passes.
How can someone who claims to be in favour of Parliamentary democracy object to Parliament making the decision?
But I suppose you are, sadly, right: May puts her wishes and the interests of the Tory party above any other consideratiom. It is really quite disgraceful.
If she goes back to Brussels, she's perfidious. If she doesn't, she's stupidly persisting with a deal that the Commons doesn't want.
She spends 18 months negotiating a deal according to her red lines.
Gets a hard-won agreement. Signs the deal.
EU signs the deal.
Asks the EU to help her sell the deal.
The EU spends months going out on a limb to help her sell her deal.
She then votes against her deal.
Now she comes back demanding that the EU re-open negotiations.
Offers no new concessions, no relaxed red lines.
Threatens economic ruin to her EU partners
Demands they make more concessions to her
I wonder where the EU might have gotten the impression May is untrustworthy and unreliable? It's a mystery.
You couldn't satirise this idiot no matter how hard you tried. His arrogance and ignorance are unparalleled.
Funny thing is he could just as easily be talking about the US.
Explain how she ratifies the WA regardless of that vote in the Commons.
Not that sympathy or empathy will be converted into helpful action. Their own difficulties will make it difficult for them to do anything for her even if they were so inclined, which they aren't.
Which would be ironic, given what the Brexiteers promised.
The Irish border is a trade issue.
The issue would not have arisen had the Withdrawal Agreement been negotiated in parallel with the Free Trade Deal.
May failed to take her party with her. That’s why we are where we are.
His lack of punctuation, poor grammar, inappropriate use of capitals for non-proper nouns and spelling mistakes reminds me of someone.....Alanbrooke, you are Donald Trump and I claim my £5
We won the referendum on two main arguments - control over our laws (including immigration) and control over signing new trade deals. The EU spent months and months after the referendum (before May made any commitments) reiterating their red lines that the four freedoms are indivisible and if we want to control immigration (let alone any other laws) we must leave the Single Market.
So May made the decision to leave the Single Market. On their red lines. If they want to make the four freedoms divisible I'm sure May would be happy to revisit her red lines.
May painted her own red lines to appease the headbangers, which is why we are now in such deep trouble
Don't forget in the no deal scenario there is of course no backstop.
In short, she is the problem.
No it isn’t. It’s not just that. It’s a political issue.
Yesterday Parliament voted to ratify the deal so long as the backstop is dealt with. I have more faith in Parliament than you do that if the backstop is dealt with it absolutely will ratify the deal.
And she is not straight with people, either.
CHEMNITZ, Germany (Reuters) - With Brexit less than two months away, and no divorce deal in sight, some German companies are taking matters into their own hands to limit any damage to their businesses.
The small and mid-sized firms - albeit a small minority - say they can’t wait any longer to see what agreement, if any, will emerge between London and Brussels. They are taking steps to protect themselves should a chaotic British withdrawal lead to traffic tailbacks, heavier customs bureaucracy and rising delivery costs after March 29, the planned break-up date.
Kieselstein International, a maker of metalworking machines, has for example successfully introduced a clause into a contract to deliver goods to British Steel that puts the onus on the UK firm to bear the costs of any extra red tape linked to Brexit.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-germany-mittelstand-insigh-idUSKCN1PO1GD
I have no idea how people work for a someone who will so frequently rubbish their work and their characters.
https://twitter.com/bbc5live/status/1090587682453868544?s=21
For various reasons - the referendum, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, Corbyn's leadership of the Opposition - this part of our constitution is no longer operating as it should.
For example, if you had a more moderate/imaginative leader of the Opposition I expect you would have seen some Tories cross the floor to join the Opposition. Enough to topple May? It's possible.
Signing trade deals was prominent in Vote Leave's list of arguments used and Vote Leave was the OFFICIAL Leave campaign. So yeah that's a detail.
That's why Article 50 gives the EU a two year window for the EU to trap the departing state in an impotent WA first. Departing member states would be in too powerful a position otherwise. Article 50 empowers the EU to first weaken the departing state via the WA process, and then only once they're trapped in a WA and legally bound to align with the EU's every demand will EU countenance the start of trade talks, having an enormous and insurmountable inbuilt advantage to shaft the departing state even harder.
The people who drafted Article 50 were geniuses.
All parties in the referendum (Leavers and Remainers) unanimously made the argument that we would leave the Single Market if we left the EU. Remainers said we should remain in the EU to stay in the Single Market as Leaving meant leaving the SM. Leavers said we should leave the EU to control immigration and our laws which meant leaving the SM. The debate was had.
Name a single person and a single day from either side of the debate during the referendum who said otherwise. Please include a date.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY