Maybe, but they're all going to have to stand for re-election at some point. I was guessing they'd rather not have to try to explain the (by then) somewhat nuanced difference of voting against Brexit and voting against May's Brexit.
"I voted for brexit, I voted against this terrible deal which has caused [all the bad things that happen because of brexit]". It's not particularly nuanced - per the polling lot of voters oppose the deal and support brexit. And Farage and the other most pro-brexit people will also be blaming all the problems on TMay's implementation, so you don't really want to be on the "doing brexit this way" side.
The question is, how many who voted for the Brady Amendment STILL don't think there has been enough movement. This from Steve Baker, the ERG deputy, at the time of Brady:
"A vote for the Brady amendment is a vote to see if the PM can land a deal that will work. If not then we are not committed."
Is it a deal that will work?
I believe enough on the Tory benches will think it is now adequate to stop buggering about, get on with Brexiting by the only route possible - and lean on Spreadsheet Phil to open his post-Brexit warchest.
FWIW, I also think enough on the Labour benches will realise that "Corbyn's Brexit" will be shown to be a dead unicorn. The EU would offer PM Corbyn nothing more than is in the WA. So what is the point of get in the way of it passing? Abstaining will do the job.
The EU would happily and quickly offer Corbyn an amendment which stated that membership of the customs union and single market would be permanent. Which is why anyone who believe a Norway+ Brexit to be the worst of all worlds should be voting Aye tomorrow - the most likely outcome of continuing to whine that we can't unilaterally leave the thing we asked for in the first place is a deal whereby we promise that never leaving it is our intention anyway.
I wondered who the first brave Tory would be to say they are voting against tomorrow. Didn't expect the answer to be Damian collins. Brexiteers hate him so I wonder if that might be even more encouragement for some ERG folding?
Maybe, but they're all going to have to stand for re-election at some point. I was guessing they'd rather not have to try to explain the (by then) somewhat nuanced difference of voting against Brexit and voting against May's Brexit.
"I voted for brexit, I voted against this terrible deal which has caused [all the bad things that happen because of brexit]". It's not particularly nuanced - per the polling lot of voters oppose the deal and support brexit. And Farage and the other most pro-brexit people will also be blaming all the problems on TMay's implementation, so you don't really want to be on the "doing brexit this way" side.
Fair points. I think come 2022, no one will remember any of the detail of what's happened, and finding actual identifiable bad things that happened because of Brexit (that people care about) might be harder than you think, especially in the Midlands/North, and especially in three years' time.
Actually on that last point, I'm clearly wrong, because everything bad that ever happens again will be either blamed on Brexit happening, or not happening, by someone, depending on what happens in the next few weeks/months.
The question is, how many who voted for the Brady Amendment STILL don't think there has been enough movement. This from Steve Baker, the ERG deputy, at the time of Brady:
"A vote for the Brady amendment is a vote to see if the PM can land a deal that will work. If not then we are not committed."
Is it a deal that will work?
I believe enough on the Tory benches will think it is now adequate to stop buggering about, get on with Brexiting by the only route possible - and lean on Spreadsheet Phil to open his post-Brexit warchest.
FWIW, I also think enough on the Labour benches will realise that "Corbyn's Brexit" will be shown to be a dead unicorn. The EU would offer PM Corbyn nothing more than is in the WA. So what is the point of get in the way of it passing? Abstaining will do the job.
The EU would happily and quickly offer Corbyn an amendment which stated that membership of the customs union and single market would be permanent. Which is why anyone who believe a Norway+ Brexit to be the worst of all worlds should be voting Aye tomorrow - the most likely outcome of continuing to whine that we can't unilaterally leave the thing we asked for in the first place is a deal whereby we promise that never leaving it is our intention anyway.
Clause 3 is not even grammatically correct. Should be "reduces the risk THAT the UK could be deliberately held in the NI backstop indefinitely..."
And as such, as both Robert Peston and Jon Craig were at pains to separately point out, that clause only serves to emphasise that the UK could still be deliberately held in the NI backstop indefinitely. Rather than playing down the risk, it serves to shout that risk from the rooftops.
Clause 3 is not even grammatically correct. Should be "reduces the risk THAT the UK could be deliberately held in the NI backstop indefinitely..."
And as such, as both Robert Peston and Jon Craig were at pains to separately point out, that clause only serves to emphasise that the UK could still be deliberately held in the NI backstop indefinitely. Rather than playing down the risk, it serves to shout that risk from the rooftops.
Surely no deal is better than a grammatically incorrect deal!
Clause 3 is not even grammatically correct. Should be "reduces the risk THAT the UK could be deliberately held in the NI backstop indefinitely..."
And as such, as both Robert Peston and Jon Craig were at pains to separately point out, that clause only serves to emphasise that the UK could still be deliberately held in the NI backstop indefinitely. Rather than playing down the risk, it serves to shout that risk from the rooftops.
Surely no deal is better than a grammatically incorrect deal!
We don't know that it is grammatically incorrect as it is part 3 of a list of hanging paragraphs, all of which are conditioned by the chapeau which we do not see in that extract. In other words, we are seeing a fragment of a very long sentence. You'll note that (3) neither starts with a capital letter nor ends in a full stop.
If May lands the deal (which still looks most unlikely) the first thing she'll do during the ensuing honeymoon (which will last for hours at most) will be to announce the need for an extension, which surely she has already agreed in outline with the EU. If she loses, the Commons will vote for an extension.
So the 29th March bets still look like losers to me.
Radio 4 has been over this case for years. It's broken a fair few lives, and the problem wasn't the computer software: it was the way the PO bosses and courts believed the software was correct, and then (IMO) PO bosses then didn't seem to want to admit to problems - despite people having been jailed.
Yes, there were software bugs the real evil was the process that overlay it.
As a quick example, from a report: "Our current, evidence based opinion, is that Fujitsu / Post Office did have, and may still have, the ability to directly alter branch records without the knowledge of the relevant Subpostmaster" (the PO and Fujitsu deny this).
That alone should have been enough to drive a coach and horses through any court cases.
It definitely is ADMISSIBLE (just of limited weight) under English law. But the UN guidance makes pretty clear that international law works differently, which makes sense. Far less precedent and less intrinsic sense of what the objective observer would think.
Where you come to Treaty law it’s all politics not law
Say in 5 years we walk away from the backstop
The argument is then “you knew we were going to do that before you signed”
I am imagining Nigel Dodds tucked up in his bed, laughing, as he has already decided what to do.
But he'll make us wait.
Night all.
Doddsy been perfectly positioning himself whenever he thinks the camera is on him in the chamber looking like suitably thoughtful yet sharp legal eagle. No forgetting though, he may understand his law but he is a political operator first and foremost.
I don't think there is a hard Brexiteer amongst the DUP Westminster team in the mould of the ideologues within the Conservatives PP. .
What’s the likelihood he asks for some more money?
Why would they be happy, literally nothing has changed.
They would be insane not to backdown. It’s this or remain. There are surely enough of them who do actually want to leave.
Thing is you don't need many of them to be insane to block the thing
I suppose that depends on how many Labour will risk upsetting their constituents.
I don't see why that would change from last time.
Because now there's a chance it might pass without them. They're quite happy voting against if they win, but they dare not be on the wrong side of the one passes.
So, having sleepy on it, my guess is that enough Tory loons will blink for May’s deal to get through now and that this will give the irreconcilable loons the betrayal narrative they need. It all looks like very good news for Farage/UKIP.
There is next to nothing in this. So it’s an interesting psychological experiment to find out whether the hardliners will react well to a placebo.
My guess is that too many are not ready to play nice.
There is quite sufficient to give the UK the ability to go ahead with unilateral withdrawal if the paranoid idea that the EU is determined to trap us forever in the temporary arrangement were to prove true.
Neither English nor international law has much to do with it. That is simple realpoliti.
There is next to nothing in this. So it’s an interesting psychological experiment to find out whether the hardliners will react well to a placebo.
My guess is that too many are not ready to play nice.
The alternative now seems to be Remain, though - or at least a far, far softer Brexit. I just don’t see how enough of them could be that stupid. Most do genuinely want to leave, don’t they? I never really bought the idea that Remain was the true loons’ ultimate aim, but if they vote this down I will have to change my mind.
There is next to nothing in this. So it’s an interesting psychological experiment to find out whether the hardliners will react well to a placebo.
My guess is that too many are not ready to play nice.
There is quite sufficient to give the UK the ability to go ahead with unilateral withdrawal if the paranoid idea that the EU is determined to trap us forever in the temporary arrangement were to prove true.
Neither English nor international law has much to do with it. That is simple realpoliti.
But that was always the case anyway in simple realpolítik terms. We could always have walked out. But I agree, there is surely enough here for Cox to justify changing his mind and for enough of the loons to back down.
There is next to nothing in this. So it’s an interesting psychological experiment to find out whether the hardliners will react well to a placebo.
My guess is that too many are not ready to play nice.
There is quite sufficient to give the UK the ability to go ahead with unilateral withdrawal if the paranoid idea that the EU is determined to trap us forever in the temporary arrangement were to prove true.
Neither English nor international law has much to do with it. That is simple realpoliti.
But that was always the case anyway in simple realpolítik terms. We could always have walked out. But I agree, there is surely enough here for Cox to justify changing his mind and for enough of the loons to back down.
Loons are called loons for a reason. Common Sense does not apply here.
So, having sleepy on it, my guess is that enough Tory loons will blink for May’s deal to get through now and that this will give the irreconcilable loons the betrayal narrative they need. It all looks like very good news for Farage/UKIP.
There are millions of people out there who will greet the news that we are to leave the European Union with rage and anger because it means that we aren't going to leave the European Union and that they have been betrayed. Only no deal and eating grass is Brexit, any other scenario whether we leave the EU or not is apparently us not leaving the EU.
So yes, if the Tories decide to play the long game then the deal will pass. And my business will breathe a huge sigh of relief - at our latest Brexit meeting yesterday we were faced with having to guess which way the EU27 and then MPs would go once the UK asked for an extension as no agreement had been passed. Guessing which risks the cash flow on a significant basis. We are by no means the only business left pissing in the wind hoping to avoid sprayback so I can cope with a bit of certainty
So, having sleepy on it, my guess is that enough Tory loons will blink for May’s deal to get through now and that this will give the irreconcilable loons the betrayal narrative they need. It all looks like very good news for Farage/UKIP.
There is next to nothing in this. So it’s an interesting psychological experiment to find out whether the hardliners will react well to a placebo.
My guess is that too many are not ready to play nice.
There is quite sufficient to give the UK the ability to go ahead with unilateral withdrawal if the paranoid idea that the EU is determined to trap us forever in the temporary arrangement were to prove true.
Neither English nor international law has much to do with it. That is simple realpoliti.
But that was always the case anyway in simple realpolítik terms. We could always have walked out. But I agree, there is surely enough here for Cox to justify changing his mind and for enough of the loons to back down.
Loons are called loons for a reason. Common Sense does not apply here.
You do have to laugh though - when faced with the impossibility of securing what you need from the other side, simply issue a unilateral declaration and claim victory. Junker is more than happy to stand next to her reading out her unilateral declaration knowing that it is utterly meaningless
You do have to laugh though - when faced with the impossibility of securing what you need from the other side, simply issue a unilateral declaration and claim victory. Junker is more than happy to stand next to her reading out her unilateral declaration knowing that it is utterly meaningless
As a Man United fan can i get a unilateral declaration that we beat Arsenal 5-0 at the weekend?
I'm surprised how many here feel that May has achieved enough to carry the day tomorrow. The betting has moved a bit in her direction but still suggests she won't get the vote through. I hope that most of you are right, that I'm wrong and the betting markets too.
There is next to nothing in this. So it’s an interesting psychological experiment to find out whether the hardliners will react well to a placebo.
My guess is that too many are not ready to play nice.
There is quite sufficient to give the UK the ability to go ahead with unilateral withdrawal if the paranoid idea that the EU is determined to trap us forever in the temporary arrangement were to prove true.
Neither English nor international law has much to do with it. That is simple realpoliti.
But that was always the case anyway in simple realpolítik terms. We could always have walked out. But I agree, there is surely enough here for Cox to justify changing his mind and for enough of the loons to back down.
Loons are called loons for a reason. Common Sense does not apply here.
I'm surprised how many here feel that May has achieved enough to carry the day tomorrow. The betting has moved a bit in her direction but still suggests she won't get the vote through. I hope that most of you are right, that I'm wrong and the betting markets too.
Your point is fair.
I don’t expect the Deal to pass.
If that is the case, Brexit gets even softer or we Remain. Surely the ERG and DUP see that, because it’s pretty clear No Deal is now off the table.
Recommend reading Tim Wu's 'The Master Switch' which places the Internet in the historical context of telephone, radio and TV. How new technologies boomed, and then got wrestled to the ground by powerful corporations and final political regulation.
There is next to nothing in this. So it’s an interesting psychological experiment to find out whether the hardliners will react well to a placebo.
My guess is that too many are not ready to play nice.
There is quite sufficient to give the UK the ability to go ahead with unilateral withdrawal if the paranoid idea that the EU is determined to trap us forever in the temporary arrangement were to prove true.
Neither English nor international law has much to do with it. That is simple realpoliti.
But that was always the case anyway in simple realpolítik terms. We could always have walked out. But I agree, there is surely enough here for Cox to justify changing his mind and for enough of the loons to back down.
Loons are called loons for a reason. Common Sense does not apply here.
There is next to nothing in this. So it’s an interesting psychological experiment to find out whether the hardliners will react well to a placebo.
My guess is that too many are not ready to play nice.
There is quite sufficient to give the UK the ability to go ahead with unilateral withdrawal if the paranoid idea that the EU is determined to trap us forever in the temporary arrangement were to prove true.
Neither English nor international law has much to do with it. That is simple realpoliti.
But that was always the case anyway in simple realpolítik terms. We could always have walked out. But I agree, there is surely enough here for Cox to justify changing his mind and for enough of the loons to back down.
Loons are called loons for a reason. Common Sense does not apply here.
I'm surprised how many here feel that May has achieved enough to carry the day tomorrow. The betting has moved a bit in her direction but still suggests she won't get the vote through. I hope that most of you are right, that I'm wrong and the betting markets too.
Your point is fair.
I don’t expect the Deal to pass.
If that is the case, Brexit gets even softer or we Remain. Surely the ERG and DUP see that, because it’s pretty clear No Deal is now off the table.
You assume they’d have a problem with the former, and that they’re wholly rational.
It might suit many of them politically to have been seen to have fought tooth & nail for No Deal, only for a “betrayal” by most MPs and the Government leading the UK to ultimately Remain.
There is next to nothing in this. So it’s an interesting psychological experiment to find out whether the hardliners will react well to a placebo.
My guess is that too many are not ready to play nice.
The alternative now seems to be Remain, though - or at least a far, far softer Brexit. I just don’t see how enough of them could be that stupid. Most do genuinely want to leave, don’t they? I never really bought the idea that Remain was the true loons’ ultimate aim, but if they vote this down I will have to change my mind.
Radio 4 has been over this case for years. It's broken a fair few lives, and the problem wasn't the computer software: it was the way the PO bosses and courts believed the software was correct, and then (IMO) PO bosses then didn't seem to want to admit to problems - despite people having been jailed.
Yes, there were software bugs the real evil was the process that overlay it.
As a quick example, from a report: "Our current, evidence based opinion, is that Fujitsu / Post Office did have, and may still have, the ability to directly alter branch records without the knowledge of the relevant Subpostmaster" (the PO and Fujitsu deny this).
That alone should have been enough to drive a coach and horses through any court cases.
Thanks for the information. I hadn't heard of this until a few hours ago despite probably being a lot more interested in the news than most people.
I'm surprised how many here feel that May has achieved enough to carry the day tomorrow. The betting has moved a bit in her direction but still suggests she won't get the vote through. I hope that most of you are right, that I'm wrong and the betting markets too.
Your point is fair.
I don’t expect the Deal to pass.
If that is the case, Brexit gets even softer or we Remain. Surely the ERG and DUP see that, because it’s pretty clear No Deal is now off the table.
You assume they’d have a problem with the former, and that they’re wholly rational.
It might suit many of them politically to have been seen to have fought tooth & nail for No Deal, only for a “betrayal” by most MPs and the Government leading the UK to ultimately Remain.
It’s true my base assumption is that they want to leave.
I'm surprised how many here feel that May has achieved enough to carry the day tomorrow. The betting has moved a bit in her direction but still suggests she won't get the vote through. I hope that most of you are right, that I'm wrong and the betting markets too.
Your point is fair.
I don’t expect the Deal to pass.
If that is the case, Brexit gets even softer or we Remain. Surely the ERG and DUP see that, because it’s pretty clear No Deal is now off the table.
You assume they’d have a problem with the former, and that they’re wholly rational.
It might suit many of them politically to have been seen to have fought tooth & nail for No Deal, only for a “betrayal” by most MPs and the Government leading the UK to ultimately Remain.
“There is nothing perhaps so generally consoling to a man as a well-established grievance; a feeling of having been injured, on which his mind can brood from hour to hour, allowing him to plead his own cause in his own court, within his own heart, — and always to plead it successfully.” Anthony Trollope, Orley Farm
I'm surprised how many here feel that May has achieved enough to carry the day tomorrow. The betting has moved a bit in her direction but still suggests she won't get the vote through. I hope that most of you are right, that I'm wrong and the betting markets too.
Your point is fair.
I don’t expect the Deal to pass.
From the apparent thinness of the gruel, I too am slightly surprised at the general “phew, that was close” tone of some commentary. Given this was the biggest parliamentary defeat ever, it wouldn’t say much for the implacably opposed if *this* changed 100+ minds.
(And I speak from the “Er, I suppose we’d better get on with it if we have to” wing of politics - ie this or any other middle ground fudge seems about right if we’re going to get out in one piece without pitchforks.)
Radio 4 has been over this case for years. It's broken a fair few lives, and the problem wasn't the computer software: it was the way the PO bosses and courts believed the software was correct, and then (IMO) PO bosses then didn't seem to want to admit to problems - despite people having been jailed.
Yes, there were software bugs the real evil was the process that overlay it.
As a quick example, from a report: "Our current, evidence based opinion, is that Fujitsu / Post Office did have, and may still have, the ability to directly alter branch records without the knowledge of the relevant Subpostmaster" (the PO and Fujitsu deny this).
That alone should have been enough to drive a coach and horses through any court cases.
Thanks for the information. I hadn't heard of this until a few hours ago despite probably being a lot more interested in the news than most people.
Private Eye has reporting on this for several years. They seem quite convinced of the justice of the postmasters case, and of abuse of power by the Post Office management.
There is next to nothing in this. So it’s an interesting psychological experiment to find out whether the hardliners will react well to a placebo.
My guess is that too many are not ready to play nice.
The alternative now seems to be Remain, though - or at least a far, far softer Brexit. I just don’t see how enough of them could be that stupid. Most do genuinely want to leave, don’t they? I never really bought the idea that Remain was the true loons’ ultimate aim, but if they vote this down I will have to change my mind.
My mind is already changed.
Although it’s the arch Remainers coming out against it today - we’ve seen Wollaston, Collins and Grieve so far.
It’s almost as if they don’t want to leave on any terms
I wouldn't advise my clients to accept a best endeavours clause lightly. It's of uncertain effect, under English law (which is a bit of a proviso here - the assumption of English lawyers has always been continental systems have more room for it) but not of no effect.
In the oil industry when we are writing programmes for agreement by joint venture partners we are always advised we should use the term 'reasonable endeavours' not 'best endeavours'. Oil companies have been sued by partners for not effectively pursuing any and all means to achieve an objective almost irrespective of the cost when they had claimed they would use 'best endeavours'. With rig rates of half a million pounds a day it can prove extremely costly.
Short version of the tl;dr of the layman's version of this: 'reasonable endeavours' means you have to try one or two things to make it work. 'All reasonable endeavours' means you have to keep trying anything sensible. 'Best endeavours' includes trying a couple of non-sensible things too.
The interpretative document allows the UK to use the WA arbitration mechanism if it considers the EU to be stringing the backstop out indefinitely (para 12). If the arbitration is available on a mere consideration, then perhaps so would suspension under A60 of the Vienna Treaty. Ballsy move by the AG if he calls it that way.
The EU is not bound by the Vienna treaty/convention, as it is neither a signatory, nor could it be.
The purpose of this arbitration mechanism is to ensure that, if the EU is not sincerely attempting to implement the technical measures in the WA, then we can bring it to the attention of an independent body.
It is largely what I suggested a month ago. (Albeit I called it an independent body writing an annual report on progress.)
Now, there are sensible objections, and non-sensible ones.
The principle sensible objection is that it's not technical solutions - or lack thereof - that will keep NI in the backstop. It is that it will end up politically expedient. If 65% of the population in the province want to remain in the backstop, then in all probability Westminster will be unable to enforce it.
And the unsensible one: the independent body will shit on us.
And yet the Vienna Convention was the core of the CJEU decision on the revocation case. The EU does what it likes but I think once we are out and effectively a third party state the arbitrators are likely to find that it applies.
I'm surprised how many here feel that May has achieved enough to carry the day tomorrow. The betting has moved a bit in her direction but still suggests she won't get the vote through. I hope that most of you are right, that I'm wrong and the betting markets too.
Your point is fair.
I don’t expect the Deal to pass.
If that is the case, Brexit gets even softer or we Remain. Surely the ERG and DUP see that, because it’s pretty clear No Deal is now off the table.
You assume they’d have a problem with the former, and that they’re wholly rational.
It might suit many of them politically to have been seen to have fought tooth & nail for No Deal, only for a “betrayal” by most MPs and the Government leading the UK to ultimately Remain.
It’s true my base assumption is that they want to leave.
Bold assumption. It went leave, they'll have nothing to whinge about and no alibi for their epic cock-ups.
And since these are professional whingers who make cockups more often than Bill Clinton, they probably really want to remain and say how we should have left!
I wouldn't advise my clients to accept a best endeavours clause lightly. It's of uncertain effect, under English law (which is a bit of a proviso here - the assumption of English lawyers has always been continental systems have more room for it) but not of no effect.
In the oil industry when we are writing programmes fore should use the term 'reasonable endeavours' not 'best endeavours'. Oil companies have been sued by partners for not effectively pursuing any and all means to achieve an objective almost irrespective of the cost when they had claimed they would use 'best endeavours'. With rig rates of half a million pounds a day it can prove extremely costly.
Short version of the tl;dr of the layman's version of this: 'reasonable endeavours' means you have to try one or two things to make it work. 'All reasonable endeavours' means you have to keep trying anything sensible. 'Best endeavours' includes trying a couple of non-sensible things too.
The interpretative document allows the UK to use the WA arbitration mechanism if it considers the EU to be stringing the backstop out indefinitely (para 12). If the arbitration is available on a mere consideration, then perhaps so would suspension under A60 of the Vienna Treaty. Ballsy move by the AG if he calls it that way.
The EU is not bound by the Vienna treaty/convention, as it is neither a signatory, nor could it be.
The purpose of this arbitration mechanism is to ensure that, if the EU is not sincerely attempting to implement the technical measures in the WA, then we can bring it to the attention of an independent body.
It is largely what I suggested a month ago. (Albeit I called it an independent body writing an annual report on progress.)
Now, there are sensible objections, and non-sensible ones.
The principle sensible objection is that it's not technical solutions - or lack thereof - that will keep NI in the backstop. It is that it will end up politically expedient. If 65% of the population in the province want to remain in the backstop, then in all probability Westminster will be unable to enforce it.
And the unsensible one: the independent body will shit on us.
And yet the Vienna Convention was the core of the CJEU decision on the revocation case. The EU does what it likes but I think once we are out and effectively a third party state the arbitrators are likely to find that it applies.
How could a neutral arbitrator day that X applies if one party isn’t a signatory and the other objects?
I'm surprised how many here feel that May has achieved enough to carry the day tomorrow. The betting has moved a bit in her direction but still suggests she won't get the vote through. I hope that most of you are right, that I'm wrong and the betting markets too.
Your point is fair.
I don’t expect the Deal to pass.
If that is the case, Brexit gets even softer or we Remain. Surely the ERG and DUP see that, because it’s pretty clear No Deal is now off the table.
You assume they’d have a problem with the former, and that they’re wholly rational.
It might suit many of them politically to have been seen to have fought tooth & nail for No Deal, only for a “betrayal” by most MPs and the Government leading the UK to ultimately Remain.
It’s true my base assumption is that they want to leave.
Bold assumption. It went leave, they'll have nothing to whinge about and no alibi for their epic cock-ups.
And since these are professional whingers who make cockups more often than Bill Clinton, they probably really want to remain and say how we should have left!
And, like Communists, they won't be shaken by any evidence that it doesn't work.
Classic PB this morning. Those who want the deal to pass almost universally say that it is not going to. Those who want to remain almost universally think that May has done enough and it will pass. I want the deal to pass so, logically, I have my doubts.
I'm surprised how many here feel that May has achieved enough to carry the day tomorrow. The betting has moved a bit in her direction but still suggests she won't get the vote through. I hope that most of you are right, that I'm wrong and the betting markets too.
Your point is fair.
I don’t expect the Deal to pass.
If that is the case, Brexit gets even softer or we Remain. Surely the ERG and DUP see that, because it’s pretty clear No Deal is now off the table.
You assume they’d have a problem with the former, and that they’re wholly rational.
It might suit many of them politically to have been seen to have fought tooth & nail for No Deal, only for a “betrayal” by most MPs and the Government leading the UK to ultimately Remain.
It’s true my base assumption is that they want to leave.
Bold assumption. It went leave, they'll have nothing to whinge about and no alibi for their epic cock-ups.
And since these are professional whingers who make cockups more often than Bill Clinton, they probably really want to remain and say how we should have left!
And, like Communists, they won't be shaken by any evidence that it doesn't work.
Not quite correct. They will say such evidence has been manipulated by bourgeois class traitors, er, Remainers.
I wouldn't advise my clients to accept a best endeavours clause lightly. It's of uncertain effect, under English law (which is a bit of a proviso here - the assumption of English lawyers has always been continental systems have more room for it) but not of no effect.
In the oil industry when we are writing programmes for agreement by joint venture partners we are always advised we should use the term 'reasonable endeavours' not 'best endeavours'. Oil companies have been sued by partners for not effectively pursuing any and all means to achieve an objective almost irrespective of the cost when they had claimed they would use 'best endeavours'. With rig rates of half a million pounds a day it can prove extremely costly.
Short version of the tl;dr of the layman's version of this: 'reasonable endeavours' means you have to try one or two things to make it work. 'All reasonable endeavours' means you have to keep trying anything sensible. 'Best endeavours' includes trying a couple of non-sensible things too.
The interpretative document allows the UK to use the WA arbitration mechanism if it considers the EU to be stringing the backstop out indefinitely (para 12). If the arbitration is available on a mere consideration, then perhaps so would suspension under A60 of the Vienna Treaty. Ballsy move by the AG if he calls it that way.
The EU is not bound by the Vienna treaty/convention, as it is neither a signatory, nor could it be.
The purpose of this arbitration mechanism is to ensure that, if the EU is not sincerely attempting to implement the technical measures in the WA, then we can bring it to the attention of an independent body.
It is largely what I suggested a month ago. (Albeit I called it an independent body writing an annual report on progress.)
Now, there are sensible objections, and non-sensible ones.
The principle sensible objection is that it's not technical solutions - or lack thereof - that will keep NI in the backstop. It is that it will end up politically expedient. If 65% of the population in the province want to remain in the backstop, then in all probability Westminster will be unable to enforce it.
And the unsensible one: the independent body will shit on us.
And yet the Vienna Convention was the core of the CJEU decision on the revocation case. The EU does what it likes but I think once we are out and effectively a third party state the arbitrators are likely to find that it applies.
There is next to nothing in this. So it’s an interesting psychological experiment to find out whether the hardliners will react well to a placebo.
My guess is that too many are not ready to play nice.
The alternative now seems to be Remain, though - or at least a far, far softer Brexit. I just don’t see how enough of them could be that stupid. Most do genuinely want to leave, don’t they? I never really bought the idea that Remain was the true loons’ ultimate aim, but if they vote this down I will have to change my mind.
My mind is already changed.
Although it’s the arch Remainers coming out against it today - we’ve seen Wollaston, Collins and Grieve so far.
It’s almost as if they don’t want to leave on any terms
They don’t. But it will be interesting to hear how Cox justifies changing his advice. As DavidL implies, it will probably revolve around the arbitration mechanism and an assumption the panel will support the UK if a case ends up there.
I wouldn't advise my clients to accept a best endeavours clause lightly. It's of uncertain effect, under English law (which is a bit of a proviso here - the assumption of English lawyers has always been continental systems have more room for it) but not of no effect.
In the oil industry when we are writing programmes for agreement by joint venture partners we are always advised we should use the term 'reasonable endeavours' not 'best endeavours'. Oil companies have been sued by partners for not effectively pursuing any and all means to achieve an objective almost irrespective of the cost when they had claimed they would use 'best endeavours'. With rig rates of half a million pounds a day it can prove extremely costly.
Short version of the tl;dr of the layman's version of this: 'reasonable endeavours' means you have to try one or two things to make it work. 'All reasonable endeavours' means you have to keep trying anything sensible. 'Best endeavours' includes trying a couple of non-sensible things too.
The interpretative document allows the UK to use the WA arbitration mechanism if it considers the EU to be stringing the backstop out indefinitely (para 12). If the arbitration is available on a mere consideration, then perhaps so would suspension under A60 of the Vienna Treaty. Ballsy move by the AG if he calls it that way.
The EU is not bound by the Vienna treaty/convention, as it is neither a signatory, nor could it be. ...
Doesn't the ECJ judgment on revocation imply that the EU is subject to the Vienna convention?
The way I see it, everyone understands that the UK will never leave the backstop, but some people needed to be able to claim the UK could if it wanted. There is now a process for the UK to initiate a process which could, in theory, lead us to leaving. It would not be our choice, an arbitration panel would decide, but Cox can change his advice on the basis that we would not instigate the process unless we were going to win. Sleight of hand stuff, but enough.
I don't think it's even as strong as that. If it passes, it will be because people who initially hated the permanent backstop have accepted it psychologically. I can see the ERG types going along with it, as they are little Englanders and don't care about Northern Ireland fundamentally. The DUP I'm surprised by. It cuts across what they stand for.
Its only cutting across what they stand for if they don't think it will give them a result.
The complication is what backstop? Last night's declarations don't make an iota of difference to the treaty obligation and the permanence of the backstop. The only way the DUP can get out of the NI backstop they hate is by adding a similar obligation for the whole UK to be permanently and formally aligned with the EU.
I don't see any reason for them to vote for this. Tory Brexiteers maybe if they maintain the illusion that that the UK's future is buccaneering. They can always ditch Northern Ireland later. Which itself is a very strong reason for the DUP not to play along. The basic issue is that the DUP and Little Englander interests aren't aligned.
Classic PB this morning. Those who want the deal to pass almost universally say that it is not going to. Those who want to remain almost universally think that May has done enough and it will pass. I want the deal to pass so, logically, I have my doubts.
I hope she has done enough and the ERG/DUP see sense this morning.
What will Boris do? I guess his best chance of leadership is for this deal to fall.
But as with everyone else and every possible outcome... possibly not with his fingerprints on it. If the mood music in the Tory party shifts enough towards TMay doing her best with a poor hand, he can’t be seen as the disloyal one.
Classic PB this morning. Those who want the deal to pass almost universally say that it is not going to. Those who want to remain almost universally think that May has done enough and it will pass. I want the deal to pass so, logically, I have my doubts.
Realistically it is hard to see how it moves 115 MPs across. It doesn't do more than reiterate what was already there in language simple enough that they hoped the ERG, DUP and Labour leadership could understand it. This has proven to be an optimistic assessment.
So the assumption is vote down and risk no deal in er, 17 days.
Classic PB this morning. Those who want the deal to pass almost universally say that it is not going to. Those who want to remain almost universally think that May has done enough and it will pass. I want the deal to pass so, logically, I have my doubts.
I want events to damage the Tories to maximum effect. I'm not sure whether pass or fail will achieve this.
There is next to nothing in this. So it’s an interesting psychological experiment to find out whether the hardliners will react well to a placebo.
My guess is that too many are not ready to play nice.
The alternative now seems to be Remain, though - or at least a far, far softer Brexit. I just don’t see how enough of them could be that stupid. Most do genuinely want to leave, don’t they? I never really bought the idea that Remain was the true loons’ ultimate aim, but if they vote this down I will have to change my mind.
My mind is already changed.
Although it’s the arch Remainers coming out against it today - we’ve seen Wollaston, Collins and Grieve so far.
It’s almost as if they don’t want to leave on any terms
They don’t. But it will be interesting to hear how Cox justifies changing his advice. As DavidL implies, it will probably revolve around the arbitration mechanism and an assumption the panel will support the UK if a case ends up there.
I think that's about right, plus it wouldn't necessarily be to support the UK, but be the mechanism we can use to show the EU aren't holding up their end of the bargain. As it stands this plus the backstop is an extremely favourable outcome. We're going to need an additional 4-6 years after the transition period to conclude non EU trade deals and a UK wide backstop gives us a lot of stability to do that.
Short version of the tl;dr of the layman's version of this: 'reasonable endeavours' means you have to try one or two things to make it work. 'All reasonable endeavours' means you have to keep trying anything sensible. 'Best endeavours' includes trying a couple of non-sensible things too.
The interpretative document allows the UK to use the WA arbitration mechanism if it considers the EU to be stringing the backstop out indefinitely (para 12). If the arbitration is available on a mere consideration, then perhaps so would suspension under A60 of the Vienna Treaty. Ballsy move by the AG if he calls it that way.
The EU is not bound by the Vienna treaty/convention, as it is neither a signatory, nor could it be.
The purpose of this arbitration mechanism is to ensure that, if the EU is not sincerely attempting to implement the technical measures in the WA, then we can bring it to the attention of an independent body.
It is largely what I suggested a month ago. (Albeit I called it an independent body writing an annual report on progress.)
Now, there are sensible objections, and non-sensible ones.
The principle sensible objection is that it's not technical solutions - or lack thereof - that will keep NI in the backstop. It is that it will end up politically expedient. If 65% of the population in the province want to remain in the backstop, then in all probability Westminster will be unable to enforce it.
And the unsensible one: the independent body will shit on us.
And yet the Vienna Convention was the core of the CJEU decision on the revocation case. The EU does what it likes but I think once we are out and effectively a third party state the arbitrators are likely to find that it applies.
How could a neutral arbitrator day that X applies if one party isn’t a signatory and the other objects?
(Genuine Q - I am not an arbitrator)
It is up to the arbitrator to construe the agreement in the event of a disagreement. How he does that is a matter for him, not the parties. It would not be the first time that the Arbitrator concludes that the agreement means something different to which either of the parties contend. The CJEU reliance on the Vienna Convention in construing Article 50 surprised me but I was temporarily forgetting that they are a political project with clear political aims, not a court in any conventional sense.
Classic PB this morning. Those who want the deal to pass almost universally say that it is not going to. Those who want to remain almost universally think that May has done enough and it will pass. I want the deal to pass so, logically, I have my doubts.
I am very torn now. I have wanted the deal to pass because I thought the alternative was no deal. Now, though, it’s clear the alternative is Remain or Norway plus. My guess, though, is that the ERG and DUP can see what I see and will vote for the Brexit they say they want.
One thing I think we should bear in mind is that the vote today isn't taking place under an imminent threat of No Deal, because there's a strong expectation that a short extension will be approved by the EU.
But a short extension may be all there is, and the BBC yesterday was suggesting it would be only seven and a half weeks - until the Euro elections, not until the European parliament convenes. If the EU makes that clear, and if people believe it, then even if the New Deal fails relatively narrowly today, it may go through later when there's a more tangible threat of No Deal as the alternative. (I still don't believe revocation could happen without a second referendum.)
One thing I think we should bear in mind is that the vote today isn't taking place under an imminent threat of No Deal, because there's a strong expectation that a short extension will be approved by the EU.
But a short extension may be all there is, and the BBC yesterday was suggesting it would be only seven and a half weeks - until the Euro elections, not until the European parliament convenes. If the EU makes that clear, and if people believe it, then even if the New Deal fails relatively narrowly today, it may go through later when there's a more tangible threat of No Deal as the alternative. (I still don't believe revocation could happen without a second referendum.)
The EU could of course demand EUref2 Remain v Deal as the price of a lengthy extension, putting the threat of No Brexit at all too
Classic PB this morning. Those who want the deal to pass almost universally say that it is not going to. Those who want to remain almost universally think that May has done enough and it will pass. I want the deal to pass so, logically, I have my doubts.
I am very torn now. I have wanted the deal to pass because I thought the alternative was no deal. Now, though, it’s clear the alternative is Remain or Norway plus. My guess, though, is that the ERG and DUP can see what I see and will vote for the Brexit they say they want.
It looks like they are lapping up the thin gruel like good little boys and girls, the deal will now pass and we will be in May’s limbo state and able to debate Brexit for years to come.
Comments
Actually on that last point, I'm clearly wrong, because everything bad that ever happens again will be either blamed on Brexit happening, or not happening, by someone, depending on what happens in the next few weeks/months.
The genius that was Terry Pratchett passed away four years ago today.
GNU STP.
And as such, as both Robert Peston and Jon Craig were at pains to separately point out, that clause only serves to emphasise that the UK could still be deliberately held in the NI backstop indefinitely. Rather than playing down the risk, it serves to shout that risk from the rooftops.
So the 29th March bets still look like losers to me.
Why isn't this making the headlines and front pages?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6797193/More-500-village-postmasters-wrongly-hounded-stealing-millions-system.html
Yes, there were software bugs the real evil was the process that overlay it.
https://www.jfsa.org.uk/about-us.html
As a quick example, from a report: "Our current, evidence based opinion, is that Fujitsu / Post Office did have, and may still have, the ability to directly alter branch records without the knowledge of the relevant Subpostmaster" (the PO and Fujitsu deny this).
That alone should have been enough to drive a coach and horses through any court cases.
My guess is that too many are not ready to play nice.
Say in 5 years we walk away from the backstop
The argument is then “you knew we were going to do that before you signed”
Neither English nor international law has much to do with it. That is simple realpoliti.
So yes, if the Tories decide to play the long game then the deal will pass. And my business will breathe a huge sigh of relief - at our latest Brexit meeting yesterday we were faced with having to guess which way the EU27 and then MPs would go once the UK asked for an extension as no agreement had been passed. Guessing which risks the cash flow on a significant basis. We are by no means the only business left pissing in the wind hoping to avoid sprayback so I can cope with a bit of certainty
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47524474
Posting voodoo polls in a last desperate hope
It might suit many of them politically to have been seen to have fought tooth & nail for No Deal, only for a “betrayal” by most MPs and the Government leading the UK to ultimately Remain.
My mind is already changed.
Remainers: whinge early, whinge often.....
52-48 in favour would be more than enough to re-unite the island and the rest of us can get on with things.
The Six Counties could, perhaps, be left to run their own affairs, with overall responsibility transferred from London to Dublin.
Anthony Trollope, Orley Farm
(And I speak from the “Er, I suppose we’d better get on with it if we have to” wing of politics - ie this or any other middle ground fudge seems about right if we’re going to get out in one piece without pitchforks.)
Tedious weather.
It’s almost as if they don’t want to leave on any terms
Hopefully Sunday won't be too bad.
He wants to Remain AND it to be someone else’s fault
And since these are professional whingers who make cockups more often than Bill Clinton, they probably really want to remain and say how we should have left!
(Genuine Q - I am not an arbitrator)
https://twitter.com/jackwdoyle/status/1105366740337344512?s=21
Presumably he will have changed his mind, or else May will look even more stupid.
I still think a 3-figure defeat for the MV2 this evening, but I have often been wrong.
I don't see any reason for them to vote for this. Tory Brexiteers maybe if they maintain the illusion that that the UK's future is buccaneering. They can always ditch Northern Ireland later. Which itself is a very strong reason for the DUP not to play along. The basic issue is that the DUP and Little Englander interests aren't aligned.
So the assumption is vote down and risk no deal in er, 17 days.
But a short extension may be all there is, and the BBC yesterday was suggesting it would be only seven and a half weeks - until the Euro elections, not until the European parliament convenes. If the EU makes that clear, and if people believe it, then even if the New Deal fails relatively narrowly today, it may go through later when there's a more tangible threat of No Deal as the alternative. (I still don't believe revocation could happen without a second referendum.)
It's not happy this morning. Must be a Remainer.
However, what time tonight do we expect the vote? Is it 8pm?
https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1105381148438474752?s=21
Have a good morning.