Aw man, I thought they were having (if they are having it) MV3 on Tuesday, but wiki says it is planned for Wednesday? I'd hoped we'd at least know how much MV3 had failed by before midweek.
I do like how the page describes the vote though
he deal was supported by 235 Conservative MPs, four independent MPs, and Labour MPs Kevin Barron, Caroline Flint and John Mann, and was opposed by the remaining MPs, including all 10 DUP MPs and 75 Conservative MPs
Yes, all those who opposed it, at this stage, are probably seeing us toward remain and therefore can be called the 'remaining MPs'.
As I pointed out as the lone voice of reason opposing a brain-dead motion at our constituency AGM on Friday, May's deal means that:
- We're out of the CFP - We're out of the CAP - We're out of the political structures of the EU - We're out of ever-closer union - We're out of the ECJ having jurisdiction over UK domestic law - We're out of the Freedom of Movement rules - We're out of the Single Market - We're out of the Customs Union
Is any of this actually true? Except in some transient sense.
The FR results in a superceding Treaty.
If the EU wants us back in any, or all of them (except 3 obv), they can apply commercial/industrial/political pressure cf Macron via the WA controls the ever prescient May&her remainers will have provided.
No doubt the remainer establishment will fight manfully til teatime and then concede everything.
It is all true. Richard is absolutely right on this. The first five (CFP, CAP, Political structures, ever closer union and ECJ) are specifically related to membership of the EU. All the governing bodies and decision making processes for these things are integral to EU membership so by leaving the EU we have no choice but to leave these things even if we wanted to stay in.
The sixth (FoM) is of course up to us but is only legally binding if we are part of the EEA. Which we are not allowed to be part of unless we are a member of the EU or EFTA. The same applies to the seventh (Single Market) which again requires us to be part of the EEA. The last is, in its current form, only available to members of the EU although it would be possible to have 'a' single market with the EU as opposed to being in 'the' single market. That is the only one where the structures might allow us to be pushed into something we did not want as part of negotiations.
So, as long as the EU did not change its own rules (to its own advantage), or introduce new ones, we are safe from backsliding. And its central commission is run by a man who can say, and survive, 'When it becomes serious you have to lie'.
I might buy a spanner on that basis, but not a mortgage.
Except what you are talking about is not changing rules but changing treaties. Which is a whole different ball game and something they would be unable to do without opening up their own cans of worms within the EU. Plus the rules advantage a number of EU countries as they stand and they certainly wouldn't accept them being changed simply to keep the UK tied in. This is back into fantasy territory.
It doesn't take many Tory MPs to vote against the Deal for it to be blocked, does it? Around 20 probably.
Without an equal number of Lab MPs to counter then, yes.
3 Lab and 4 Ind voted in favour at MV2 (Barron, Flint, Mann and Austin, Field, Lloyd and Hermon).
That compares to 3 Lab and 3 Ind at MV1, but one of the Lab votes at that time is now the extra Ind vote. So really only Flint changed her mind between the two votes.
75 needed to switch. Assume the DUP and most of the 75 Tory MPs (generous still to suggest) and they get within a few dozen.
So even with the lesser spotted Lab MP who will voted for the deal doing so, it would still be nail bitingly close.
My own guess is no more than 12 or so Lab MPs will vote for the deal, including those that already have. I just do not see why those willing to do so would not have at MV2, and I don't see why the DUP potentially switching would convince them. I think the number who might, at this final chance, do so could counter the Tory remainer half dozen. So if the DUP come on board I think 20 is indeed the max Tory rebels to maybe see it through, which means the ERG rebels need to be around 15 or less.
Not easy.
On Labour MPs, Rachel Reeve mentioned that the fact it is a relatively open/blind Brexit and that a more hardline PM could take over after the withdrawal agreement, pretty much the argument made in favour of ERG types backing it, is putting off Labour MPs from backing it. Someone like Lisa Nandy may not want to block Brexit but she doesn't want to write an open cheque for someone like Boris either.
The DUP and almost all the ERG types need to come around for it to pass I think.
It doesn't take many Tory MPs to vote against the Deal for it to be blocked, does it? Around 20 probably.
Without an equal number of Lab MPs to counter then, yes.
3 Lab and 4 Ind voted in favour at MV2 (Barron, Flint, Mann and Austin, Field, Lloyd and Hermon).
That compares to 3 Lab and 3 Ind at MV1, but one of the Lab votes at that time is now the extra Ind vote. So really only Flint changed her mind between the two votes.
75 needed to switch. Assume the DUP and most of the 75 Tory MPs (generous still to suggest) and they get within a few dozen.
So even with the lesser spotted Lab MP who will voted for the deal doing so, it would still be nail bitingly close.
My own guess is no more than 12 or so Lab MPs will vote for the deal, including those that already have. I just do not see why those willing to do so would not have at MV2, and I don't see why the DUP potentially switching would convince them. I think the number who might, at this final chance, do so could counter the Tory remainer half dozen. So if the DUP come on board I think 20 is indeed the max Tory rebels to maybe see it through, which means the ERG rebels need to be around 15 or less.
Not easy.
Final chance? 🙃.
I actually agree with you and have agreed with your posts all week. If there are more Labour MPs tempted, the direction of travel to a softer brexit might appeal to them more than sticking their neck out there for MV3.
Boris is basically saying no way in the daily t. Davis says now he took it on trust for MV2 but might not MV3 if Ireland not sorted.
A few observations to run passed you. Does it matter how the DUP come on board? Davis and I think Mogg too saying the issue needs to be sorted, but if the DUP come on board because of a nice big bung, and some other titbits like seat at table for further negotiation (something May could stitch a successor up with if she granted that) that would be nothing has substantially changed? Rather than look sorted, with big money bung would it fact look sordid, and rather off putting to play along with?
And something Mr Tyndall said I have been thinking over. Originally there was no meaningful vote, till grieves intervened? In a counter factual universe cabinet would have agreed it end of story? That both feels tempting... but also sort of wrong?
As I pointed out as the lone voice of reason opposing a brain-dead motion at our constituency AGM on Friday, May's deal means that:
- We're out of the CFP - We're out of the CAP - We're out of the political structures of the EU - We're out of ever-closer union - We're out of the ECJ having jurisdiction over UK domestic law - We're out of the Freedom of Movement rules - We're out of the Single Market - We're out of the Customs Union
Is any of this actually true? Except in some transient sense.
The FR results in a superceding Treaty.
If the EU wants us back in any, or all of them (except 3 obv), they can apply commercial/industrial/political pressure cf Macron via the WA controls the ever prescient May&her remainers will have provided.
No doubt the remainer establishment will fight manfully til teatime and then concede everything.
It is all true. snip .
So, as long as the EU did not change its own rules (to its own advantage), or introduce new ones, we are safe from backsliding. And its central commission is run by a man who can say, and survive, 'When it becomes serious you have to lie'.
I might buy a spanner on that basis, but not a mortgage.
Except what you are talking about is not changing rules but changing treaties. Which is a whole different ball game and something they would be unable to do without opening up their own cans of worms within the EU. Plus the rules advantage a number of EU countries as they stand and they certainly wouldn't accept them being changed simply to keep the UK tied in. This is back into fantasy territory.
" not changing rules but changing treaties"
The eu makes treaties with other states cf Japan - which is currently encouraging the repatriation of EU based japanese owned car factories (eg 4UK 0DE). These apply to us in Transition and maybe later, but we will have no representation under the WA, or later if our useless remainer governing class accept it in the FR treaty.
I agree the treaties you mentioned are internal (Lisbon stuff) but these treaties allow regulations to be issued in the UK and elsewhere which become laws. eg If states want to encourage movement of people from their counties into the uk then they have ample scope under may's WA to achieve it. If you issue another state's laws there isn't much you can't do in practice over a few years.
As I pointed out as the lone voice of reason opposing a brain-dead motion at our constituency AGM on Friday, May's deal means that:
- We're out of the CFP - We're out of the CAP - We're out of the political structures of the EU - We're out of ever-closer union - We're out of the ECJ having jurisdiction over UK domestic law - We're out of the Freedom of Movement rules - We're out of the Single Market - We're out of the Customs Union
Is any of this actually true? Except in some transient sense.
The FR results in a superceding Treaty.
If the EU wants us back in any, or all of them (except 3 obv), they can apply commercial/industrial/political pressure cf Macron via the WA controls the ever prescient May&her remainers will have provided.
No doubt the remainer establishment will fight manfully til teatime and then concede everything.
It is all true. snip .
So, as long as the EU did not change its own rules (to its own advantage), or introduce new ones, we are safe from backsliding. And its central commission is run by a man who can say, and survive, 'When it becomes serious you have to lie'.
I might buy a spanner on that basis, but not a mortgage.
Except what you are talking about is not changing rules but changing treaties. Which is a whole different ball game and something they would be unable to do without opening up their own cans of worms within the EU. Plus the rules advantage a number of EU countries as they stand and they certainly wouldn't accept them being changed simply to keep the UK tied in. This is back into fantasy territory.
" not changing rules but changing treaties"
The eu makes treaties with other states cf Japan - which is currently encouraging the repatriation of EU based japanese owned car factories (eg 4UK 0DE). These apply to us in Transition and maybe later, but we will have no representation under the WA, or later if our useless remainer governing class accept it in the FR treaty.
I agree the treaties you mentioned are internal (Lisbon stuff) but these treaties allow regulations to be issued in the UK and elsewhere which become laws. eg If states want to encourage movement of people from their counties into the uk then they have ample scope under may's WA to achieve it. If you issue another state's laws there isn't much you can't do in practice over a few years.
The point being that once we leave the EU under the deal we are no longer bound by the Lisbon Treaty so your point becomes invalid
The eu makes treaties with other states cf Japan - which is currently encouraging the repatriation of EU based japanese owned car factories (eg 4UK 0DE). These apply to us in Transition and maybe later, but we will have no representation under the WA, or later if our useless remainer governing class accept it in the FR treaty.
I agree the treaties you mentioned are internal (Lisbon stuff) but these treaties allow regulations to be issued in the UK and elsewhere which become laws. eg If states want to encourage movement of people from their counties into the uk then they have ample scope under may's WA to achieve it. If you issue another state's laws there isn't much you can't do in practice over a few years.
I'm sorry, but this is barely comprehensible.
What exactly is your point?
The EU cannot unilaterally change treaties any more than the UK can. As far as I can tell, you are basically saying that unless we have a scorched earth Brexit now, then in the future UK politicians might sign us up to deals with the EU you don't like.
Pretty damning article in the Seattle Times on Boeing & the FAA on 737MAX certification; short version 'Boeing marked their own homework then didn't tell anyone about increasing the amount the stabiliser could be driven by the MCAS':
Comments
I do like how the page describes the vote though
he deal was supported by 235 Conservative MPs, four independent MPs, and Labour MPs Kevin Barron, Caroline Flint and John Mann, and was opposed by the remaining MPs, including all 10 DUP MPs and 75 Conservative MPs
Yes, all those who opposed it, at this stage, are probably seeing us toward remain and therefore can be called the 'remaining MPs'.
The DUP and almost all the ERG types need to come around for it to pass I think.
I actually agree with you and have agreed with your posts all week. If there are more Labour MPs tempted, the direction of travel to a softer brexit might appeal to them more than sticking their neck out there for MV3.
Boris is basically saying no way in the daily t. Davis says now he took it on trust for MV2 but might not MV3 if Ireland not sorted.
A few observations to run passed you. Does it matter how the DUP come on board? Davis and I think Mogg too saying the issue needs to be sorted, but if the DUP come on board because of a nice big bung, and some other titbits like seat at table for further negotiation (something May could stitch a successor up with if she granted that) that would be nothing has substantially changed? Rather than look sorted, with big money bung would it fact look sordid, and rather off putting to play along with?
And something Mr Tyndall said I have been thinking over. Originally there was no meaningful vote, till grieves intervened? In a counter factual universe cabinet would have agreed it end of story? That both feels tempting... but also sort of wrong?
The eu makes treaties with other states cf Japan - which is currently encouraging the repatriation of EU based japanese owned car factories (eg 4UK 0DE). These apply to us in Transition and maybe later, but we will have no representation under the WA, or later if our useless remainer governing class accept it in the FR treaty.
I agree the treaties you mentioned are internal (Lisbon stuff) but these treaties allow regulations to be issued in the UK and elsewhere which become laws. eg If states want to encourage movement of people from their counties into the uk then they have ample scope under may's WA to achieve it. If you issue another state's laws there isn't much you can't do in practice over a few years.
They were elected as Conservative MPs to implement Brexit. If they won't - then they aren't Conservative MPs.
What exactly is your point?
The EU cannot unilaterally change treaties any more than the UK can. As far as I can tell, you are basically saying that unless we have a scorched earth Brexit now, then in the future UK politicians might sign us up to deals with the EU you don't like.
Afriyie, Allan, Bacon, Baker, Baron, Bebb, Blunt, Bone, Braverman, Bridgen,
Burns, Cash, Chishti, Chope, Clarke, Collins, Courts, Drax, Duddridge, Duncan Smith,
Elphicke, Fabricant, Fallon, Francois, Fysh, Gray, Green, Greening, Grieve, Gyimah,
Harper, Henderson, Hollobone, Holloway, Hughes, Jayawardena, Jenkins, Jenkyns,
Johnson (B), Johnson (G), Johnson (J), Jones, Kawczynski, Latham, Lee, Lewer, Lewis,
Liddell-Grainger, Lopez, Lord, Mackinlay, Main, McVey, Morris, Murray, Patel, Paterson, Pursglove, Raab, Redwood, Rees-Mogg, Robertson, Rosindell, Rowley, Shapps, Smith (H),
Smith (R), Stewart, Thomson, Tomlinson, Tracey, Trevelyan, Vara, Villiers, Whittingdale.
https://ig.ft.com/brexit-article-50-extension-vote/
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/failed-certification-faa-missed-safety-issues-in-the-737-max-system-implicated-in-the-lion-air-crash/
I do think May needs significant cover - "change' to do this, like "the DUP are now onboard".