I'm surprised that the one thing no-one has put a motion down for is to "support the Prime Minister's Deal" The one thing that MPs won't be able to compare to. The options picked do seem to favour the Brexit fans - that Malthouse B one in particular. But let's se how popular it really is.
Government decided to turn its back on the whole process rather than put its deal into the mix. Could be a historic mistake.
What is the point of putting it in if Bercow refuses to allow it?
Thus rendering the process nul and void - it should have been a free vote for everyone
(and ministers should have been free to vote as well)
I agree. Although given Labour is supporting a range of options (see my updated post below), the only significant rebellion is likely to be the Labour remainers supporting the Revoke rather than no deal option.
I'm surprised that the one thing no-one has put a motion down for is to "support the Prime Minister's Deal" The one thing that MPs won't be able to compare to. The options picked do seem to favour the Brexit fans - that Malthouse B one in particular. But let's se how popular it really is.
Government decided to turn its back on the whole process rather than put its deal into the mix. Could be a historic mistake.
What is the point of putting it in if Bercow refuses to allow it?
If May's deal had been put as an indicative option I am sure it would have been selected. All the media assumed so. The rules on disallowal of repeat proposals don't apply to this process.
He is probably a lot more popular than Mrs May's deal (not difficult), and while severely loathed by right wing Tories (which may be a reason to like him), he has considerably more cross party support (also not difficult). Perhaps it is time to strengthen his role. Bercow to handle talks with EU! He certainly couldn't do a worse job than Theresa May, and I would expect him to do considerably better than Mr. Thicky.
By saying he will support all the options he would find acceptable, certainly so. That is what all MPs should be doing, to avoid the embarrassment of every option going down heavily. As he is saying himself as I type this.
I'm surprised that the one thing no-one has put a motion down for is to "support the Prime Minister's Deal" The one thing that MPs won't be able to compare to. The options picked do seem to favour the Brexit fans - that Malthouse B one in particular. But let's se how popular it really is.
Government decided to turn its back on the whole process rather than put its deal into the mix. Could be a historic mistake.
What is the point of putting it in if Bercow refuses to allow it?
If May's deal had been put as an indicative option I am sure it would have been selected. All the media assumed so. The rules on disallowal of repeat proposals don't apply to this process.
Rules have nothing to do with it. Bercow just does what he wants to.
I guess they may be betting on a soft Brexit if it is true, but as it is reported in the Daily Ukipograph it is probably complete bollox
The Autocar article has more detail. They have a platform they call UKL. This is used for the Mini, 1 and 2 series and X1, X2. Mini was originally developed in the UK and Autocar say a lot of the supply chain is in the UK. They sell 687K UKL platforms a year of which 250K are Minis made in Oxford (which is flat out at the moment). The others are made in Holland by a sub contractor. So the business logic is move production to the UK and consolidate supply chains.
Also remember that the main sales markets for Minis by volume are USA, China, UK, Italy, France.
Isn't the SNP creating a massive bear trap here?? if they force the Govt to revoke if no deal has been formed, then they will force no-deal to be made full stop if they can.
Note in all these cases they are talking about 'A' Customs Union not 'The' Customs Union. Basically the Turkish situation. It really is a recipe for disaster.
I'm surprised that the one thing no-one has put a motion down for is to "support the Prime Minister's Deal" The one thing that MPs won't be able to compare to. The options picked do seem to favour the Brexit fans - that Malthouse B one in particular. But let's se how popular it really is.
Government decided to turn its back on the whole process rather than put its deal into the mix. Could be a historic mistake.
What is the point of putting it in if Bercow refuses to allow it?
If May's deal had been put as an indicative option I am sure it would have been selected. All the media assumed so. The rules on disallowal of repeat proposals don't apply to this process.
Rules have nothing to do with it. Bercow just does what he wants to.
Don't be silly. He enjoys putting his interpretation on them, as is his job, but rules and precedents they are. It is the governments fault, and Mrs May in particular, that they have not foreseen the procedural difficulties and anticipated the likely pedantry of Mr. Speaker.
Doesn’t a permanent CU prevent us from striking trade deals with other countries but allows them access to our markets on EU tariffs. A lose lose option?
Couldn't they have just moved to the vote - given how many hours have been given over to allowing them all the opportunity to trot out their positions over and over?
Just vote and get on with it. We have had enough talking.
I'm surprised that the one thing no-one has put a motion down for is to "support the Prime Minister's Deal" The one thing that MPs won't be able to compare to. The options picked do seem to favour the Brexit fans - that Malthouse B one in particular. But let's se how popular it really is.
Government decided to turn its back on the whole process rather than put its deal into the mix. Could be a historic mistake.
What is the point of putting it in if Bercow refuses to allow it?
If May's deal had been put as an indicative option I am sure it would have been selected. All the media assumed so. The rules on disallowal of repeat proposals don't apply to this process.
Rules have nothing to do with it. Bercow just does what he wants to.
Don't be silly. He enjoys putting his interpretation on them, as is his job, but rules and precedents they are. It is the governments fault, and Mrs May in particular, that they have not foreseen the procedural difficulties and anticipated the likely pedantry of Mr. Speaker.
Bollocks. Bercow cites rules and precedents when it suits him and ignores them when not.
Doesn’t a permanent CU prevent us from striking trade deals with other countries but allows them access to our markets on EU tariffs. A lose lose option?
Yep. It is so bad that the Turks were willing to pull out of their Customs Union with the EU had the US trade deal been approved. It would have given the US tariff free access to the Turkish markets with no reciprocal rights.
I guess they may be betting on a soft Brexit if it is true, but as it is reported in the Daily Ukipograph it is probably complete bollox
The Autocar article has more detail. They have a platform they call UKL. This is used for the Mini, 1 and 2 series and X1, X2. Mini was originally developed in the UK and Autocar say a lot of the supply chain is in the UK. They sell 687K UKL platforms a year of which 250K are Minis made in Oxford (which is flat out at the moment). The others are made in Holland by a sub contractor. So the business logic is move production to the UK and consolidate supply chains.
Also remember that the main sales markets for Minis by volume are USA, China, UK, Italy, France.
Which is more or less what those of us who have worked in the car industry have been saying for ages.
The article doesnt state that BMWs Cowley facility is landlocked and cant expand, it has been one of the major downsides to manufacturing there. A move to Swindon which is right beside BMWs Press plant makes a lot of sense
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
No. If the Tory party had untied behind championing the deal from the outset, it would have got through. The ERG wouldn't have given remainers cover to oppose it, and Labour leavers would have taken their chance to make their mark on history.
Doesn’t a permanent CU prevent us from striking trade deals with other countries but allows them access to our markets on EU tariffs. A lose lose option?
Not when Fox is supposed to be negotiating the trade deals.
Isn't the SNP creating a massive bear trap here?? if they force the Govt to revoke if no deal has been formed, then they will force no-deal to be made full stop if they can.
I suppose that's one way of looking at it, the other is that all they're really doing is ensuring a proper mechanism for something the house has already voted for a few times, which is to avoid no deal if everything else has failed.
Doesn’t a permanent CU prevent us from striking trade deals with other countries but allows them access to our markets on EU tariffs. A lose lose option?
Yep. It is so bad that the Turks were willing to pull out of their Customs Union with the EU had the US trade deal been approved. It would have given the US tariff free access to the Turkish markets with no reciprocal rights.
So why are MPs so keen on it? Just the Irish issue (which has apparently been solved for No Deal anyway)?
Or because they don't really know what they are voting for?
I'm surprised that the one thing no-one has put a motion down for is to "support the Prime Minister's Deal" The one thing that MPs won't be able to compare to. The options picked do seem to favour the Brexit fans - that Malthouse B one in particular. But let's se how popular it really is.
Government decided to turn its back on the whole process rather than put its deal into the mix. Could be a historic mistake.
What is the point of putting it in if Bercow refuses to allow it?
If May's deal had been put as an indicative option I am sure it would have been selected. All the media assumed so. The rules on disallowal of repeat proposals don't apply to this process.
Rules have nothing to do with it. Bercow just does what he wants to.
Don't be silly. He enjoys putting his interpretation on them, as is his job, but rules and precedents they are. It is the governments fault, and Mrs May in particular, that they have not foreseen the procedural difficulties and anticipated the likely pedantry of Mr. Speaker.
Bollocks. Bercow cites rules and precedents when it suits him and ignores them when not.
In your opinion, because, perhaps, you don't like the ones he enacts? If he has ignored ones that are useful to those who like national self-harm, it is up to those that do to make a point of order.
I'm surprised that the one thing no-one has put a motion down for is to "support the Prime Minister's Deal" The one thing that MPs won't be able to compare to. The options picked do seem to favour the Brexit fans - that Malthouse B one in particular. But let's se how popular it really is.
Government decided to turn its back on the whole process rather than put its deal into the mix. Could be a historic mistake.
What is the point of putting it in if Bercow refuses to allow it?
If May's deal had been put as an indicative option I am sure it would have been selected. All the media assumed so. The rules on disallowal of repeat proposals don't apply to this process.
Rules have nothing to do with it. Bercow just does what he wants to.
Don't be silly. He enjoys putting his interpretation on them, as is his job, but rules and precedents they are. It is the governments fault, and Mrs May in particular, that they have not foreseen the procedural difficulties and anticipated the likely pedantry of Mr. Speaker.
Bollocks. Bercow cites rules and precedents when it suits him and ignores them when not.
In your opinion, because, perhaps, you don't like the ones he enacts? If he has ignored ones that are useful to those who like national self-harm, it is up to those that do to make a point of order.
You have to be consistent in the application of any rules - and Bercow hasn't been. Betty wouldn't have allowed this situation to arise. Oh for the days of Betty.
I'm surprised that the one thing no-one has put a motion down for is to "support the Prime Minister's Deal" The one thing that MPs won't be able to compare to. The options picked do seem to favour the Brexit fans - that Malthouse B one in particular. But let's se how popular it really is.
Government decided to turn its back on the whole process rather than put its deal into the mix. Could be a historic mistake.
What is the point of putting it in if Bercow refuses to allow it?
If May's deal had been put as an indicative option I am sure it would have been selected. All the media assumed so. The rules on disallowal of repeat proposals don't apply to this process.
Rules have nothing to do with it. Bercow just does what he wants to.
Don't be silly. He enjoys putting his interpretation on them, as is his job, but rules and precedents they are. It is the governments fault, and Mrs May in particular, that they have not foreseen the procedural difficulties and anticipated the likely pedantry of Mr. Speaker.
One of the minor blunders, lost among the many much larger blunders of May's band of fools masquerading as a government, is that they apparently did not ask Bercow whether he would permit MV3 dsepite the very obvious rule in Erskine May prohibiting it. And they can't claim they had no warning - Chris Bryant had drawn attention to it in the House only a few days before.
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
The dynamics would have changed.
It would have been framed as Labour are trying to block Brexit/ensure No Deal, so Labour would have either backed the deal or abstained, ensuring the deal passed.
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
No. If the Tory party had untied behind championing the deal from the outset, it would have got through. The ERG wouldn't have given remainers cover to oppose it, and Labour leavers would have taken their chance to make their mark on history.
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
No. If the Tory party had untied behind championing the deal from the outset, it would have got through. The ERG wouldn't have given remainers cover to oppose it, and Labour leavers would have taken their chance to make their mark on history.
Doesn’t a permanent CU prevent us from striking trade deals with other countries but allows them access to our markets on EU tariffs. A lose lose option?
Yep. It is so bad that the Turks were willing to pull out of their Customs Union with the EU had the US trade deal been approved. It would have given the US tariff free access to the Turkish markets with no reciprocal rights.
So why are MPs so keen on it? Just the Irish issue (which has apparently been solved for No Deal anyway)?
Or because they don't really know what they are voting for?
I don't know but I suspect a mixture of both.
Also if by some miracle they did persuade the EU that they could stay in THE Customs Union then that is a different dynamic. Unable to make our own trade deals but part of the EU trade deals so not the same downsides. Just different ones but which are more acceptable to MPs I suspect.
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
The dynamics would have changed.
It would have been framed as Labour are trying to block Brexit/ensure No Deal, so Labour would have either backed the deal or abstained, ensuring the deal passed.
Agreed. Plus, the Tory remainers would not have held out on their own.
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
The dynamics would have changed.
It would have been framed as Labour are trying to block Brexit/ensure No Deal, so Labour would have either backed the deal or abstained, ensuring the deal passed.
Even if Labour hadn't done so formally (and it's highly likely that Corbyn would have found some reason not to support a Tory government), enough Labour MPs in either Leave constituencies or with Leave inclinations would have backed the deal to make the difference.
They'd also have had the added bonus that it would have ruptured the Con-DUP alliance so badly that they might well have gained a general election out of it with May still leading the Tories.
Feels like a risky game for Bercow. As others have said, not entirely sure how it's sticking up for the House v the exec.
And if his game is to frustrate Brexit, and if the effect of this is to weaken Deal, at the very least he's raising the stakes in avoiding No Deal By Accident.
You do wonder if he's an extremely deep sleeper from his Monday Club days, like some kind of parliamentary Snape.
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
No. If the Tory party had untied behind championing the deal from the outset, it would have got through. The ERG wouldn't have given remainers cover to oppose it, and Labour leavers would have taken their chance to make their mark on history.
I think that is a pretty reasonable assessment.
"If the Tory party had untied..." is also a great typo.
Assuming CU gets through, the WA goes through right? Potentially still out by May 22 and May resigns and a new Tory leader is elected.
What's to stop the new Tory leader saying "actually we won't form a CU afterall" and discarding that part of the political declaration?
Once we're out the EU the Tories can change leader then go to the country. When we're out the landscape changes, the CU needs to be well agreed with the EU - it's an aspiration within the overall agreement. It is MUCH more Brexit friendly than something like Kyle-Wilson would be.
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
The dynamics would have changed.
It would have been framed as Labour are trying to block Brexit/ensure No Deal, so Labour would have either backed the deal or abstained, ensuring the deal passed.
Even if Labour hadn't done so formally (and it's highly likely that Corbyn would have found some reason not to support a Tory government), enough Labour MPs in either Leave constituencies or with Leave inclinations would have backed the deal to make the difference.
They'd also have had the added bonus that it would have ruptured the Con-DUP alliance so badly that they might well have gained a general election out of it with May still leading the Tories.
That's the point I made earlier on this year.
Labour should have backed the deal as it would have triggered VONC in which the DUP opposed the government, thus giving Corbyn his general election.
But as I said the other, Parliament is donkeys led by donkeys.
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
No. If the Tory party had untied behind championing the deal from the outset, it would have got through. The ERG wouldn't have given remainers cover to oppose it, and Labour leavers would have taken their chance to make their mark on history.
Yep. If Brexit fails it will be because of the Brexiteers - what did they expect, voting against it?
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
No. If the Tory party had untied behind championing the deal from the outset, it would have got through. The ERG wouldn't have given remainers cover to oppose it, and Labour leavers would have taken their chance to make their mark on history.
I think that is a pretty reasonable assessment.
"If the Tory party had untied..." is also a great typo.
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
The dynamics would have changed.
It would have been framed as Labour are trying to block Brexit/ensure No Deal, so Labour would have either backed the deal or abstained, ensuring the deal passed.
Agreed. Plus, the Tory remainers would not have held out on their own.
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
No. If the Tory party had untied behind championing the deal from the outset, it would have got through. The ERG wouldn't have given remainers cover to oppose it, and Labour leavers would have taken their chance to make their mark on history.
Yep. If Brexit fails it will be because of the Brexiteers - what did they expect, voting against it?
A battalion of unicorns coming to rescue them like Gandalf at first light on the fifth day at Helm's Deep.
If Mrs May's deal is WDA only (i.e. no PD) with a commitment to accept result of Monday's deliberations for the PD, then it would be different, it might get through, and the EU would extend A50 until 22 May, as well as negotiating a new PD.
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
No. If the Tory party had untied behind championing the deal from the outset, it would have got through. The ERG wouldn't have given remainers cover to oppose it, and Labour leavers would have taken their chance to make their mark on history.
I think that is a pretty reasonable assessment.
"If the Tory party had untied..." is also a great typo.
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
No. If the Tory party had untied behind championing the deal from the outset, it would have got through. The ERG wouldn't have given remainers cover to oppose it, and Labour leavers would have taken their chance to make their mark on history.
Yep. If Brexit fails it will be because of the Brexiteers - what did they expect, voting against it?
A battalion of unicorns coming to rescue them like Gandalf at first light on the fifth day at Helm's Deep.
Actually I think they expected to be able to manouevre to a position where the only remaining choices were no deal exit or revoke, and they banked on the House being unwilling to revoke. Baker's leaked Whatsapp post says as much.
They didn't factor in the combined will of Parliament and the EU to avoid no deal at all cost. Or that public opinion would dribble away from Leave such that they couldn't summon a million (or 400,000 for Casino) people into Parliament square to object to a revocation.
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
No. If the Tory party had untied behind championing the deal from the outset, it would have got through. The ERG wouldn't have given remainers cover to oppose it, and Labour leavers would have taken their chance to make their mark on history.
I think that is a pretty reasonable assessment.
"If the Tory party had untied..." is also a great typo.
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
No. If the Tory party had untied behind championing the deal from the outset, it would have got through. The ERG wouldn't have given remainers cover to oppose it, and Labour leavers would have taken their chance to make their mark on history.
Yep. If Brexit fails it will be because of the Brexiteers - what did they expect, voting against it?
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
The dynamics would have changed.
It would have been framed as Labour are trying to block Brexit/ensure No Deal, so Labour would have either backed the deal or abstained, ensuring the deal passed.
Agreed. Plus, the Tory remainers would not have held out on their own.
Grieve would have done !
There are several who would have done. Grieve and Soubry being two. But not enough t have stopped it.
Can someone tell me any benefits of a permanent customs union?
Sure, the existing arrangements keep working for us exporters.
How is that any better than May's Crap Deal?
The existing arrangements will keep working during the backstop too and the backstop only end if sufficiently suitable new arrangments, good enough to keep an invisible border, are created.
Assuming CU gets through, the WA goes through right? Potentially still out by May 22 and May resigns and a new Tory leader is elected.
What's to stop the new Tory leader saying "actually we won't form a CU afterall" and discarding that part of the political declaration?
Once we're out the EU the Tories can change leader then go to the country. When we're out the landscape changes, the CU needs to be well agreed with the EU - it's an aspiration within the overall agreement. It is MUCH more Brexit friendly than something like Kyle-Wilson would be.
I reckon Ken Clarke might have saved Brexit this evening...
His amendment is one of the few ones that doesn't involve unicorns - the only other ones are "Leave without a Deal" and "Revoke if No Deal happening".
The Customs Union part will have a 2 year period before it is implemented as a permanent arrangement. Obviously we know nothing much can change in two years...
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
No. If the Tory party had untied behind championing the deal from the outset, it would have got through. The ERG wouldn't have given remainers cover to oppose it, and Labour leavers would have taken their chance to make their mark on history.
Yep. If Brexit fails it will be because of the Brexiteers - what did they expect, voting against it?
They voted against a crap deal not Brexit.
But the ballot paper did not say anything about 'crap deal' and whether it was ok or not. So if you voted Leave, you were voting for any form of Leave - from BRINO to NO Deal and all stops in between.
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
No. If the Tory party had untied behind championing the deal from the outset, it would have got through. The ERG wouldn't have given remainers cover to oppose it, and Labour leavers would have taken their chance to make their mark on history.
Yep. If Brexit fails it will be because of the Brexiteers - what did they expect, voting against it?
They voted against a crap deal not Brexit.
They're going to end up with No Brexit or The Deal plus a Customs Union - which by their lights is "worse" than the Deal.
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
No. If the Tory party had untied behind championing the deal from the outset, it would have got through. The ERG wouldn't have given remainers cover to oppose it, and Labour leavers would have taken their chance to make their mark on history.
Yep. If Brexit fails it will be because of the Brexiteers - what did they expect, voting against it?
They voted against a crap deal not Brexit.
But the ballot paper did not say anything about 'crap deal' and whether it was ok or not. So if you voted Leave, you were voting for any form of Leave - from BRINO to NO Deal and all stops in between.
Of course. So one of them should happen and then we should hold Parliament to account to how happy we are with what they've come up with.
Let’s assumes the CU “wins” tonight? Is it really possible the government should implement a policy of profound economic and legal import that it actually disagrees with?
Assuming CU gets through, the WA goes through right? Potentially still out by May 22 and May resigns and a new Tory leader is elected.
What's to stop the new Tory leader saying "actually we won't form a CU afterall" and discarding that part of the political declaration?
Once we're out the EU the Tories can change leader then go to the country. When we're out the landscape changes, the CU needs to be well agreed with the EU - it's an aspiration within the overall agreement. It is MUCH more Brexit friendly than something like Kyle-Wilson would be.
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
The dynamics would have changed.
It would have been framed as Labour are trying to block Brexit/ensure No Deal, so Labour would have either backed the deal or abstained, ensuring the deal passed.
Agreed. Plus, the Tory remainers would not have held out on their own.
Grieve would have done !
There are several who would have done. Grieve and Soubry being two. But not enough t have stopped it.
The fact that Ken Clarke was backing the deal would have ensured the overwhelming majority of the Tory awkward squad (Pro-EU wing) backed the deal.
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
No. If the Tory party had untied behind championing the deal from the outset, it would have got through. The ERG wouldn't have given remainers cover to oppose it, and Labour leavers would have taken their chance to make their mark on history.
Yep. If Brexit fails it will be because of the Brexiteers - what did they expect, voting against it?
They voted against a crap deal not Brexit.
I could easily have found good reasons to vote against AV, like some PR supporters actually did. But I recognised that a step on the road was better than none. Sadly it made no difference, but the ERG are like those PR supporters on the wrong side of the AV referendum.
No they did not. Even if every Tory Brexiteer backed MV1 and MV2 it would still have lost.
No. If the Tory party had untied behind championing the deal from the outset, it would have got through. The ERG wouldn't have given remainers cover to oppose it, and Labour leavers would have taken their chance to make their mark on history.
Yep. If Brexit fails it will be because of the Brexiteers - what did they expect, voting against it?
They voted against a crap deal not Brexit.
They're going to end up with No Brexit or The Deal plus a Customs Union - which by their lights is "worse" than the Deal.
I'm not seeing a great difference between Deal including Backstop and Deal plus Customs Union.
We can only leave the backstop if we agree suitable arrangements and we could presumably exit a Customs Union [or even not honour it in the first place] if we agree suitable arrangements too. No real difference, especially since the next PM will do whatever they want anyway.
Comments
(and ministers should have been free to vote as well)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GnOhpQMkmU
I guess this is what happens when you have a cuckold with a Napoleon complex as Speaker.
Also remember that the main sales markets for Minis by volume are USA, China, UK, Italy, France.
https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1110935180779368450
CM2 - 6/4
CU - 5/2
Lab - 4/1
EEA - 6/1
PV - 12/1
Pref arrgts - 20/1
Revoke - 33/1
No deal - 100/1
Couldn't they have just moved to the vote - given how many hours have been given over to allowing them all the opportunity to trot out their positions over and over?
Just vote and get on with it. We have had enough talking.
John Curtice"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/27/public-havent-changed-minds-brexit-remain-would-win-second-vote/
The article doesnt state that BMWs Cowley facility is landlocked and cant expand, it has been one of the major downsides to manufacturing there. A move to Swindon which is right beside BMWs Press plant makes a lot of sense
Must be banking on today frightening the Brexiters.
Or they really do have just the one tool in their box.
Or because they don't really know what they are voting for?
Strange!
That said, probably no harm done because the REF can only become meaningful if it ends up getting attached to a specific Brexit outcome.
It would have been framed as Labour are trying to block Brexit/ensure No Deal, so Labour would have either backed the deal or abstained, ensuring the deal passed.
When Mrs May appears, like a ghost at the feast, there will be universal groans. I really think she is finished tonight.
Also if by some miracle they did persuade the EU that they could stay in THE Customs Union then that is a different dynamic. Unable to make our own trade deals but part of the EU trade deals so not the same downsides. Just different ones but which are more acceptable to MPs I suspect.
What's to stop the new Tory leader saying "actually we won't form a CU afterall" and discarding that part of the political declaration?
They'd also have had the added bonus that it would have ruptured the Con-DUP alliance so badly that they might well have gained a general election out of it with May still leading the Tories.
*Or sadly RIABN-WI -without influence.
Labour should have backed the deal as it would have triggered VONC in which the DUP opposed the government, thus giving Corbyn his general election.
But as I said the other, Parliament is donkeys led by donkeys.
They didn't factor in the combined will of Parliament and the EU to avoid no deal at all cost. Or that public opinion would dribble away from Leave such that they couldn't summon a million (or 400,000 for Casino) people into Parliament square to object to a revocation.
The existing arrangements will keep working during the backstop too and the backstop only end if sufficiently suitable new arrangments, good enough to keep an invisible border, are created.
Is it really possible the government should implement a policy of profound economic and legal import that it actually disagrees with?
I can imagine very few Tories voting for the CU.
We can only leave the backstop if we agree suitable arrangements and we could presumably exit a Customs Union [or even not honour it in the first place] if we agree suitable arrangements too. No real difference, especially since the next PM will do whatever they want anyway.