Just to make sure I have understood this correctly: a) Am I right in saying there is no real expectation of this passing today or have I missed something? b) If a) is true why do it? Is it just desperation i.e. might as well have a go, nothing to lose except reputation. c) Is removing the PD really a substantial change? If so I don't understand why.
What do people think?
Re (b), may I refer the honourable poster to the un-named Cabinet Minister quoted on Newsnight?
An extraordinarily reverential interview by John Humphrys with Mervyn King on Today ; he challenged him on virtually none of his highly contentious Brexit points, with the general air of a fireside chat, and the respect afforded to some form of demi-god of the polis.
Just to make sure I have understood this correctly: a) Am I right in saying there is no real expectation of this passing today or have I missed something? b) If a) is true why do it? Is it just desperation i.e. might as well have a go, nothing to lose except reputation. c) Is removing the PD really a substantial change? If so I don't understand why.
What do people think?
It is all Alice through the Looking Glass. Westminster is full of cretinous halfwits playing games. No point trying to make any sense of it, just a case of who is best to polish the turd.
But if we revoke then we are acknowledging we can never leave without the agreement of Ireland and hence are not sovereign
The UK could leave without the agreement of Ireland but would have to be prepared to weather the political fallout in the six counties. This British government isn't prepared to. It's got nothing to do with sovereignty.
The Republic could certainly make it easier but why would they given 800 years of English oppression and invasion?
Parliament having high involvement has not been a triumph but if it saw the thing pass it should be agreed. But how many beyond the signatories would back it from labour ranks? 5? 10?
They need 30+
This reminds me of Gordon Brown cutting the Prime Ministers pay just before he left office to spite Cameron, TMay should accept this to get a few more votes and leave it for the next PM to have to deliver on.
So, the PD is TM's vision of Phase 2, the Future Relationship, and thus it has meaning only if TM is around to pursue it. But she will not be around if the WA is passed. She has said that. Ergo the only way that she can be in place to realise the PD in Phase 2 is if the WA is NOT passed. But if the WA is not passed we never get to Phase 2.
If that motion passes and I expect May would not be too concerned about it that could well see the Withdrawal Agreement over the line today as ERG opposition to it collapses and it gets more Labour MPs switching to back it even if the DUP remain opposed
I may be wrong but my sense is that May's anticipated resignation has led to a certain fatalism about today's vote - I can't see many Labour MPs joining in this. But it may well be quite close.
'Okay lads, we're scraping the bottom of the barrel of tired, old repeated memes; the EU has blinked is exhausted, the Paddies are shitting themselves is done, DEPLOY THE ROYAL YACHT!'
Parliament having high involvement has not been a triumph but if it saw the thing pass it should be agreed. But how many beyond the signatories would back it from labour ranks? 5? 10?
They need 30+
This reminds me of Gordon Brown cutting the Prime Ministers pay just before he left office to spite Cameron, TMay should accept this to get a few more votes and leave it for the next PM to have to deliver on.
You mean Gordon Brown cut his own salary but did not boast about it for political pointscoring? Had Cameron not already pledged to cut it, and did it not also reduce Brown's pension? In any case, the incoming government could have trebled the PM's salary if Cameron felt that strongly about it.
When the WA fails today what is TMs plan B : resign?, revoke?, referendum? GE?, No Deal Exit? She must have thought through what her next step is, surely ?
When the WA fails today what is TMs plan B : resign?, revoke?, referendum? GE?, No Deal Exit? She must have thought through what her next step is, surely ?
Paddy and Betfair Sportsbook have mispriced an Oct GE. They have it as a quite ridiculous 33/1. Other bookies are where it should be (the 10/1 range) and it is layable on the Exchange at 19s.
I can't do it unfortunately since I am banned by PP and Sportsbook but if anybody has accounts with either, there is just the one thing to say - FILL YOUR BOOTS!
:-)
Good tip. September at the same price is surely also value.
The main difference between Powers and Ladbrokes is that Powers favour a May election (6/4 vs 5/1) whereas Ladbrokes think October is 8/1 not 33/1). Other months are more-or-less in line (even if 100 per cent out in a probably illiquid market). Both have next year a shade of odds-on.
When the WA fails today what is TMs plan B : resign?, revoke?, referendum? GE?, No Deal Exit? She must have thought through what her next step is, surely ?
It's been suggested that he's waiting until after the end of the month before announcing, as he want to avoid direct comparison of fundraising figures - declared candidates will have to make filings on the 31st, and Sanders and O'Rourke will be well ahead of the rest.
If that motion passes and I expect May would not be too concerned about it that could well see the Withdrawal Agreement over the line today as ERG opposition to it collapses and it gets more Labour MPs switching to back it even if the DUP remain opposed
I may be wrong but my sense is that May's anticipated resignation has led to a certain fatalism about today's vote - I can't see many Labour MPs joining in this. But it may well be quite close.
I think some will vote to get the WA over the line today then for permanent Customs Union as the future relationship in the PD to get over the line on Monday
Paddy and Betfair Sportsbook have mispriced an Oct GE. They have it as a quite ridiculous 33/1. Other bookies are where it should be (the 10/1 range) and it is layable on the Exchange at 19s.
I can't do it unfortunately since I am banned by PP and Sportsbook but if anybody has accounts with either, there is just the one thing to say - FILL YOUR BOOTS!
:-)
Good tip. September at the same price is surely also value.
The main difference between Powers and Ladbrokes is that Powers favour a May election (6/4 vs 5/1) whereas Ladbrokes think October is 8/1 not 33/1). Other months are more-or-less in line (even if 100 per cent out in a probably illiquid market). Both have next year a shade of odds-on.
If in doubt, it's usually best to assume Ladbrokes are right on political pricing.
Paddy and Betfair Sportsbook have mispriced an Oct GE. They have it as a quite ridiculous 33/1. Other bookies are where it should be (the 10/1 range) and it is layable on the Exchange at 19s.
I can't do it unfortunately since I am banned by PP and Sportsbook but if anybody has accounts with either, there is just the one thing to say - FILL YOUR BOOTS!
:-)
Good tip. September at the same price is surely also value.
The main difference between Powers and Ladbrokes is that Powers favour a May election (6/4 vs 5/1) whereas Ladbrokes think October is 8/1 not 33/1). Other months are more-or-less in line (even if 100 per cent out in a probably illiquid market). Both have next year a shade of odds-on.
If in doubt, it's usually best to assume Ladbrokes are right on political pricing.
Lol. One day I'll remember to bet first and post second before the prices change.
Parliament having high involvement has not been a triumph but if it saw the thing pass it should be agreed. But how many beyond the signatories would back it from labour ranks? 5? 10?
They need 30+
The . motion they should pass crosses out everything after "This House" and replaces it with "is off to the pub. Anyone fancy a pint?"
But if we revoke then we are acknowledging we can never leave without the agreement of Ireland and hence are not sovereign
The UK could leave without the agreement of Ireland but would have to be prepared to weather the political fallout in the six counties. This British government isn't prepared to. It's got nothing to do with sovereignty.
The Republic could certainly make it easier but why would they given 800 years of English oppression and invasion?
The point is despite independence the economic relationship between Eire and the UK has remained extraordinarily close - the obvious parallel is Australia and New Zealand. The Republic joined with us in 1973. Had Ireland voted to leave the EU with us it would have been so much easier but they didn't and for the first time the two countries are going down different economic routes.
It would actually be real independence for Ireland after all this time - okay, they would be tied to Brussels but they wouldn't be tied to London.
Thanks for the feedback to my questions, particularly from kle4 which was genuinely useful. The other replies were less useful, but however very enjoyable.
But if we revoke then we are acknowledging we can never leave without the agreement of Ireland and hence are not sovereign
The UK could leave without the agreement of Ireland but would have to be prepared to weather the political fallout in the six counties. This British government isn't prepared to. It's got nothing to do with sovereignty.
The Republic could certainly make it easier but why would they given 800 years of English oppression and invasion?
That people don't understand this transparently simple point remains a wonder.
Good tip. September at the same price is surely also value.
Yes, I would say so. But Oct IMO a touch better since it is a more 'electiony' month than Sept in this country. There has never been a GE in Sept.
Disappointing PS: The 33 has now been cut to 25.
A September election would presumably mean the campaign runs through August, our peak summer holiday season. That might be why there has never been one,
When the WA fails today what is TMs plan B : resign?, revoke?, referendum? GE?, No Deal Exit? She must have thought through what her next step is, surely ?
You're crediting her with strategic vision she's shown no sign of before.
-But could she surprise us at the last ? Who knows.
'Okay lads, we're scraping the bottom of the barrel of tired, old repeated memes; the EU has blinked is exhausted, the Paddies are shitting themselves is done, DEPLOY THE ROYAL YACHT!'
But if we revoke then we are acknowledging we can never leave without the agreement of Ireland and hence are not sovereign
The UK could leave without the agreement of Ireland but would have to be prepared to weather the political fallout in the six counties. This British government isn't prepared to. It's got nothing to do with sovereignty.
The Republic could certainly make it easier but why would they given 800 years of English oppression and invasion?
The point is despite independence the economic relationship between Eire and the UK has remained extraordinarily close - the obvious parallel is Australia and New Zealand. The Republic joined with us in 1973. Had Ireland voted to leave the EU with us it would have been so much easier but they didn't and for the first time the two countries are going down different economic routes.
It would actually be real independence for Ireland after all this time - okay, they would be tied to Brussels but they wouldn't be tied to London.
"For the first time the two countries are going down different economic routes"
Biden on 26% in Iowa and Sanders on 24.5% neck and neck there, everyone else trailing. Harris a distant third on 9%
John Edwards was polling around 24% in Iowa as late as November 2007, so I'm not convinced current polling tells us a great deal beyond name recognition.
Good tip. September at the same price is surely also value.
Yes, I would say so. But Oct IMO a touch better since it is a more 'electiony' month than Sept in this country. There has never been a GE in Sept.
Disappointing PS: The 33 has now been cut to 25.
A September election would presumably mean the campaign runs through August, our peak summer holiday season. That might be why there has never been one,
We haven't had a non spring/early summer election since 1974.
Once Ireland and the EU insisted on the backstop then the path was set
Either that is acceptable to the UK parliament or it isn’t
If it isn’t then it’s no deal or revoke
But if we revoke then we are acknowledging we can never leave without the agreement of Ireland and hence are not sovereign
Is the backstop just the dichotomy you suggest or do different parties have different objections to the backstop? The DUP's principal objection is to a border down the Irish Sea, the GFA says no new border along the border, and the ERG objects mainly to becoming trapped as a vassal state. If so then one could imagine it might be possible to reassure some hold-outs but not others.
Sure and I think you give the people of NI a choice between reunification and limited checks on good entering the Uk
Once Ireland and the EU insisted on the backstop then the path was set
Either that is acceptable to the UK parliament or it isn’t
If it isn’t then it’s no deal or revoke
But if we revoke then we are acknowledging we can never leave without the agreement of Ireland and hence are not sovereign
Of course we can Leave.
The difference is that Vote Leave said we could leave cost free without any disruption, ‘we hold all the cards’ etc and that’s untrue.
PS - The universe loves irony. I mean for how long did we take Ireland’s sovereignty?
Not if we revoke - we are acknowledging that we need the backstop to leave
That makes no sense whatsoever. We don't need the backstop to leave. We need the backstop to leave with a deal. We can choose to leave without a deal if we accept the damaging political and economic consequences that will deliver.
"According to a ConservativeHome survey, 60% of Tory party members now think MPs should back Theresa May’s deal. As ConservativeHome’s Paul Goodman explains, that is quite a turnaround. Previously the membership was strongly opposed.
The month before last, 19 per cent of Party member respondents to our survey said that the agreement was acceptable to them. Last month, the total saying that MPs should vote for it touched 40 per cent. This month, it has reached 60 per cent.
That’s the first time the deal has obtained the backing of a majority of replies in any form. Three in five is a clear-cut margin – although over one in three party members remain opposed, if our survey is anything to go by."
When the WA fails today what is TMs plan B : resign?, revoke?, referendum? GE?, No Deal Exit? She must have thought through what her next step is, surely ?
The Nandy amendment looks like it could deliver a fair few Labour votes if the government accepts it. I do think it is rather sweet that any Labour MP would trust the government to deliver on it in any meaningful way, though.
When the WA fails today what is TMs plan B : resign?, revoke?, referendum? GE?, No Deal Exit? She must have thought through what her next step is, surely ?
The Nandy amendment looks like it could deliver a fair few Labour votes if the government accepts it. I do think it is rather sweet that any Labour MP would trust the government to deliver on it in any meaningful way, though.
Cox confirms the government had an alternative plan to bring IV2 forward to this morning and follow with a motion this afternoon. But chose to charge the cannons instead.
Parliament having high involvement has not been a triumph but if it saw the thing pass it should be agreed. But how many beyond the signatories would back it from labour ranks? 5? 10?
They need 30+
This reminds me of Gordon Brown cutting the Prime Ministers pay just before he left office to spite Cameron, TMay should accept this to get a few more votes and leave it for the next PM to have to deliver on.
You mean Gordon Brown cut his own salary but did not boast about it for political pointscoring? Had Cameron not already pledged to cut it, and did it not also reduce Brown's pension? In any case, the incoming government could have trebled the PM's salary if Cameron felt that strongly about it.
Not quite - he cut it with effect from (I think) the 1 May: he had 4 days of reduced pay and whoever won the 2010 election would have had the lower rate
When the WA fails today what is TMs plan B : resign?, revoke?, referendum? GE?, No Deal Exit? She must have thought through what her next step is, surely ?
The Nandy amendment looks like it could deliver a fair few Labour votes if the government accepts it. I do think it is rather sweet that any Labour MP would trust the government to deliver on it in any meaningful way, though.
Can they accept an amendment that the speaker didn't select?
But if we revoke then we are acknowledging we can never leave without the agreement of Ireland and hence are not sovereign
The UK could leave without the agreement of Ireland but would have to be prepared to weather the political fallout in the six counties. This British government isn't prepared to. It's got nothing to do with sovereignty.
The Republic could certainly make it easier but why would they given 800 years of English oppression and invasion?
That people don't understand this transparently simple point remains a wonder.
Not quite - the EU has said the GFA remains in force in all scenarios
When the WA fails today what is TMs plan B : resign?, revoke?, referendum? GE?, No Deal Exit? She must have thought through what her next step is, surely ?
The Nandy amendment looks like it could deliver a fair few Labour votes if the government accepts it. I do think it is rather sweet that any Labour MP would trust the government to deliver on it in any meaningful way, though.
Can they accept an amendment that the speaker didn't select?
When the WA fails today what is TMs plan B : resign?, revoke?, referendum? GE?, No Deal Exit? She must have thought through what her next step is, surely ?
The Nandy amendment looks like it could deliver a fair few Labour votes if the government accepts it. I do think it is rather sweet that any Labour MP would trust the government to deliver on it in any meaningful way, though.
Can they accept an amendment that the speaker didn't select?
They could I think put a new motion to the House.
I think though that the government intends to cut the majority to -80 today and then engage with (they hope) 25 or so more Lab switchers.
If only he hadn't poured opprobrium on Theresa's deal in the first place and then flounced off in DD's wake. Had he stayed in the government to fight the case - maybe, just maybe, he would have won round enough of the ultras. Too late now surely.
Once Ireland and the EU insisted on the backstop then the path was set
Either that is acceptable to the UK parliament or it isn’t
If it isn’t then it’s no deal or revoke
But if we revoke then we are acknowledging we can never leave without the agreement of Ireland and hence are not sovereign
Of course we can Leave.
The difference is that Vote Leave said we could leave cost free without any disruption, ‘we hold all the cards’ etc and that’s untrue.
PS - The universe loves irony. I mean for how long did we take Ireland’s sovereignty?
Not if we revoke - we are acknowledging that we need the backstop to leave
That makes no sense whatsoever. We don't need the backstop to leave. We need the backstop to leave with a deal. We can choose to leave without a deal if we accept the damaging political and economic consequences that will deliver.
The point is if parliament says we are not willing to under any circumstances then de facto we can’t
When the WA fails today what is TMs plan B : resign?, revoke?, referendum? GE?, No Deal Exit? She must have thought through what her next step is, surely ?
The Nandy amendment looks like it could deliver a fair few Labour votes if the government accepts it. I do think it is rather sweet that any Labour MP would trust the government to deliver on it in any meaningful way, though.
Can they accept an amendment that the speaker didn't select?
They could I think put a new motion to the House.
I think though that the government intends to cut the majority to -80 today and then engage with (they hope) 25 or so more Lab switchers.
I thought they had to get the WA approved today at the latest?
If only he hadn't poured opprobrium on Theresa's deal in the first place and then flounced off in DD's wake. Had he stayed in the government to fight the case - maybe, just maybe, he would have won round enough of the ultras. Too late now surely.
Much of the pain of voting for this deal is going to come from the ridicule he receives:
When the WA fails today what is TMs plan B : resign?, revoke?, referendum? GE?, No Deal Exit? She must have thought through what her next step is, surely ?
The Nandy amendment looks like it could deliver a fair few Labour votes if the government accepts it. I do think it is rather sweet that any Labour MP would trust the government to deliver on it in any meaningful way, though.
"Labour’s Ian Lucas asks Cox to admit that this motion does not comply with section 13 of the EU Withdrawal Act, which says that for the withdrawal agreement to be ratified, MPs must pass a resolution backing the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration.
Cox says the motion is not intended to be a resolution of the required under section 13 of the act."
I see the gov't is taking a different approach to the one I suggested, but with much the same effect.
Once Ireland and the EU insisted on the backstop then the path was set
Either that is acceptable to the UK parliament or it isn’t
If it isn’t then it’s no deal or revoke
But if we revoke then we are acknowledging we can never leave without the agreement of Ireland and hence are not sovereign
Of course we can Leave.
The difference is that Vote Leave said we could leave cost free without any disruption, ‘we hold all the cards’ etc and that’s untrue.
PS - The universe loves irony. I mean for how long did we take Ireland’s sovereignty?
Not if we revoke - we are acknowledging that we need the backstop to leave
Did you support the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement at the time?
I was too young in 86 to have a view but yes to the GFA. I would have also supported Sunnyngdale
Given that they involve giving Ireland a role in the governance of Northern Ireland, haven't you already conceded the principle that our sovereignty is partially constrained?
When the WA fails today what is TMs plan B : resign?, revoke?, referendum? GE?, No Deal Exit? She must have thought through what her next step is, surely ?
The Nandy amendment looks like it could deliver a fair few Labour votes if the government accepts it. I do think it is rather sweet that any Labour MP would trust the government to deliver on it in any meaningful way, though.
Can they accept an amendment that the speaker didn't select?
They could I think put a new motion to the House.
I think though that the government intends to cut the majority to -80 today and then engage with (they hope) 25 or so more Lab switchers.
I thought they had to get the WA approved today at the latest?
To get the May 22 extension as currently agreed, yes.
But does anyone really think this will pass today?
"Labour’s Ian Lucas asks Cox to admit that this motion does not comply with section 13 of the EU Withdrawal Act, which says that for the withdrawal agreement to be ratified, MPs must pass a resolution backing the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration.
Cox says the motion is not intended to be a resolution of the required under section 13 of the act."
I see the gov't is taking a different approach to the one I suggested, but with much the same effect.
He tapdanced on Benn's question repeated from yesterday about further extensions, but implied we could apply for a further one. Grieve picking up the related point that if the motion is agreed but WAIB runs into trouble we could be in difficulty.
Parliament having high involvement has not been a triumph but if it saw the thing pass it should be agreed. But how many beyond the signatories would back it from labour ranks? 5? 10?
They need 30+
This reminds me of Gordon Brown cutting the Prime Ministers pay just before he left office to spite Cameron, TMay should accept this to get a few more votes and leave it for the next PM to have to deliver on.
You mean Gordon Brown cut his own salary but did not boast about it for political pointscoring? Had Cameron not already pledged to cut it, and did it not also reduce Brown's pension? In any case, the incoming government could have trebled the PM's salary if Cameron felt that strongly about it.
Not quite - he cut it with effect from (I think) the 1 May: he had 4 days of reduced pay and whoever won the 2010 election would have had the lower rate
There were suggestions the cut had been made the previous Autumn. The privately-wealthy Cameron had already pledged to cut it, so it is a bit of a storm in a teacup.
When the WA fails today what is TMs plan B : resign?, revoke?, referendum? GE?, No Deal Exit? She must have thought through what her next step is, surely ?
The Nandy amendment looks like it could deliver a fair few Labour votes if the government accepts it. I do think it is rather sweet that any Labour MP would trust the government to deliver on it in any meaningful way, though.
Can they accept an amendment that the speaker didn't select?
They could I think put a new motion to the House.
I think though that the government intends to cut the majority to -80 today and then engage with (they hope) 25 or so more Lab switchers.
I thought they had to get the WA approved today at the latest?
To get the May 22 extension as currently agreed, yes.
But does anyone really think this will pass today?
If only he hadn't poured opprobrium on Theresa's deal in the first place and then flounced off in DD's wake. Had he stayed in the government to fight the case - maybe, just maybe, he would have won round enough of the ultras. Too late now surely.
Much of the pain of voting for this deal is going to come from the ridicule he receives:
When the WA fails today what is TMs plan B : resign?, revoke?, referendum? GE?, No Deal Exit? She must have thought through what her next step is, surely ?
The Nandy amendment looks like it could deliver a fair few Labour votes if the government accepts it. I do think it is rather sweet that any Labour MP would trust the government to deliver on it in any meaningful way, though.
Can they accept an amendment that the speaker didn't select?
They could I think put a new motion to the House.
I think though that the government intends to cut the majority to -80 today and then engage with (they hope) 25 or so more Lab switchers.
I thought they had to get the WA approved today at the latest?
To get the May 22 extension as currently agreed, yes.
But does anyone really think this will pass today?
Probably not but it should
Grieve has identified the biggest risk - say it passes, then WAIB runs into trouble either over the PD or because people don't like the Bill once they see it (as is widely rumoured). No further extensions are possible and it would be a straight revoke/no deal choice.
If only he hadn't poured opprobrium on Theresa's deal in the first place and then flounced off in DD's wake. Had he stayed in the government to fight the case - maybe, just maybe, he would have won round enough of the ultras. Too late now surely.
Much of the pain of voting for this deal is going to come from the ridicule he receives:
When the WA fails today what is TMs plan B : resign?, revoke?, referendum? GE?, No Deal Exit? She must have thought through what her next step is, surely ?
The Nandy amendment looks like it could deliver a fair few Labour votes if the government accepts it. I do think it is rather sweet that any Labour MP would trust the government to deliver on it in any meaningful way, though.
Can they accept an amendment that the speaker didn't select?
They could I think put a new motion to the House.
I think though that the government intends to cut the majority to -80 today and then engage with (they hope) 25 or so more Lab switchers.
I thought they had to get the WA approved today at the latest?
To get the May 22 extension as currently agreed, yes.
But does anyone really think this will pass today?
Probably not but it should
Grieve has identified the biggest risk - say it passes, then WAIB runs into trouble either over the PD or because people don't like the Bill once they see it (as is widely rumoured). No further extensions are possible and it would be a straight revoke/no deal choice.
If only he hadn't poured opprobrium on Theresa's deal in the first place and then flounced off in DD's wake. Had he stayed in the government to fight the case - maybe, just maybe, he would have won round enough of the ultras. Too late now surely.
Much of the pain of voting for this deal is going to come from the ridicule he receives:
The fact that many Tories still believe Boris is leadership material is truly extraordinary. Against him even Corbyn is a paragon of virtue and political honesty.
When the WA fails today what is TMs plan B : resign?, revoke?, referendum? GE?, No Deal Exit? She must have thought through what her next step is, surely ?
The Nandy amendment looks like it could deliver a fair few Labour votes if the government accepts it. I do think it is rather sweet that any Labour MP would trust the government to deliver on it in any meaningful way, though.
Can they accept an amendment that the speaker didn't select?
They could I think put a new motion to the House.
I think though that the government intends to cut the majority to -80 today and then engage with (they hope) 25 or so more Lab switchers.
I thought they had to get the WA approved today at the latest?
To get the May 22 extension as currently agreed, yes.
But does anyone really think this will pass today?
Probably not but it should
Grieve has identified the biggest risk - say it passes, then WAIB runs into trouble either over the PD or because people don't like the Bill once they see it (as is widely rumoured). No further extensions are possible and it would be a straight revoke/no deal choice.
Or transistion
Not if the WAIB isn't agreed in time, which is the point
If only he hadn't poured opprobrium on Theresa's deal in the first place and then flounced off in DD's wake. Had he stayed in the government to fight the case - maybe, just maybe, he would have won round enough of the ultras. Too late now surely.
Much of the pain of voting for this deal is going to come from the ridicule he receives:
If only he hadn't poured opprobrium on Theresa's deal in the first place and then flounced off in DD's wake. Had he stayed in the government to fight the case - maybe, just maybe, he would have won round enough of the ultras. Too late now surely.
Much of the pain of voting for this deal is going to come from the ridicule he receives:
But if we revoke then we are acknowledging we can never leave without the agreement of Ireland and hence are not sovereign
The UK could leave without the agreement of Ireland but would have to be prepared to weather the political fallout in the six counties. This British government isn't prepared to. It's got nothing to do with sovereignty.
The Republic could certainly make it easier but why would they given 800 years of English oppression and invasion?
That people don't understand this transparently simple point remains a wonder.
Not quite - the EU has said the GFA remains in force in all scenarios
Yes I saw that. They, as does the UK government, want to adhere to the GFA. I'm not sure that changes anything unless you think he was accepting an open no-check EU border there.
Comments
The Republic could certainly make it easier but why would they given 800 years of English oppression and invasion?
Hall of Mirrors or what.
He would at least get a Christmas card from the ERG. If not from the heads of states whose economies he has plunged into recession....
Fuck Knows
I'm Past Caring
Its like the Living Dead in here
Disappointing PS: The 33 has now been cut to 25.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-6731.html
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/436358-poll-84-of-dems-do-not-think-race-or-gender-are-important-factors-in
It's been suggested that he's waiting until after the end of the month before announcing, as he want to avoid direct comparison of fundraising figures - declared candidates will have to make filings on the 31st, and Sanders and O'Rourke will be well ahead of the rest.
It would actually be real independence for Ireland after all this time - okay, they would be tied to Brussels but they wouldn't be tied to London.
I highly recommend the Five thirty-eight politics podcast, they recently did a live taped show shoot the 2020 field.
Anyway, no spread on SPIN on today’s vote (yet?).
-But could she surprise us at the last ? Who knows.
That's very wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Trade_War
Cox on his feet
Cox to move
"According to a ConservativeHome survey, 60% of Tory party members now think MPs should back Theresa May’s deal. As ConservativeHome’s Paul Goodman explains, that is quite a turnaround. Previously the membership was strongly opposed.
The month before last, 19 per cent of Party member respondents to our survey said that the agreement was acceptable to them. Last month, the total saying that MPs should vote for it touched 40 per cent. This month, it has reached 60 per cent.
That’s the first time the deal has obtained the backing of a majority of replies in any form. Three in five is a clear-cut margin – although over one in three party members remain opposed, if our survey is anything to go by."
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1111564131071676416
Sir James Craig is, I hope, rotting in Hell
He'll always be remembered for putting other people first.
Fire up the ballot papers - let's elect some MEPs.
I think though that the government intends to cut the majority to -80 today and then engage with (they hope) 25 or so more Lab switchers.
https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1111565337848352768
Cox says the motion is not intended to be a resolution of the required under section 13 of the act."
I see the gov't is taking a different approach to the one I suggested, but with much the same effect.
But does anyone really think this will pass today?
Trouble is it's not that Remainers are obsessed with Boris, some (?much) of the Press is and of course he is, too!