politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The pressure mounts on TMay with a divided cabinet and 11 days to go
So another day when all the focus is on Westminster and Mrs. May’s cabinet as they pitch in with their own positions to try to influence this massive decision for the future of the UK.
Can someone please explain the practical difference between life under the backstop and life in a customs union?
Neither allows us to sign third party trade deals (see advice given at last year's Chequers Cabinet meeting). Neither allow regulatory divergence. Both offer a solution to the Irish Question.
The advantage of May's deal as it stands, is that there's the declaration that a neater solution will be at least be sought, to allow the UK to eventually follow an independent trade policy.
Even if MPs vote through a requirement for the Political Declaration to include the goal of a "permanent" customs union, so what? The Political Declaration is not legally binding, as the AG admitted last month. What's to stop a future free trading PM from abandoning this goal when the Parliamentary constraints are not so tight?
What happens if we get to 10th or 11th April and a mechanism can be found to hold a two-way vote on a) Sign deal as is, b) Sign deal with amendment to political declaration for permanent customs union? Such that No Deal, Single Market and Second Referendum have been specifically excluded.
Surely then we'd finally have a positive result for May's deal (MV5?).
Can someone please explain the practical difference between life under the backstop and life in a customs union?
Neither allows us to sign third party trade deals (see advice given at last year's Chequers Cabinet meeting). Neither allow regulatory divergence. Both offer a solution to the Irish Question.
The advantage of May's deal as it stands, is that there's the declaration that a neater solution will be at least be sought, to allow the UK to eventually follow an independent trade policy.
Even if MPs vote through a requirement for the Political Declaration to include the goal of a "permanent" customs union, so what? The Political Declaration is not legally binding, as the AG admitted last month. What's to stop a future free trading PM from abandoning this goal when the Parliamentary constraints are not so tight?
What happens if we get to 10th or 11th April and a mechanism can be found to hold a two-way vote on a) Sign deal as is, b) Sign deal with amendment to political declaration for permanent customs union? Such that No Deal, Single Market and Second Referendum have been specifically excluded.
Surely then we'd finally have a positive result for May's deal (MV5?).
The backstop is deliberately vague so nobody really knows what you'd end up with. TMay designed it that way to simultaneously appease the ERG (no following EU laws in England), the DUP (no border in the Irish Sea) and the EU/Ireland (no creeping divergence forcing Ireland to follow UK rules and requiring extra checks between Ireland and the rest of the EU). Since by design nobody knows what it is, you can't really compare them. But the least impractical outcome is literally a permanent customs union.
The problem with your solution of a vote on adding the CU to the PD is: 1) ERG throw toys out of pram 2) Opposition can't be sure the government will really negotiate for the permanent CU once they no longer have leverage 3) Corbyn doesn't really want to get to yes
GE then? Because if they don't like the current parliament that's the solution.
How is that a solution with ten days left ?
The government need the cooperation of Parliament, and vice versa, for anything constructive to be done. And that includes obtaining any extension from the EU.
Unless you are suggesting an election after we crash out ?
Can someone please explain the practical difference between life under the backstop and life in a customs union?
Neither allows us to sign third party trade deals (see advice given at last year's Chequers Cabinet meeting). Neither allow regulatory divergence. Both offer a solution to the Irish Question.
The advantage of May's deal as it stands, is that there's the declaration that a neater solution will be at least be sought, to allow the UK to eventually follow an independent trade policy.
Even if MPs vote through a requirement for the Political Declaration to include the goal of a "permanent" customs union, so what? The Political Declaration is not legally binding, as the AG admitted last month. What's to stop a future free trading PM from abandoning this goal when the Parliamentary constraints are not so tight?
What happens if we get to 10th or 11th April and a mechanism can be found to hold a two-way vote on a) Sign deal as is, b) Sign deal with amendment to political declaration for permanent customs union? Such that No Deal, Single Market and Second Referendum have been specifically excluded.
Surely then we'd finally have a positive result for May's deal (MV5?).
The backstop is deliberately vague so nobody really knows what you'd end up with. TMay designed it that way to simultaneously appease the ERG (no following EU laws in England), the DUP (no border in the Irish Sea) and the EU/Ireland (no creeping divergence forcing Ireland to follow UK rules and requiring extra checks between Ireland and the rest of the EU). Since by design nobody knows what it is, you can't really compare them. But the least impractical outcome is literally a permanent customs union.
The problem with your solution of a vote on adding the CU to the PD is: 1) ERG throw toys out of pram 2) Opposition can't be sure the government will really negotiate for the permanent CU once they no longer have leverage 3) Corbyn doesn't really want to get to yes
The problem seems to me that the reality has been obscured by May’s layers of deliberate confusion. She tells Parliament that the deal is good because it allows the signing of free trade agreements. And yet tells Cabinet that it would be practically impossible until we leave the backstop.
The DUP are sitting there worried about future regulatory divergence that might undermine the GB-N Ireland internal market. But that’s never going to happen until there’s a solution to the backstop. Everyone knows this. So why not just put it in writing and let everyone move on.
Surely a Maidenhead by-election is nailed on when she goes? No new PM is going to give her a job, and any advice she might give from the backbenches is going to be met with derision.
GE then? Because if they don't like the current parliament that's the solution.
How is that a solution with ten days left ?
The government need the cooperation of Parliament, and vice versa, for anything constructive to be done. And that includes obtaining any extension from the EU.
Unless you are suggesting an election after we crash out ?
And the Observer is probably right that it would be blocked by Tory MPs anyway; things look increasingly poor for the Tories in the polls, the locals will surely be bad, and they'll want a new leader established in the chair first.
The problem seems to me that the reality has been obscured by May’s layers of deliberate confusion. She tells Parliament that the deal is good because it allows the signing of free trade agreements. And yet tells Cabinet that it would be practically impossible until we leave the backstop.
The DUP are sitting there worried about future regulatory divergence that might undermine the GB-N Ireland internal market. But that’s never going to happen until there’s a solution to the backstop. Everyone knows this. So why not just put it in writing and let everyone move on.
I agree that the backstop is effectively the CU if it comes into force. We are also committed to the CU for the transitional period. So what certain leavers are wanting to die in a ditch about is the possibility that in the next 2 years our team of skilled negotiators (presumably we are going to find some new ones) are going to find a better and more flexible alternative to the backstop which will give us greater freedom outside the EU.
That new arrangement is supposedly going to be flexible enough for us to have an open, unregulated border with the SM despite us having more regulatory independence and divergence and the ability to bring into the UK goods that are not compatible with SM regulations. Good luck with that.
If this is the Holy Grail that you are still looking for then once again May's deal gives the ERG the best outcome that they could reasonably hope for because the hunt is still on and the current time pressure is removed. The votes against May's deal become ever more mysterious and exasperating.
The alternative of no deal gives regulatory independence, it almost certainly creates a hard border in NI, it allows us to have our own trade deals (if only Fox had actually negotiated any) but it excludes us from EU trade deals (which, you know, actually exist). There would be some modest disruption and we would be less attractive to international investment wanting unimpeded access to the SM/EU. Right now that doesn't strike me as an attractive trade off but May's deal once again provides a solution. It just might be a better deal in 2 years time if the government doesn't waste those years like it has the last 2.
GE then? Because if they don't like the current parliament that's the solution.
How is that a solution with ten days left ?
The government need the cooperation of Parliament, and vice versa, for anything constructive to be done. And that includes obtaining any extension from the EU.
Unless you are suggesting an election after we crash out ?
And the Observer is probably right that it would be blocked by Tory MPs anyway; things look increasingly poor for the Tories in the polls, the locals will surely be bad, and they'll want a new leader established in the chair first.
I can't find any polls for the Newport West by-election on Thursday. I assume this is because a) it's in Wales and therefore a long way for "Fleet St' journalists to travel, b) because it's in Wales assumed to be different, or c) assumed to be a shoo-in for Labour? Or all three?
GE then? Because if they don't like the current parliament that's the solution.
How is that a solution with ten days left ?
The government need the cooperation of Parliament, and vice versa, for anything constructive to be done. And that includes obtaining any extension from the EU.
Unless you are suggesting an election after we crash out ?
And the Observer is probably right that it would be blocked by Tory MPs anyway; things look increasingly poor for the Tories in the polls, the locals will surely be bad, and they'll want a new leader established in the chair first.
I can't find any polls for the Newport West by-election on Thursday. I assume this is because a) it's in Wales and therefore a long way for "Fleet St' journalists to travel, b) because it's in Wales assumed to be different, or c) assumed to be a shoo-in for Labour? Or all three?
All three. But if Labour lose Newport West at this moment they really are in trouble.
Despite the BBC's somewhat desperate attempts to downplay it (inflation is currently 2.1%) the increases in the Minimum Wage today will affect enough employees to give a real fillip to real terms wage growth helping to underwrite demand and growth in the coming year. This really would not have been possible without one of the strongest job markets on record.
GE then? Because if they don't like the current parliament that's the solution.
How is that a solution with ten days left ?
The government need the cooperation of Parliament, and vice versa, for anything constructive to be done. And that includes obtaining any extension from the EU.
Unless you are suggesting an election after we crash out ?
And the Observer is probably right that it would be blocked by Tory MPs anyway; things look increasingly poor for the Tories in the polls, the locals will surely be bad, and they'll want a new leader established in the chair first.
I can't find any polls for the Newport West by-election on Thursday. I assume this is because a) it's in Wales and therefore a long way for "Fleet St' journalists to travel, b) because it's in Wales assumed to be different, or c) assumed to be a shoo-in for Labour? Or all three?
All three. But if Labour lose Newport West at this moment they really are in trouble.
If they do, and it's not to the Tories, both are really in trouble.
GE then? Because if they don't like the current parliament that's the solution.
How is that a solution with ten days left ?
The government need the cooperation of Parliament, and vice versa, for anything constructive to be done. And that includes obtaining any extension from the EU.
Unless you are suggesting an election after we crash out ?
And the Observer is probably right that it would be blocked by Tory MPs anyway; things look increasingly poor for the Tories in the polls, the locals will surely be bad, and they'll want a new leader established in the chair first.
I can't find any polls for the Newport West by-election on Thursday. I assume this is because a) it's in Wales and therefore a long way for "Fleet St' journalists to travel, b) because it's in Wales assumed to be different, or c) assumed to be a shoo-in for Labour? Or all three?
All three. But if Labour lose Newport West at this moment they really are in trouble.
If they do, and it's not to the Tories, both are really in trouble.
It wouldn't be surprising for the government to lose a by-election in a seat it hasn't held for 22 years when it is making no effort to win it at a time when they're behind in the national opinion polls. Indeed, if they do win it it would be a great shock.
But for the main opposition to lose such a seat at such a time would not exactly be an encouraging sign for them. Greenwich 1987 springs to mind.
Surely a Maidenhead by-election is nailed on when she goes? No new PM is going to give her a job, and any advice she might give from the backbenches is going to be met with derision.
Surely a Maidenhead by-election is nailed on when she goes? No new PM is going to give her a job, and any advice she might give from the backbenches is going to be met with derision.
Can someone please explain the practical difference between life under the backstop and life in a customs union?
Neither allows us to sign third party trade deals (see advice given at last year's Chequers Cabinet meeting). Neither allow regulatory divergence. Both offer a solution to the Irish Question.
The advantage of May's deal as it stands, is that there's the declaration that a neater solution will be at least be sought, to allow the UK to eventually follow an independent trade policy.
Even if MPs vote through a requirement for the Political Declaration to include the goal of a "permanent" customs union, so what? The Political Declaration is not legally binding, as the AG admitted last month. What's to stop a future free trading PM from abandoning this goal when the Parliamentary constraints are not so tight?
What happens if we get to 10th or 11th April and a mechanism can be found to hold a two-way vote on a) Sign deal as is, b) Sign deal with amendment to political declaration for permanent customs union? Such that No Deal, Single Market and Second Referendum have been specifically excluded.
Surely then we'd finally have a positive result for May's deal (MV5?).
The backstop is the least necessary to eliminate controls at the Irish border and minimise them at the Irish Sea. The Customs Union would eliminate tariffs on goods between the EU and the UK and possibly include regulatory alignment. This reduces friction on trade. In short, the backstop would be form of Customs Union for the UK, but you could come up with a much better one.
Despite the BBC's somewhat desperate attempts to downplay it (inflation is currently 2.1%) the increases in the Minimum Wage today will affect enough employees to give a real fillip to real terms wage growth helping to underwrite demand and growth in the coming year. This really would not have been possible without one of the strongest job markets on record.
I agree that the backstop is effectively the CU if it comes into force. We are also committed to the CU for the transitional period. So what certain leavers are wanting to die in a ditch about is the possibility that in the next 2 years our team of skilled negotiators (presumably we are going to find some new ones) are going to find a better and more flexible alternative to the backstop which will give us greater freedom outside the EU.
That new arrangement is supposedly going to be flexible enough for us to have an open, unregulated border with the SM despite us having more regulatory independence and divergence and the ability to bring into the UK goods that are not compatible with SM regulations. Good luck with that.
If this is the Holy Grail that you are still looking for then once again May's deal gives the ERG the best outcome that they could reasonably hope for because the hunt is still on and the current time pressure is removed. The votes against May's deal become ever more mysterious and exasperating.
The alternative of no deal gives regulatory independence, it almost certainly creates a hard border in NI, it allows us to have our own trade deals (if only Fox had actually negotiated any) but it excludes us from EU trade deals (which, you know, actually exist). There would be some modest disruption and we would be less attractive to international investment wanting unimpeded access to the SM/EU. Right now that doesn't strike me as an attractive trade off but May's deal once again provides a solution. It just might be a better deal in 2 years time if the government doesn't waste those years like it has the last 2.
I wonder whether the best thing to do would be take the ERG holdouts on an away day to Chessington World of Adventures or somewhere and let them get a bit of headspace. I’m struggling to find a rationale for their actions at this point and I’m sure if they sat down calmly with a toffee apple and a smile they’d realise the same.
Surely better to have a solid declaration from the EU that they’ll try and pursue a borderless solution, than trying later to undo a formal customs union, when there’s no incentive to even talk? Or as you say, negotiating from a No Deal position when we’d be in a mighty hurry to end an asymmetric tariffs regime.
By the way, what was Rory Stewart doing voting for a customs union last week? I could swear he said at that Speccie event when he debated Raab that a customs union was the worst possible outcome. Suspicious...
The problem seems to me that the reality has been obscured by May’s layers of deliberate confusion. She tells Parliament that the deal is good because it allows the signing of free trade agreements. And yet tells Cabinet that it would be practically impossible until we leave the backstop.
The DUP are sitting there worried about future regulatory divergence that might undermine the GB-N Ireland internal market. But that’s never going to happen until there’s a solution to the backstop. Everyone knows this. So why not just put it in writing and let everyone move on.
I agree that the backstop is effectively the CU if it comes into force. We are also committed to the CU for the transitional period. So what certain leavers are wanting to die in a ditch about is the possibility that in the next 2 years our team of skilled negotiators (presumably we are going to find some new ones) are going to find a better and more flexible alternative to the backstop which will give us greater freedom outside the EU.
That new arrangement is supposedly going to be flexible enough for us to have an open, unregulated border with the SM despite us having more regulatory independence and divergence and the ability to bring into the UK goods that are not compatible with SM regulations. Good luck with that.
If this is the Holy Grail that you are still looking for then once again May's deal gives the ERG the best outcome that they could reasonably hope for because the hunt is still on and the current time pressure is removed. The votes against May's deal become ever more mysterious and exasperating.
The alternative of no deal gives regulatory independence, it almost certainly creates a hard border in NI, it allows us to have our own trade deals (if only Fox had actually negotiated any) but it excludes us from EU trade deals (which, you know, actually exist). There would be some modest disruption and we would be less attractive to international investment wanting unimpeded access to the SM/EU. Right now that doesn't strike me as an attractive trade off but May's deal once again provides a solution. It just might be a better deal in 2 years time if the government doesn't waste those years like it has the last 2.
GE then? Because if they don't like the current parliament that's the solution.
How is that a solution with ten days left ?
The government need the cooperation of Parliament, and vice versa, for anything constructive to be done. And that includes obtaining any extension from the EU.
Unless you are suggesting an election after we crash out ?
Obviously the government would ask EU for an extension for the purpose of having a GE, creating a new parliament which could then take the current deal or come up with an alternative way forward. They'd also need to schedule EU elections.
It would need the cooperation of Parliament to do that, and it's highly probable (although not quite certain, since some Tories might rebel) that it would get it. It would also need the agreement of the EU, which it's also highly likely, but not quite certain.
GE then? Because if they don't like the current parliament that's the solution.
How is that a solution with ten days left ?
The government need the cooperation of Parliament, and vice versa, for anything constructive to be done. And that includes obtaining any extension from the EU.
Unless you are suggesting an election after we crash out ?
Thats my expectation. An increasingly shouty shitstorm this week. The EU meet next week and with no government in residence in the UK they do not offer any further concessions.
The UK then falls out of the EU. With no prep. With the obvious consequences. Parliament then impodes into a blame fest. Then a General Election.
Thats brilliant isn't it. If its the "worst example of ill-discipline in cabinet in British political history" then isn't that the Chief Whip offering his resignation? He's not? Well, he's proving his own point isn't he.
Despite the BBC's somewhat desperate attempts to downplay it (inflation is currently 2.1%) the increases in the Minimum Wage today will affect enough employees to give a real fillip to real terms wage growth helping to underwrite demand and growth in the coming year. This really would not have been possible without one of the strongest job markets on record.
For some its the obverse, no pay rise and increase costs eg council tax leaping up.
Self employed small business owners certainly. They will have to increase their prices to maintain margins if their local market allows that. But the number who benefit will massively exceed the number who suffer.
From about 3.30pm: Debate and vote on the Programme Motion, then a debate on the EU Options Speaker announces the selected amendments before the Options debate starts 8.00pm Half an hour voting period on the options. Voting method up to the Speaker Results announced later (probably 9.30pm-10pm as last time, but no time is specified)
At the same time in Westminster Hall from 4.30pm there is a debate on the EU e-petitions
Process continues on Wednesday.
On the Programme Motion there is an Amendment from Snell deleting Wednesday, which I doubt the Speaker will take.
The Options tabled are:
A (Baron) - WA with unilateral right to exit the backstop B (Baron) - No deal C (Clarke) - Customs Union D (Boles) - Common Market 2.0 E (Kyle-Wilson) - Confirmatory Referendum F (Jones/Grieve) - No deal exit only after a referendum G (Cherry) - Extension or Revocation H (Eustice) - EFTA and EEA
A is a unicorn and F doesn't appear widely supported; my guess is the Speaker may take the other six.
Note that Labour appears to have given up on its option, despite Burgon continuing to bat on about it during his weekend's media interviews.
I agree that the backstop is effectively the CU if it comes into force. We are also committed to the CU for the transitional period. So what certain leavers are wanting to die in a ditch about is the possibility that in the next 2 years our team of skilled negotiators (presumably we are going to find some new ones) are going to find a better and more flexible alternative to the backstop which will give us greater freedom outside the EU.
That new arrangement is supposedly going to be flexible enough for us to have an open, unregulated border with the SM despite us having more regulatory independence and divergence and the ability to bring into the UK goods that are not compatible with SM regulations. Good luck with that.
If this is the Holy Grail that you are still looking for then once again May's deal gives the ERG the best outcome that they could reasonably hope for because the hunt is still on and the current time pressure is removed. The votes against May's deal become ever more mysterious and exasperating.
The alternative of no deal gives regulatory independence, it almost certainly creates a hard border in NI, it allows us to have our own trade deals (if only Fox had actually negotiated any) but it excludes us from EU trade deals (which, you know, actually exist). There would be some modest disruption and we would be less attractive to international investment wanting unimpeded access to the SM/EU. Right now that doesn't strike me as an attractive trade off but May's deal once again provides a solution. It just might be a better deal in 2 years time if the government doesn't waste those years like it has the last 2.
I wonder whether the best thing to do would be take the ERG holdouts on an away day to Chessington World of Adventures or somewhere and let them get a bit of headspace. I’m struggling to find a rationale for their actions at this point and I’m sure if they sat down calmly with a toffee apple and a smile they’d realise the same.
Surely better to have a solid declaration from the EU that they’ll try and pursue a borderless solution, than trying later to undo a formal customs union, when there’s no incentive to even talk? Or as you say, negotiating from a No Deal position when we’d be in a mighty hurry to end an asymmetric tariffs regime.
By the way, what was Rory Stewart doing voting for a customs union last week? I could swear he said at that Speccie event when he debated Raab that a customs union was the worst possible outcome. Suspicious...
Rory was being pragmatic as he nearly always has been on this. I have little doubt that is where we are going to end up. We should just get on with it.
Despite the BBC's somewhat desperate attempts to downplay it (inflation is currently 2.1%) the increases in the Minimum Wage today will affect enough employees to give a real fillip to real terms wage growth helping to underwrite demand and growth in the coming year. This really would not have been possible without one of the strongest job markets on record.
For some its the obverse, no pay rise and increase costs eg council tax leaping up.
Self employed small business owners certainly. They will have to increase their prices to maintain margins if their local market allows that. But the number who benefit will massively exceed the number who suffer.
GE then? Because if they don't like the current parliament that's the solution.
How is that a solution with ten days left ?
The government need the cooperation of Parliament, and vice versa, for anything constructive to be done. And that includes obtaining any extension from the EU.
Unless you are suggesting an election after we crash out ?
Obviously the government would ask EU for an extension for the purpose of having a GE, creating a new parliament which could then take the current deal or come up with an alternative way forward. They'd also need to schedule EU elections.
It would need the cooperation of Parliament to do that, and it's highly probable (although not quite certain, since some Tories might rebel) that it would get it. It would also need the agreement of the EU, which it's also highly likely, but not quite certain.
It could, but I think it a mistake to assume that it definitely will - and clearly the EU could just say no, if it did.
Despite the BBC's somewhat desperate attempts to downplay it (inflation is currently 2.1%) the increases in the Minimum Wage today will affect enough employees to give a real fillip to real terms wage growth helping to underwrite demand and growth in the coming year. This really would not have been possible without one of the strongest job markets on record.
For some its the obverse, no pay rise and increase costs eg council tax leaping up.
Self employed small business owners certainly. They will have to increase their prices to maintain margins if their local market allows that. But the number who benefit will massively exceed the number who suffer.
The media will only report the whiners. Ever so.
A couple of weeks ago I was sat in the lounge (which had the BBC overseas news on) with an overseas PM. His comment was that in the 2 hours the TV had been on in the background there had not been a single good or cheery news story..
Despite the BBC's somewhat desperate attempts to downplay it (inflation is currently 2.1%) the increases in the Minimum Wage today will affect enough employees to give a real fillip to real terms wage growth helping to underwrite demand and growth in the coming year. This really would not have been possible without one of the strongest job markets on record.
For some its the obverse, no pay rise and increase costs eg council tax leaping up.
Self employed small business owners certainly. They will have to increase their prices to maintain margins if their local market allows that. But the number who benefit will massively exceed the number who suffer.
The media will only report the whiners. Ever so.
A couple of weeks ago I was sat in the lounge (which had the BBC overseas news on) with an overseas PM. His comment was that in the 2 hours the TV had been on in the background there had not been a single good or cheery news story..
I could have watched BBC World yesterday (obviously, I didn't). A mixture of whinge-reporting, bizarre interviews and global weather (it's raining in Rio and sunny in Sydney. Thanks) . I genuinely don't understand what their target market is.
Can someone please explain the practical difference between life under the backstop and life in a customs union?
Neither allows us to sign third party trade deals (see advice given at last year's Chequers Cabinet meeting). Neither allow regulatory divergence. Both offer a solution to the Irish Question.
The advantage of May's deal as it stands, is that there's the declaration that a neater solution will be at least be sought, to allow the UK to eventually follow an independent trade policy.
Even if MPs vote through a requirement for the Political Declaration to include the goal of a "permanent" customs union, so what? The Political Declaration is not legally binding, as the AG admitted last month. What's to stop a future free trading PM from abandoning this goal when the Parliamentary constraints are not so tight?
What happens if we get to 10th or 11th April and a mechanism can be found to hold a two-way vote on a) Sign deal as is, b) Sign deal with amendment to political declaration for permanent customs union? Such that No Deal, Single Market and Second Referendum have been specifically excluded.
Surely then we'd finally have a positive result for May's deal (MV5?).
May be she should rebrand the backstop as a “interim customs union”
Mr. B, I did consider that seriously and it was a misjudgement not to go for it. But the Sainz bet failing was sheer bad luck. He had the pace and his car was reliable enough. Ironic that Verstappen's mistake is what brought it down.
Verstappen's had a 3rd and a 4th so far. Unlike other top chaps, it seems improbable his team mate will prove a challenge when the car's good enough to do well. And at China last year the Red Bull was very tasty. Plus there's a chance of Ferrari weakness in terms of reliability.
You can lay Theresa May leaving as Tory party leader this year at 1.1. That seems worth a small punt given there doesn't seem to be a clear way of getting rid of her, and there is so much uncertainty with Brexit.
Ha ha thanks. Actually the train was on time today, and I even got to stick it to the man by sitting in a first class seat with a standard class ticket.
Those that want to dive deeper into customs unions could do worse than to go to this Twitter debate between A grade trade policy experts. Essentially only full CU + SM will result in more or less frictionless trade, ie the EU minus any say, but there are lots of ways to skin the cat for a partial solution.
GE then? Because if they don't like the current parliament that's the solution.
How is that a solution with ten days left ?
The government need the cooperation of Parliament, and vice versa, for anything constructive to be done. And that includes obtaining any extension from the EU.
Unless you are suggesting an election after we crash out ?
Obviously the government would ask EU for an extension for the purpose of having a GE, creating a new parliament which could then take the current deal or come up with an alternative way forward. They'd also need to schedule EU elections.
It would need the cooperation of Parliament to do that, and it's highly probable (although not quite certain, since some Tories might rebel) that it would get it. It would also need the agreement of the EU, which it's also highly likely, but not quite certain.
It could, but I think it a mistake to assume that it definitely will - and clearly the EU could just say no, if it did.
10 days.
There aren't any definitelies at this point, but there are several "this will probably work" options, so obviously the government should choose one of them.
From about 3.30pm: Debate and vote on the Programme Motion, then a debate on the EU Options Speaker announces the selected amendments before the Options debate starts 8.00pm Half an hour voting period on the options. Voting method up to the Speaker Results announced later (probably 9.30pm-10pm as last time, but no time is specified)
At the same time in Westminster Hall from 4.30pm there is a debate on the EU e-petitions
Process continues on Wednesday.
On the Programme Motion there is an Amendment from Snell deleting Wednesday, which I doubt the Speaker will take.
The Options tabled are:
A (Baron) - WA with unilateral right to exit the backstop B (Baron) - No deal C (Clarke) - Customs Union D (Boles) - Common Market 2.0 E (Kyle-Wilson) - Confirmatory Referendum F (Jones/Grieve) - No deal exit only after a referendum G (Cherry) - Extension or Revocation H (Eustice) - EFTA and EEA
A is a unicorn and F doesn't appear widely supported; my guess is the Speaker may take the other six.
Note that Labour appears to have given up on its option, despite Burgon continuing to bat on about it during his weekend's media interviews.
GE then? Because if they don't like the current parliament that's the solution.
How is that a solution with ten days left ?
The government need the cooperation of Parliament, and vice versa, for anything constructive to be done. And that includes obtaining any extension from the EU.
Unless you are suggesting an election after we crash out ?
And the Observer is probably right that it would be blocked by Tory MPs anyway; things look increasingly poor for the Tories in the polls, the locals will surely be bad, and they'll want a new leader established in the chair first.
I can't find any polls for the Newport West by-election on Thursday. I assume this is because a) it's in Wales and therefore a long way for "Fleet St' journalists to travel, b) because it's in Wales assumed to be different, or c) assumed to be a shoo-in for Labour? Or all three?
All three. But if Labour lose Newport West at this moment they really are in trouble.
There's some vox pop in the Guardian interviewing a few Labour voters, all of whom are going to try a new party (Renew?). Since Renew isn't likely to get 100%, this seems likely to be a bit selective, but who knows?
GE then? Because if they don't like the current parliament that's the solution.
How is that a solution with ten days left ?
The government need the cooperation of Parliament, and vice versa, for anything constructive to be done. And that includes obtaining any extension from the EU.
Unless you are suggesting an election after we crash out ?
Thats my expectation. An increasingly shouty shitstorm this week. The EU meet next week and with no government in residence in the UK they do not offer any further concessions.
The UK then falls out of the EU. With no prep. With the obvious consequences. Parliament then impodes into a blame fest. Then a General Election.
Thats brilliant isn't it. If its the "worst example of ill-discipline in cabinet in British political history" then isn't that the Chief Whip offering his resignation? He's not? Well, he's proving his own point isn't he.
He’s buck passing
The CW is responsible for the backbenchers
Cabinet is assumed (I know, I know) to consist of grown ups
May is in a terrible situation of her own making. By ignoring trade, agreeing to the backstop and effectively sidelining her entire party during Brexit as she sought to micro manage the whole process. Her deal is not going to pass no matter how many times she tries to bring it back and nor should it although a brick wall would be more receptive to that message than May. Parliament is indeed sovereign but when the legislature assumes the role of the executive as well then the inmates really are running the asylum.
She has three choices effectively - no deal, no Brexit or Norway. All have electoral consequences let alone party management issues. A successor would be much more able to defuse the crisis because all new leaders have the benefit of a honeymoon period and Britain desperately needs Brexit not to be the only topic of political conversation.
Ha ha thanks. Actually the train was on time today, and I even got to stick it to the man by sitting in a first class seat with a standard class ticket.
From about 3.30pm: Debate and vote on the Programme Motion, then a debate on the EU Options Speaker announces the selected amendments before the Options debate starts 8.00pm Half an hour voting period on the options. Voting method up to the Speaker Results announced later (probably 9.30pm-10pm as last time, but no time is specified)
At the same time in Westminster Hall from 4.30pm there is a debate on the EU e-petitions
Process continues on Wednesday.
On the Programme Motion there is an Amendment from Snell deleting Wednesday, which I doubt the Speaker will take.
The Options tabled are:
A (Baron) - WA with unilateral right to exit the backstop B (Baron) - No deal C (Clarke) - Customs Union D (Boles) - Common Market 2.0 E (Kyle-Wilson) - Confirmatory Referendum F (Jones/Grieve) - No deal exit only after a referendum G (Cherry) - Extension or Revocation H (Eustice) - EFTA and EEA
A is a unicorn and F doesn't appear widely supported; my guess is the Speaker may take the other six.
Note that Labour appears to have given up on its option, despite Burgon continuing to bat on about it during his weekend's media interviews.
Great summary. Can I take it the voting system is just going to be a repeat of last week, eg vote for as many as you like, but no ranking or run-offs or anything?
If Deal plus Customs Union wins a majority on the indicative votes tonight or on Wednesday then if May pitches her Deal against it and promses to implement whichever wins the Deal could yet scrape home. Remember the DUP voted against staying in a Customs Union so could abstain on a Customs Union v Deal vote and 12 Labour MPs voted against a Customs Union and could vote for May's Deal in those circumstances and almost all the remaining ERG rebels would be forced to back May's Deal if the only alternative was staying in a Customs Union
@rcs1000 hits the nail on the head. May’s deal is a temporary Customs Union.
Anyone who votes for a permanent CU versus a temporary CU is either mischief-making (Labour), or thick (Tories).
If we *do* end up with a CU, we will be looking to relitigate it about 5 minutes later. It is not a viable outcome.
So exit on 22 May it is then, either with May's "interim but possibly permanent Customs Union" or Corbyn's "permanent but possibly only temporary Customs Union".
How about a referendum with only those two options available on the ballot just for giggles.
Grayling threatening to resign has to be the best news May has had for months. The risk, though, is whether he can send his resignation letter without getting his tie caught in the fax machine or something.
@rcs1000 hits the nail on the head. May’s deal is a temporary Customs Union.
Anyone who votes for a permanent CU versus a temporary CU is either mischief-making (Labour), or thick (Tories).
If we *do* end up with a CU, we will be looking to relitigate it about 5 minutes later. It is not a viable outcome.
So exit on 22 May it is then, either with May's "interim but possibly permanent Customs Union" or Corbyn's "permanent but possibly only temporary Customs Union".
How about a referendum with only those two options available on the ballot just for giggles.
It's being advanced as a way forward by Ken Clarke, who certainly isn't stupid.
From about 3.30pm: Debate and vote on the Programme Motion, then a debate on the EU Options Speaker announces the selected amendments before the Options debate starts 8.00pm Half an hour voting period on the options. Voting method up to the Speaker Results announced later (probably 9.30pm-10pm as last time, but no time is specified)
At the same time in Westminster Hall from 4.30pm there is a debate on the EU e-petitions
Process continues on Wednesday.
On the Programme Motion there is an Amendment from Snell deleting Wednesday, which I doubt the Speaker will take.
The Options tabled are:
A (Baron) - WA with unilateral right to exit the backstop B (Baron) - No deal C (Clarke) - Customs Union D (Boles) - Common Market 2.0 E (Kyle-Wilson) - Confirmatory Referendum F (Jones/Grieve) - No deal exit only after a referendum G (Cherry) - Extension or Revocation H (Eustice) - EFTA and EEA
A is a unicorn and F doesn't appear widely supported; my guess is the Speaker may take the other six.
Note that Labour appears to have given up on its option, despite Burgon continuing to bat on about it during his weekend's media interviews.
Great summary. Can I take it the voting system is just going to be a repeat of last week, eg vote for as many as you like, but no ranking or run-offs or anything?
It just says it's up to the Speaker. It doesn't even refer to paper ballots, although the half hour set aside for voting implies such.
My own guess is that MPs' conservatism will lead to it being a repeat of last time, in the hope that a consensus emerges by magic. Letwin wanted AV but ran into the inevitable objections. But it's the Speaker's decision.
@rcs1000 hits the nail on the head. May’s deal is a temporary Customs Union.
Anyone who votes for a permanent CU versus a temporary CU is either mischief-making (Labour), or thick (Tories).
If we *do* end up with a CU, we will be looking to relitigate it about 5 minutes later. It is not a viable outcome.
So exit on 22 May it is then, either with May's "interim but possibly permanent Customs Union" or Corbyn's "permanent but possibly only temporary Customs Union".
How about a referendum with only those two options available on the ballot just for giggles.
Labour's Plan B now seems to have been canned. At what point do Labour MP's in Leave seats realise they no longer have a fig leaf - and have to start voting for May's Murkin?
- The CU applies to goods whereas most of our trade is in services; deals on services would still be possible; - People who think trade deals always benefit are kidding themselves; the US is offering a deal that advances its interests, not ours; - much of our current effort is in defending and trying to roll over the deals we already have, anyway.
@rcs1000 hits the nail on the head. May’s deal is a temporary Customs Union.
Anyone who votes for a permanent CU versus a temporary CU is either mischief-making (Labour), or thick (Tories).
If we *do* end up with a CU, we will be looking to relitigate it about 5 minutes later. It is not a viable outcome.
A rare point of agreement. The sad part is that we're either heading for a tough economic situation (no deal) followed by an even tougher one (Corbyn) or a tough democratic situation (revoke) followed by a nasty populist governments (could be as bad as Farage being somewhere close to power).
The PM's deal with no PD attached should have got support from the 30-40 soft brexit labour MPs but they are basically a bunch of cowards. I've given up on the ERG and hope they get expelled from the party, we need to kick every Tory MP who voted against MV3 out of the party. "Sincerely held beliefs" can take hike, no deal is not a tenable position.
@rcs1000 hits the nail on the head. May’s deal is a temporary Customs Union.
Anyone who votes for a permanent CU versus a temporary CU is either mischief-making (Labour), or thick (Tories).
If we *do* end up with a CU, we will be looking to relitigate it about 5 minutes later. It is not a viable outcome.
So exit on 22 May it is then, either with May's "interim but possibly permanent Customs Union" or Corbyn's "permanent but possibly only temporary Customs Union".
How about a referendum with only those two options available on the ballot just for giggles.
Labour's Plan B now seems to have been canned. At what point do Labour MP's in Leave seats realise they no longer have a fig leaf - and have to start voting for May's Murkin?
There's not the votes for another referendum with Remain on the ballot and I don't think Jezza even wants one does he?
This week feels like THE WEEK to me, another handful of ERG refuseniks and a block from Labour and it finally gets done. Then we get to spend another 2-3 years arguing about BRINO before Nigel does his worst in the next General.
- The CU applies to goods whereas most of our trade is in services; deals on services would still be possible; - People who think trade deals always benefit are kidding themselves; the US is offering a deal that advances its interests, not ours; - much of our current effort is in defending and trying to roll over the deals we already have, anyway.
Ken's right, but disingenuous. No country will sign a services only trade deal with us. It's not in their interest to do that with a services expiring consumer nation. They will want access to our huge consumer markets and we want access to their services import markets in return.
@rcs1000 hits the nail on the head. May’s deal is a temporary Customs Union.
Anyone who votes for a permanent CU versus a temporary CU is either mischief-making (Labour), or thick (Tories).
If we *do* end up with a CU, we will be looking to relitigate it about 5 minutes later. It is not a viable outcome.
A rare point of agreement. The sad part is that we're either heading for a tough economic situation (no deal) followed by an even tougher one (Corbyn) or a tough democratic situation (revoke) followed by a nasty populist governments (could be as bad as Farage being somewhere close to power).
The PM's deal with no PD attached should have got support from the 30-40 soft brexit labour MPs but they are basically a bunch of cowards. I've given up on the ERG and hope they get expelled from the party, we need to kick every Tory MP who voted against MV3 out of the party. "Sincerely held beliefs" can take hike, no deal is not a tenable position.
I can see No Deal followed by Corbyn
Revoke followed by the complete destruction of our FPTP electoral system (where the least hated option wins) to the extent that an extreme party has power is possible but it's not as likely as the former.
Ha ha thanks. Actually the train was on time today, and I even got to stick it to the man by sitting in a first class seat with a standard class ticket.
You’re proud of being a thief?
Thanks for that reaction, the thought of you spitting out your quail's egg and choking on your silver spoon has made my morning. But more seriously, the whole process of rail privatisation was such a massive act of theft that I consider sitting in the posh seats to be fairly meagre compensation. In any case, first class is unenforceable in South East London, I doubt anyone in there had paid for it.
Ha ha thanks. Actually the train was on time today, and I even got to stick it to the man by sitting in a first class seat with a standard class ticket.
You’re proud of being a thief?
Thanks for that reaction, the thought of you spitting out your quail's egg and choking on your silver spoon has made my morning. But more seriously, the whole process of rail privatisation was such a massive act of theft that I consider sitting in the posh seats to be fairly meagre compensation. In any case, first class is unenforceable in South East London, I doubt anyone in there had paid for it.
Great response!
Edit: Charles seems to be proud of being descended from theives, so maybe his question was meant to be positive?
@rcs1000 hits the nail on the head. May’s deal is a temporary Customs Union.
Anyone who votes for a permanent CU versus a temporary CU is either mischief-making (Labour), or thick (Tories).
If we *do* end up with a CU, we will be looking to relitigate it about 5 minutes later. It is not a viable outcome.
A rare point of agreement. The sad part is that we're either heading for a tough economic situation (no deal) followed by an even tougher one (Corbyn) or a tough democratic situation (revoke) followed by a nasty populist governments (could be as bad as Farage being somewhere close to power).
The PM's deal with no PD attached should have got support from the 30-40 soft brexit labour MPs but they are basically a bunch of cowards. I've given up on the ERG and hope they get expelled from the party, we need to kick every Tory MP who voted against MV3 out of the party. "Sincerely held beliefs" can take hike, no deal is not a tenable position.
Labour MPs do not trust the government, quite rightly so.
- The CU applies to goods whereas most of our trade is in services; deals on services would still be possible; - People who think trade deals always benefit are kidding themselves; the US is offering a deal that advances its interests, not ours; - much of our current effort is in defending and trying to roll over the deals we already have, anyway.
Ken's right, but disingenuous. No country will sign a services only trade deal with us. It's not in their interest to do that with a services expiring consumer nation. They will want access to our huge consumer markets and we want access to their services import markets in return.
+1
Our massive trade deficit in goods with the EU is the big prize. Barnier’s useful idiots are doing their best to squander our leverage.
@rcs1000 hits the nail on the head. May’s deal is a temporary Customs Union.
Anyone who votes for a permanent CU versus a temporary CU is either mischief-making (Labour), or thick (Tories).
If we *do* end up with a CU, we will be looking to relitigate it about 5 minutes later. It is not a viable outcome.
A rare point of agreement. The sad part is that we're either heading for a tough economic situation (no deal) followed by an even tougher one (Corbyn) or a tough democratic situation (revoke) followed by a nasty populist governments (could be as bad as Farage being somewhere close to power).
The PM's deal with no PD attached should have got support from the 30-40 soft brexit labour MPs but they are basically a bunch of cowards. I've given up on the ERG and hope they get expelled from the party, we need to kick every Tory MP who voted against MV3 out of the party. "Sincerely held beliefs" can take hike, no deal is not a tenable position.
I can see No Deal followed by Corbyn
Revoke followed by the complete destruction of our FPTP electoral system (where the least hated option wins) to the extent that an extreme party has power is possible but it's not as likely as the former.
Revoke has 6,000,000 votes. No Deal has 600,000.
Spot the missing 0.
It's an extraordinary ratio. One can't exclude the possibility that the country is sick of Brexit and would now rather settle for the deal we already have.
A referendum to ratify a CU deal, with an alternative of staying in the EU if it's not ratified, starts to seem the most moderate way forward.
Kicking people out of parties is stupid. Adopt PR, then parties can split into smaller units with more similar beliefs and Bridgen needn't call Gauke a 'colleague'.
@rcs1000 hits the nail on the head. May’s deal is a temporary Customs Union.
Anyone who votes for a permanent CU versus a temporary CU is either mischief-making (Labour), or thick (Tories).
If we *do* end up with a CU, we will be looking to relitigate it about 5 minutes later. It is not a viable outcome.
A rare point of agreement. The sad part is that we're either heading for a tough economic situation (no deal) followed by an even tougher one (Corbyn) or a tough democratic situation (revoke) followed by a nasty populist governments (could be as bad as Farage being somewhere close to power).
The PM's deal with no PD attached should have got support from the 30-40 soft brexit labour MPs but they are basically a bunch of cowards. I've given up on the ERG and hope they get expelled from the party, we need to kick every Tory MP who voted against MV3 out of the party. "Sincerely held beliefs" can take hike, no deal is not a tenable position.
What about Tory voters like myself who oppose the deal? What should we do?
- The CU applies to goods whereas most of our trade is in services; deals on services would still be possible; - People who think trade deals always benefit are kidding themselves; the US is offering a deal that advances its interests, not ours; - much of our current effort is in defending and trying to roll over the deals we already have, anyway.
Ken's right, but disingenuous. No country will sign a services only trade deal with us. It's not in their interest to do that with a services expiring consumer nation. They will want access to our huge consumer markets and we want access to their services import markets in return.
+1
Our massive trade deficit in goods with the EU is the big prize. Barnier’s useful idiots are doing their best to squander our leverage.
Can you give an example of a country outside the EU that has successfully used its goods market to get another party to align with it on service regulation?
Putting aside any Brexit preferences, a Euro Election would be politically fascinating at this juncture.
Will UKIP be able to stand every where? TIG/CUK and Farage's new party would come into play too.
I am keeping my fingers crossed we have to run them just for the drama!
I think there would be a mass boycott. My wife and I have said we would not vote in them unless by then we are clearly remaining
As is your right Big_G but I think you'll find you might be wasting your boycott. Since EU election turnout is typically mid-30s% I am not sure anyone will notice.
Today programme with Andrew Bridgen, Sammy Wilson & Liz Truss being taken seriously this am.
What a corking April Fool.
Because Labour has to nothing to say on Brexit.
No sense of humour......
I would prefer Labour to the a more constructive approach to Brexit, but's let's be honest May was never going to reach out and listen to anyone else. Her sole strategy has been to try to appease the ERG and DUP at the expense of everything else. She is only interested in a solution that works for the Tory party.
Strategically the best thing Labour can do is sit back and let the Tories tear themselves The EU was always going to do that and it is.
@rcs1000 hits the nail on the head. May’s deal is a temporary Customs Union.
Anyone who votes for a permanent CU versus a temporary CU is either mischief-making (Labour), or thick (Tories).
If we *do* end up with a CU, we will be looking to relitigate it about 5 minutes later. It is not a viable outcome.
A rare point of agreement. The sad part is that we're either heading for a tough economic situation (no deal) followed by an even tougher one (Corbyn) or a tough democratic situation (revoke) followed by a nasty populist governments (could be as bad as Farage being somewhere close to power).
The PM's deal with no PD attached should have got support from the 30-40 soft brexit labour MPs but they are basically a bunch of cowards. I've given up on the ERG and hope they get expelled from the party, we need to kick every Tory MP who voted against MV3 out of the party. "Sincerely held beliefs" can take hike, no deal is not a tenable position.
As Smith says, had the government approached Brexit with that destination in mind it would probably have been easily deliverable. But having kept all the decision-making within the Tory Party (and mostly within no. 10) it is hardly surprising that government has no goodwill left to spend with opposition members.
The ERG are the Tories' problem but with the views of their members as they are, it is hard to see how it can be excised (although Kinnock and Blair did manage the equivalent)
@rcs1000 hits the nail on the head. May’s deal is a temporary Customs Union.
Anyone who votes for a permanent CU versus a temporary CU is either mischief-making (Labour), or thick (Tories).
If we *do* end up with a CU, we will be looking to relitigate it about 5 minutes later. It is not a viable outcome.
A rare point of agreement. The sad part is that we're either heading for a tough economic situation (no deal) followed by an even tougher one (Corbyn) or a tough democratic situation (revoke) followed by a nasty populist governments (could be as bad as Farage being somewhere close to power).
The PM's deal with no PD attached should have got support from the 30-40 soft brexit labour MPs but they are basically a bunch of cowards. I've given up on the ERG and hope they get expelled from the party, we need to kick every Tory MP who voted against MV3 out of the party. "Sincerely held beliefs" can take hike, no deal is not a tenable position.
What about Tory voters like myself who oppose the deal? What should we do?
It is interesting to see 'Renew' in Newport gathering considerable support from across the political spectrum.
If Change UK manage to field a candidate in Aberconwy my vote and help would go to them to see off Guto Bebb who is not upto the job. I expected him to support the WDA but he wants to stop brexit altogether which was not in his manifesto
Putting aside any Brexit preferences, a Euro Election would be politically fascinating at this juncture.
Will UKIP be able to stand every where? TIG/CUK and Farage's new party would come into play too.
I am keeping my fingers crossed we have to run them just for the drama!
I think there would be a mass boycott. My wife and I have said we would not vote in them unless by then we are clearly remaining
As is your right Big_G but I think you'll find you might be wasting your boycott. Since EU election turnout is typically mid-30s% I am not sure anyone will notice.
They're never usually conducted with this much focus on them. It would be like a proxy referendum.
@rcs1000 hits the nail on the head. May’s deal is a temporary Customs Union.
Anyone who votes for a permanent CU versus a temporary CU is either mischief-making (Labour), or thick (Tories).
If we *do* end up with a CU, we will be looking to relitigate it about 5 minutes later. It is not a viable outcome.
A rare point of agreement. The sad part is that we're either heading for a tough economic situation (no deal) followed by an even tougher one (Corbyn) or a tough democratic situation (revoke) followed by a nasty populist governments (could be as bad as Farage being somewhere close to power).
The PM's deal with no PD attached should have got support from the 30-40 soft brexit labour MPs but they are basically a bunch of cowards. I've given up on the ERG and hope they get expelled from the party, we need to kick every Tory MP who voted against MV3 out of the party. "Sincerely held beliefs" can take hike, no deal is not a tenable position.
What about Tory voters like myself who oppose the deal? What should we do?
Pray that the deal passes in spite of intransigence
It is interesting to see 'Renew' in Newport gathering considerable support from across the political spectrum.
If Change UK manage to field a candidate in Aberconwy my vote and help would go to them to see off Guto Bebb who is not upto the job. I expected him to support the WDA but he wants to stop brexit altogether which was not in his manifesto
Couldn’t you try and get him replaced as a candidate instead via your local association?
@rcs1000 hits the nail on the head. May’s deal is a temporary Customs Union.
Anyone who votes for a permanent CU versus a temporary CU is either mischief-making (Labour), or thick (Tories).
If we *do* end up with a CU, we will be looking to relitigate it about 5 minutes later. It is not a viable outcome.
A rare point of agreement. The sad part is that we're either heading for a tough economic situation (no deal) followed by an even tougher one (Corbyn) or a tough democratic situation (revoke) followed by a nasty populist governments (could be as bad as Farage being somewhere close to power).
The PM's deal with no PD attached should have got support from the 30-40 soft brexit labour MPs but they are basically a bunch of cowards. I've given up on the ERG and hope they get expelled from the party, we need to kick every Tory MP who voted against MV3 out of the party. "Sincerely held beliefs" can take hike, no deal is not a tenable position.
What about Tory voters like myself who oppose the deal? What should we do?
You have the obvious choice of remaining on the more extreme wing of the Tory party, or switching to one of the growing rainbow of Brexit parties.
Putting aside any Brexit preferences, a Euro Election would be politically fascinating at this juncture.
Will UKIP be able to stand every where? TIG/CUK and Farage's new party would come into play too.
I am keeping my fingers crossed we have to run them just for the drama!
I think there would be a mass boycott. My wife and I have said we would not vote in them unless by then we are clearly remaining
As is your right Big_G but I think you'll find you might be wasting your boycott. Since EU election turnout is typically mid-30s% I am not sure anyone will notice.
I am sure my missing vote will not be noticed but in a wider context I would expect little enthusiasm to take part
- The CU applies to goods whereas most of our trade is in services; deals on services would still be possible; - People who think trade deals always benefit are kidding themselves; the US is offering a deal that advances its interests, not ours; - much of our current effort is in defending and trying to roll over the deals we already have, anyway.
Ken's right, but disingenuous. No country will sign a services only trade deal with us. It's not in their interest to do that with a services expiring consumer nation. They will want access to our huge consumer markets and we want access to their services import markets in return.
+1
Our massive trade deficit in goods with the EU is the big prize. Barnier’s useful idiots are doing their best to squander our leverage.
- The CU applies to goods whereas most of our trade is in services; deals on services would still be possible; - People who think trade deals always benefit are kidding themselves; the US is offering a deal that advances its interests, not ours; - much of our current effort is in defending and trying to roll over the deals we already have, anyway.
Ken's right, but disingenuous. No country will sign a services only trade deal with us. It's not in their interest to do that with a services expiring consumer nation. They will want access to our huge consumer markets and we want access to their services import markets in return.
+1
Our massive trade deficit in goods with the EU is the big prize. Barnier’s useful idiots are doing their best to squander our leverage.
Putting aside any Brexit preferences, a Euro Election would be politically fascinating at this juncture.
Will UKIP be able to stand every where? TIG/CUK and Farage's new party would come into play too.
I am keeping my fingers crossed we have to run them just for the drama!
I think there would be a mass boycott. My wife and I have said we would not vote in them unless by then we are clearly remaining
As is your right Big_G but I think you'll find you might be wasting your boycott. Since EU election turnout is typically mid-30s% I am not sure anyone will notice.
They're never usually conducted with this much focus on them. It would be like a proxy referendum.
No-one will take any notice of a boycott and low turnouts rarely make news and certainly don't undermine the results. But the reality is that Euro elections this year would probably generate an unusually high turnout.
Comments
Neither allows us to sign third party trade deals (see advice given at last year's Chequers Cabinet meeting). Neither allow regulatory divergence. Both offer a solution to the Irish Question.
The advantage of May's deal as it stands, is that there's the declaration that a neater solution will be at least be sought, to allow the UK to eventually follow an independent trade policy.
Even if MPs vote through a requirement for the Political Declaration to include the goal of a "permanent" customs union, so what? The Political Declaration is not legally binding, as the AG admitted last month. What's to stop a future free trading PM from abandoning this goal when the Parliamentary constraints are not so tight?
What happens if we get to 10th or 11th April and a mechanism can be found to hold a two-way vote on a) Sign deal as is, b) Sign deal with amendment to political declaration for permanent customs union? Such that No Deal, Single Market and Second Referendum have been specifically excluded.
Surely then we'd finally have a positive result for May's deal (MV5?).
The problem with your solution of a vote on adding the CU to the PD is:
1) ERG throw toys out of pram
2) Opposition can't be sure the government will really negotiate for the permanent CU once they no longer have leverage
3) Corbyn doesn't really want to get to yes
The government need the cooperation of Parliament, and vice versa, for anything constructive to be done. And that includes obtaining any extension from the EU.
Unless you are suggesting an election after we crash out ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47768884
The DUP are sitting there worried about future regulatory divergence that might undermine the GB-N Ireland internal market. But that’s never going to happen until there’s a solution to the backstop. Everyone knows this. So why not just put it in writing and let everyone move on.
Are we supposed to be upset about the suggestion that Grayling is considering resigning?
That new arrangement is supposedly going to be flexible enough for us to have an open, unregulated border with the SM despite us having more regulatory independence and divergence and the ability to bring into the UK goods that are not compatible with SM regulations. Good luck with that.
If this is the Holy Grail that you are still looking for then once again May's deal gives the ERG the best outcome that they could reasonably hope for because the hunt is still on and the current time pressure is removed. The votes against May's deal become ever more mysterious and exasperating.
The alternative of no deal gives regulatory independence, it almost certainly creates a hard border in NI, it allows us to have our own trade deals (if only Fox had actually negotiated any) but it excludes us from EU trade deals (which, you know, actually exist). There would be some modest disruption and we would be less attractive to international investment wanting unimpeded access to the SM/EU. Right now that doesn't strike me as an attractive trade off but May's deal once again provides a solution. It just might be a better deal in 2 years time if the government doesn't waste those years like it has the last 2.
Or all three?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47746093
F1: Bahrain was a cracking race, and my post-race ramble is up here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2019/03/bahrain-post-race-analysis-2019.html
It appears Leclerc got the fastest lap.
But for the main opposition to lose such a seat at such a time would not exactly be an encouraging sign for them. Greenwich 1987 springs to mind.
For some its the obverse, no pay rise and increase costs eg council tax leaping up.
Surely better to have a solid declaration from the EU that they’ll try and pursue a borderless solution, than trying later to undo a formal customs union, when there’s no incentive to even talk? Or as you say, negotiating from a No Deal position when we’d be in a mighty hurry to end an asymmetric tariffs regime.
By the way, what was Rory Stewart doing voting for a customs union last week? I could swear he said at that Speccie event when he debated Raab that a customs union was the worst possible outcome. Suspicious...
It would need the cooperation of Parliament to do that, and it's highly probable (although not quite certain, since some Tories might rebel) that it would get it. It would also need the agreement of the EU, which it's also highly likely, but not quite certain.
The UK then falls out of the EU. With no prep. With the obvious consequences. Parliament then impodes into a blame fest. Then a General Election.
Fun times... Thats brilliant isn't it. If its the "worst example of ill-discipline in cabinet in British political history" then isn't that the Chief Whip offering his resignation? He's not? Well, he's proving his own point isn't he.
From about 3.30pm: Debate and vote on the Programme Motion, then a debate on the EU Options
Speaker announces the selected amendments before the Options debate starts
8.00pm Half an hour voting period on the options. Voting method up to the Speaker
Results announced later (probably 9.30pm-10pm as last time, but no time is specified)
At the same time in Westminster Hall from 4.30pm there is a debate on the EU e-petitions
Process continues on Wednesday.
On the Programme Motion there is an Amendment from Snell deleting Wednesday, which I doubt the Speaker will take.
The Options tabled are:
A (Baron) - WA with unilateral right to exit the backstop
B (Baron) - No deal
C (Clarke) - Customs Union
D (Boles) - Common Market 2.0
E (Kyle-Wilson) - Confirmatory Referendum
F (Jones/Grieve) - No deal exit only after a referendum
G (Cherry) - Extension or Revocation
H (Eustice) - EFTA and EEA
A is a unicorn and F doesn't appear widely supported; my guess is the Speaker may take the other six.
Note that Labour appears to have given up on its option, despite Burgon continuing to bat on about it during his weekend's media interviews.
Correspondingly, I've put a tiny sum on him each way (fifth the odds top three) to win China, at 15 (16 with boost).
10 days.
https://twitter.com/UKLabour/status/1112596957049118721
As for the entertaining GP, like Hamilton I’m a little embarrassed that my hunch his odds were too long actually paid off.
Verstappen's had a 3rd and a 4th so far. Unlike other top chaps, it seems improbable his team mate will prove a challenge when the car's good enough to do well. And at China last year the Red Bull was very tasty. Plus there's a chance of Ferrari weakness in terms of reliability.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-declares-labour-party-14215597
https://twitter.com/AnnaJerzewska/status/1111186348436832256
You might have to live with Chris Grayling. For ever.
May’s deal is a temporary Customs Union.
Anyone who votes for a permanent CU versus a temporary CU is either mischief-making (Labour), or thick (Tories).
If we *do* end up with a CU, we will be looking to relitigate it about 5 minutes later. It is not a viable outcome.
The CW is responsible for the backbenchers
Cabinet is assumed (I know, I know) to consist of grown ups
She has three choices effectively - no deal, no Brexit or Norway. All have electoral consequences let alone party management issues. A successor would be much more able to defuse the crisis because all new leaders have the benefit of a honeymoon period and Britain desperately needs Brexit not to be the only topic of political conversation.
The nation is completely bafffled as how to determine the difference from previous years.
What a corking April Fool.
How about a referendum with only those two options available on the ballot just for giggles.
She’s like a female Boris Johnson.
No sense of humour......
My own guess is that MPs' conservatism will lead to it being a repeat of last time, in the hope that a consensus emerges by magic. Letwin wanted AV but ran into the inevitable objections. But it's the Speaker's decision.
- The CU applies to goods whereas most of our trade is in services; deals on services would still be possible;
- People who think trade deals always benefit are kidding themselves; the US is offering a deal that advances its interests, not ours;
- much of our current effort is in defending and trying to roll over the deals we already have, anyway.
The PM's deal with no PD attached should have got support from the 30-40 soft brexit labour MPs but they are basically a bunch of cowards. I've given up on the ERG and hope they get expelled from the party, we need to kick every Tory MP who voted against MV3 out of the party. "Sincerely held beliefs" can take hike, no deal is not a tenable position.
This week feels like THE WEEK to me, another handful of ERG refuseniks and a block from Labour and it finally gets done. Then we get to spend another 2-3 years arguing about BRINO before Nigel does his worst in the next General.
Revoke followed by the complete destruction of our FPTP electoral system (where the least hated option wins) to the extent that an extreme party has power is possible but it's not as likely as the former.
Putting aside any Brexit preferences, a Euro Election would be politically fascinating at this juncture.
Will UKIP be able to stand every where? TIG/CUK and Farage's new party would come into play too.
I am keeping my fingers crossed we have to run them just for the drama!
Edit: Charles seems to be proud of being descended from theives, so maybe his question was meant to be positive?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-47769369/worst-example-of-cabinet-ill-discipline-in-british-political-history
Our massive trade deficit in goods with the EU is the big prize. Barnier’s useful idiots are doing their best to squander our leverage.
Promising to go if we get a customs union must secure at least another dozen votes for that option.
No Deal has 600,000.
Spot the missing 0.
It's an extraordinary ratio. One can't exclude the possibility that the country is sick of Brexit and would now rather settle for the deal we already have.
A referendum to ratify a CU deal, with an alternative of staying in the EU if it's not ratified, starts to seem the most moderate way forward.
Kicking people out of parties is stupid. Adopt PR, then parties can split into smaller units with more similar beliefs and Bridgen needn't call Gauke a 'colleague'.
Strategically the best thing Labour can do is sit back and let the Tories tear themselves The EU was always going to do that and it is.
The ERG are the Tories' problem but with the views of their members as they are, it is hard to see how it can be excised (although Kinnock and Blair did manage the equivalent)
If Change UK manage to field a candidate in Aberconwy my vote and help would go to them to see off Guto Bebb who is not upto the job. I expected him to support the WDA but he wants to stop brexit altogether which was not in his manifesto