I may be missing something, but the indicative votes last night actually did the job in indicating to the Government that there were three possible routes the Government could take that would pass the House.
Given that the Government effectively held about 40 votes back in hand (votes they'd employed, plus a three line whip, on their preferred option, which had still failed hugely and repeatedly), then the Government could choose any one of the three options (or even two of them - the referendum plus either CU or CM2.0) and whip for them, employing the 40 "reserve" votes and ensuring they passed.
We could leave on time, without needing to have EU elections, with either the CU or CM2.0, for example. Whichever was preferred by the Government. Add the Cabinet voting, plus a three line Tory whip, and - unlike the WA - either of those two would easily pass.
It's in May's hands now; she could resolve Brexit and deliver her commitment now - but both of those options may damage her Party in the long run, and I am certain that she will elevate the interests of her Party above that. While decrying others on a similar subject.
May's Deal vs CU straight vote.
Ultimately, isn't that still May's Deal vs May's Deal. Would it comply with the Grieve amendment?
Yes, it would be a choice of May's Deal with or without the pretence that it would involve leaving the customs union.
Mr. Observer, then why did he immediately halt Kenny's co-operation over plans for the border, and leap entirely into bed with the EU's approach of demanding EU regulations and customs union sway holds over Northern Ireland?
I suppose Mike is right that the likeliest thing is that the EU will agree to more time next week, even without a consensus on a plan.
What is going on now just seems so disconnected from reality, given how much of the discussion is about the future relationship, and how little that has to do with the Withdrawal Agreement, which is what needs to be dealt with immediately.
And - as ever - the extent to which the backstop is an insurance policy against something happening that everyone concerned has extremely strong reasons to prevent anyway.
The willingness of a large cohort of Tory MPs to use no deal as a negotiating tactic - with all that implies for Ireland - provides all the justification required for the EU to insist on the backstop.
Perhaps that would be so - if one could assume that the view of "a large cohort of Tory MPs" represented anything significantly different from certifiable insanity. Tragically, that doesn't seem to be true any more.
I remember in my youth, when still at university, listening to a speech by Lord Thomas of Tonypandy which inluded the exhortation "NEVER lose your FAITH in DEMOCRACY". But my faith in representative parliamentary democracy has largely disappeared since then. The single thread that survives is Churchill's dictum about democracy being worse than all the alternatives that have been tried. But I think now that just reflects the fact that better alternatives have not yet been tried.
But Cameron’s deal literally wasn’t leaving. It was never going to be possible to actually leave without huge upheaval like this.
Yes I was saying i would take any deal as a stopgap so long as we had officially left. Being too pure about it left the door open for Parliament to never let us leave...
From the way you spoke about a "renegotiation" it sounded like you expected a slightly harder version of Cameron's Remain deal, that would then become the steady state relationship pending any further divergence that we could do in our own time. Is that right?
I meant his pre referendum renegotiation, but yes the rest seems like what I’d have accepted.
But that was never a possible way to carry out Brexit, as the Article 50 process so far should have shown.
If you had misconceptions about what you were voting for, you can blame parliament for the way it asked the question, but not for the way it reacted to the result.
Dear Lord, give me strength.
Saying I’d have accepted his renegotiation was a way of saying I’d take the softest style of Brexit for now in the knowledge that if we elected a different govt next time they could change it.
Or you are saying that the withdrawal agreement is set in stone forever?
Varadkar is in real crisis as he must answer the question what he does when the EU put in place their border on the 13th April post no deal
In addition it may not be known here but he is in serious trouble with his fishermen
Kudos to him, he used his position to try to get to meet Kylie Minogue.
Not sure I understand your point Alastair
Furthermore, the IREXIT freedom party are growing and support the fishermen
Have you got any recent polling on the popularity of Irexit? Last time I saw the Irish were favouring staying in the EU by about 90% to 10%.
My wife is in touch with the Irish fishing community through her late Fathers and families long standard fishing ties and they are furious with Varadkar over his favouring EU fishermen at the expense of his own, thereby promoting increasing anger and support for the IREXIT party. It is very bitter and of course if Brexit goes to no deal, Varadkar would become very unpopular and who knows
I do not know the polling and I doubt IREXIT are too relevant, but the underlying anger in Ireland is not to be dismissed
How big is the Irish fishing community? The British one seems to have influnce out of all proportion to it's size.
Curious move on Betfair last night: Geoffrey Cox was backed as low as 10.5 to be next Conservative leader. Someone obviously was very enthusiastic about his chances.
One might argue that a defence barrister is about as good as the Tories can hope for at the moment.
I detect a change in calculus and mood. Up to now I have held the view (and a robust view too) that the only way a 2nd referendum comes about is via a pre Brexit GE with Labour offering it and winning. Not so sure now. The Tories are terrified of an election and in any case they need time to choose a new leader. So, if there is not to be a GE pre Brexit, either the WA must somehow pass or there must be a long extension (assuming, as I still do, that No Deal is verboten). Now, the EU might, I suppose, grant a long extension with no commitment to GE or REF2. But if they don't, and the Tories cannot stomach a GE, there must now be a real possibility that TM caves and brings back her Deal with referendum attached. Which would pass. I still don't think so but I'm no longer laying it. I think the 2/1 is about right. It's maybe even a buy now.
May wants to get her deal through. If she can't she will choose No Deal over an extension because that will keep the Tories together more successfully.
Keep the Tories together ! That ship sailed a long time ago . Given the document from Sir Mark Sedwill not sure saying to the public my national security adviser says no deal will be a disaster for our security and then going ahead with it will be a good look.
I agree with AndyJS's sensible post - Mrs May now has at least two ways to resolve the issue. Yes, they'd fracture the party, but it's not exactly united at the moment. Frankly she needs to choose a side - either the moderates (i.e. accept customs union or Common Maket 2.0) or the Brexiteers (i.e. accept a hard exit). A passage between them simply doesn't exist.
Would it be possible to run the site headers through a Word check? There are quite often typos in them which the sophisticated Word checker would probably pick up (today I see "shift bit", a faulty "it's" and an uncapitalised commons). I know the pace of events makes it difficult, though, and I'm certainly not the right man to point the finger about typos.
I think that was the other Andy.
Given that he's stabbed me countless times in Diplomacy, should I be hurt by him not knowing who I am?
Would she lose Lab if she did as you suggested, though?
If so, then Lab would shoulder all the burden of whatever happened afterwards. She could point to the fact that she's making a compromise, going with what the House (and the majority of Labour MPs) has indicated - and Labour have suddenly swerved away and said, effectively, "Yeah, but not if you actually agree to do what we've asked!"
It would be unequovocally all on Labour at that point, and they'd know it. So I don't think they would shift like that.
Oh yes that would be the logical sequence but Lab would and could try to find a way to wriggle out of it. But that is not to detract from the acuity of your observation.
Keep the Tories together ! That ship sailed a long time ago . Given the document from Sir Mark Sedwill not sure saying to the public my national security adviser says no deal will be a disaster for our security and then going ahead with it will be a good look.
May doesn't give a fuck about what's a good look. The tory party and its fortunes are the alpha and omega of her existence.
But Cameron’s deal literally wasn’t leaving. It was never going to be possible to actually leave without huge upheaval like this.
Yes I was saying i would take any deal as a stopgap so long as we had officially left. Being too pure about it left the door open for Parliament to never let us leave...
From the way you spoke about a "renegotiation" it sounded like you expected a slightly harder version of Cameron's Remain deal, that would then become the steady state relationship pending any further divergence that we could do in our own time. Is that right?
I meant his pre referendum renegotiation, but yes the rest seems like what I’d have accepted.
But that was never a possible way to carry out Brexit, as the Article 50 process so far should have shown.
If you had misconceptions about what you were voting for, you can blame parliament for the way it asked the question, but not for the way it reacted to the result.
Dear Lord, give me strength.
Saying I’d have accepted his renegotiation was a way of saying I’d take the softest style of Brexit for now in the knowledge that if we elected a different govt next time they could change it.
Or you are saying that the withdrawal agreement is set in stone forever?
Assume your soft Brexit deal was the same as Cameron's deal except we were officially 'out'. How could a future government change it without the agreement of the EU27?
I detect a change in calculus and mood. Up to now I have held the view (and a robust view too) that the only way a 2nd referendum comes about is via a pre Brexit GE with Labour offering it and winning. Not so sure now. The Tories are terrified of an election and in any case they need time to choose a new leader. So, if there is not to be a GE pre Brexit, either the WA must somehow pass or there must be a long extension (assuming, as I still do, that No Deal is verboten). Now, the EU might, I suppose, grant a long extension with no commitment to GE or REF2. But if they don't, and the Tories cannot stomach a GE, there must now be a real possibility that TM caves and brings back her Deal with referendum attached. Which would pass. I still don't think so but I'm no longer laying it. I think the 2/1 is about right. It's maybe even a buy now.
There a chance of that. Easier for May if it is clear that it is only way of avoiding no deal or BINO so appears to be forced on her. She could even stay neutral during the campaign and say she will stand down when result is delivered, immediate actions have been taken ( revoke or confirm) and a Tory leadership election has taken place. Although wounds will not be healed by a 2nd ref it will draw the poison in political terms to a degree. If revoke then Brexit is gone, if confirm then battle within limits of the Political Statement. That means a GE in 6 to 12 months I would think.
Mr. Observer, then why did he immediately halt Kenny's co-operation over plans for the border, and leap entirely into bed with the EU's approach of demanding EU regulations and customs union sway holds over Northern Ireland?
Keep the Tories together ! That ship sailed a long time ago . Given the document from Sir Mark Sedwill not sure saying to the public my national security adviser says no deal will be a disaster for our security and then going ahead with it will be a good look.
May doesn't give a fuck about what's a good look. The tory party and its fortunes are the alpha and omega of her existence.
May won’t go for no deal . She’ll ask for an extension then resign and let someone else deal with it.
Varadkar is in real crisis as he must answer the question what he does when the EU put in place their border on the 13th April post no deal
In addition it may not be known here but he is in serious trouble with his fishermen
Kudos to him, he used his position to try to get to meet Kylie Minogue.
Not sure I understand your point Alastair
Furthermore, the IREXIT freedom party are growing and support the fishermen
Have you got any recent polling on the popularity of Irexit? Last time I saw the Irish were favouring staying in the EU by about 90% to 10%.
Big G has transposed the British/Scottish relationship with fishing wherein a tiny amount of the electorate & even tinier percentage of industrial output exerts a disproportionate influence on UK politics. I would be surprised if the same anomaly exists in Ireland.
Keep the Tories together ! That ship sailed a long time ago . Given the document from Sir Mark Sedwill not sure saying to the public my national security adviser says no deal will be a disaster for our security and then going ahead with it will be a good look.
May doesn't give a fuck about what's a good look. The tory party and its fortunes are the alpha and omega of her existence.
She's not doing much of a job even by that metric.
Am I the only person who thinks it is weird that we are in effect prevented from leaving the EU by the Good Friday Agreement. It is getting to the stage where it would be easier to renegotiate that.
You are aware of the situation the Good Friday Agreement was designed to address?
Of course I’m aware and am not serious but saying in jest it may be easier t o renegotiate that
Who will fold ? Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.
It'll be May.
Sure, we know that TMay will surrender. But what we don't know is who she'll surrender *to*...
I am not sure that she can surrender. If she surrenders to the ERG and goes no deal then she loses a chunk of her cabinet including her Chancellor. If she surrenders to the CU she loses any pretense of having a majority in the Commons. Either way she loses power after which who cares what she thinks?
The majority of Tories now seem to see No Deal as a viable option. So that’s where May will go.
Then she falls from power and there is a GE where Corbyn probably wins against a completely divided, potentially outright split, Tory party. Its not a good option. No wonder she keeps coming back to her deal which has something for everyone if not everything for anyone.
Her Deal only passes with Labour votes. That means concessions written into law and that, too, brings down her government. She has no good options left, so she’ll take the least worst one. For her that’s the one that leads to the smallest Tory split. And that means No Deal.
And stuff the country. That’s why the Tories are not fit for power.
I detect a change in calculus and mood. Up to now I have held the view (and a robust view too) that the only way a 2nd referendum comes about is via a pre Brexit GE with Labour offering it and winning. Not so sure now. The Tories are terrified of an election and in any case they need time to choose a new leader. So, if there is not to be a GE pre Brexit, either the WA must somehow pass or there must be a long extension (assuming, as I still do, that No Deal is verboten). Now, the EU might, I suppose, grant a long extension with no commitment to GE or REF2. But if they don't, and the Tories cannot stomach a GE, there must now be a real possibility that TM caves and brings back her Deal with referendum attached. Which would pass. I still don't think so but I'm no longer laying it. I think the 2/1 is about right. It's maybe even a buy now.
May wants to get her deal through. If she can't she will choose No Deal over an extension because that will keep the Tories together more successfully.
But it doesn't. A series of high profile resignations are pre-announced, and any sensible Tory knows they cant afford to say goodbye to their moderate wing, along with their backers in business and the middle class. And that's before you get to the damage that a whole host of aspects of no deal could do to the party's wider credibility. The Black Wednesday crisis lasted only a day or two yet dented their reputation for a decade. A bad no deal would be existential.
Yes. Assuming that MV4 fails again, which I assume it will, there's essentially no other option that holds the Tories together in their current form - for a brief period of grace only, probably - than an election or a referendum, with an election seeming much the stronger for party unity,
But Cameron’s deal literally wasn’t leaving. It was never going to be possible to actually leave without huge upheaval like this.
Yes I was saying i would take any deal as a stopgap so long as we had officially left. Being too pure about it left the door open for Parliament to never let us leave...
From the way you spoke about a "renegotiation" it sounded like you expected a slightly harder version of Cameron's Remain deal, that would then become the steady state relationship pending any further divergence that we could do in our own time. Is that right?
I meant his pre referendum renegotiation, but yes the rest seems like what I’d have accepted.
But that was never a possible way to carry out Brexit, as the Article 50 process so far should have shown.
If you had misconceptions about what you were voting for, you can blame parliament for the way it asked the question, but not for the way it reacted to the result.
Dear Lord, give me strength.
Saying I’d have accepted his renegotiation was a way of saying I’d take the softest style of Brexit for now in the knowledge that if we elected a different govt next time they could change it.
Or you are saying that the withdrawal agreement is set in stone forever?
Sam you're having a shocker. Dave's deal was to remain. Soft Brexit my arse, it was no Brexit.
Applying Dave's deal's terms to a possible Brexit and saying you would have accepted it is a category error. Or at least a very bad example.
But that's the one positive outcome of crashing out, we wouldn't be able to do a "deal" with the Trump Whitehouse.
To be honest, the US is the one free trade deal that's both available and would make a really meaningful difference. But there's so much hysteria in the UK about Amazon skipping taxes and farmers using chlorine wash to kill salmonella that I don't think a deal would actually be deliverable. So who cares about the customs union?
It would be nice to try and implement common market terms with Singapore, Canada, Australia & NZ etc... With the former, the UK would certainly get access to a highly educated and dedicated workforce that would help open the economies of East Asia to UK business.
But perhaps Rory the Tory and his ilk are right. Just get Brexit done and worry about something else for a while.
Mr. Observer, Kenny and the UK Government were working on an electronic border, with manifests submitted ahead of time and some category (preferred business, or suchlike) of firms effectively functioning as now, plus the electronic 'paperwork' [assuming that doesn't happen already].
All such co-operation ceased because the EU has decreed that it's impossible. Unlike having GPS control of every new car on every road in the EU by 2022, which will work flawlessly*.
*I'm aware the UK Government backs this. The EU are powerful bullshit merchants, but do not have a monopoly on supply.
Miss Cyclefree, it's unfortunate that the tradition of alternating between competence residing on the Government and Opposition benches has broken down, and at an important time we have an incompetent Government and an incompetent Opposition.
But Cameron’s deal literally wasn’t leaving. It was never going to be possible to actually leave without huge upheaval like this.
Yes I was saying i would take any deal as a stopgap so long as we had officially left. Being too pure about it left the door open for Parliament to never let us leave...
From the way you spoke about a "renegotiation" it sounded like you expected a slightly harder version of Cameron's Remain deal, that would then become the steady state relationship pending any further divergence that we could do in our own time. Is that right?
I meant his pre referendum renegotiation, but yes the rest seems like what I’d have accepted.
But that was never a possible way to carry out Brexit, as the Article 50 process so far should have shown.
If you had misconceptions about what you were voting for, you can blame parliament for the way it asked the question, but not for the way it reacted to the result.
Dear Lord, give me strength.
Saying I’d have accepted his renegotiation was a way of saying I’d take the softest style of Brexit for now in the knowledge that if we elected a different govt next time they could change it.
Or you are saying that the withdrawal agreement is set in stone forever?
Sam you're having a shocker. Dave's deal was to remain. Soft Brexit my arse, it was no Brexit.
Applying Dave's deal's terms to a possible Brexit and saying you would have accepted it is a category error. Or at least a very bad example.
I think it's incredibly revealing. Sam's conception of Brexit was essentially the status quo, but with the UK suddenly empowered to start getting its own way.
. David Lammy is an intelligent and serious man who sometimes says things that go against mainstream opinion.
Bollocks - he is neither of those things. He has all too frequently demonstrated the ability to engage mouth before he engages brain and certainly jumps on the outrage bandwagon far too frequently to be taken seriously
Perhaps it's just because he generally gets outraged about things that seem to me to actually be outrageous. And he speaks up for people who are more or less ignored by most politicians. Francois just seems in a different category to me, unserious, unhinged, talking utter bollocks more or less constantly. It just didn't strike me that they were comparable.
This is why it is difficult for political comedians now. I also heard Richard Burgon talk about Labours immigration policy this morning is high was like the long Johns at their best. He was both for and against free movement depending on the whether it came under Labours policy which was ‘fair’ immigration:
If Labour win, it is all down to the genius of Jeremy Corbyn holding his party together on Brexit. If they lose, it is all the fault of Milibandist, Blairite running dogs in the Taffia.
I must say that I find it difficult to see how MP's can abstain, apparently on the grounds that that the shade of whatever version of sky-blue pink on offer isn't QUITE blue or pink enough.
On a happier note the operation which I had almost two weeks ago seems to have freed up my legs, although of course the healing process is by no means completed. Walked to (and from) the pub last Sunday evening with none of my previous discomfort!
Mr. Observer, Kenny and the UK Government were working on an electronic border, with manifests submitted ahead of time and some category (preferred business, or suchlike) of firms effectively functioning as now, plus the electronic 'paperwork' [assuming that doesn't happen already].
All such co-operation ceased because the EU has decreed that it's impossible. Unlike having GPS control of every new car on every road in the EU by 2022, which will work flawlessly*.
*I'm aware the UK Government backs this. The EU are powerful bullshit merchants, but do not have a monopoly on supply.
Yes, the buccaneers often make this claim about Kenny, but never supply any evidence.
But Cameron’s deal literally wasn’t leaving. It was never going to be possible to actually leave without huge upheaval like this.
Yes I was saying i would take any deal as a stopgap so long as we had officially left. Being too pure about it left the door open for Parliament to never let us leave...
From the way you spoke about a "renegotiation" it sounded like you expected a slightly harder version of Cameron's Remain deal, that would then become the steady state relationship pending any further divergence that we could do in our own time. Is that right?
I meant his pre referendum renegotiation, but yes the rest seems like what I’d have accepted.
But that was never a possible way to carry out Brexit, as the Article 50 process so far should have shown.
If you had misconceptions about what you were voting for, you can blame parliament for the way it asked the question, but not for the way it reacted to the result.
Dear Lord, give me strength.
Saying I’d have accepted his renegotiation was a way of saying I’d take the softest style of Brexit for now in the knowledge that if we elected a different govt next time they could change it.
Or you are saying that the withdrawal agreement is set in stone forever?
Assume your soft Brexit deal was the same as Cameron's deal except we were officially 'out'. How could a future government change it without the agreement of the EU27?
Go to no deal if they won’t agree? If Gerard Batten became PM you think our relationship with the EU would stay as it was if if we left with Mays deal?
I am only a leaver because being in the EU means FOM, I’d we could’ve opted out of that I’d have voted Remain.
I am astounded at the number of psychics and psychologists we have on this site
People who can see into the minds of our politicians and determine so precisely what they will do and why.
Being able to judge motivations so clearly must make these people feel really special.
Shame that most of it is just people making stuff up to advance their own agenda.
Most day-to-day political punditry is in this vein, so this site is no exception.
The breathless alternation, particularly by 2nd ref advocates, between parliamentary sovereignty (Except when it rejects any sort of "confirmatory referendum") and 'the people' (Except when they vote to leave) is absolutely wondrous.
But Cameron’s deal literally wasn’t leaving. It was never going to be possible to actually leave without huge upheaval like this.
Yes I was saying i would take any deal as a stopgap so long as we had officially left. Being too pure about it left the door open for Parliament to never let us leave...
From the way you spoke about a "renegotiation" it sounded like you expected a slightly harder version of Cameron's Remain deal, that would then become the steady state relationship pending any further divergence that we could do in our own time. Is that right?
I meant his pre referendum renegotiation, but yes the rest seems like what I’d have accepted.
But that was never a possible way to carry out Brexit, as the Article 50 process so far should have shown.
If you had misconceptions about what you were voting for, you can blame parliament for the way it asked the question, but not for the way it reacted to the result.
Dear Lord, give me strength.
Saying I’d have accepted his renegotiation was a way of saying I’d take the softest style of Brexit for now in the knowledge that if we elected a different govt next time they could change it.
Or you are saying that the withdrawal agreement is set in stone forever?
Sam you're having a shocker. Dave's deal was to remain. Soft Brexit my arse, it was no Brexit.
Applying Dave's deal's terms to a possible Brexit and saying you would have accepted it is a category error. Or at least a very bad example.
Not really, I was using it to illustrate tothat I would accept soft Brexit under the then government rather than risk never leaving. Many people say Mays deal isbt Brexit either but I’d take it.
Mr. Observer, I seem to recall reading it at the time, but I don't save every address of every news story I read...
Even if you want to disregard that completely, then consider this:
The EU has said there'll be no hard border if we leave with no deal. If no hard border can be achieved without the backstop, why do they refuse to remove or amend the backstop?
If it's only to be temporary, why do they refuse a time limit and insist it can only be left with their permission?
And why does Varadkar go along with this, even though it's increased, dramatically, the chances of the UK leaving with no deal (which will either cause the hard border the backstop is meant to avoid *or* prove the backstop was never needed in the first place)?
Hundreds of people have gathered at cliffs on the south coast to signal an SOS signal to Europe using mirrors.
Lining up on the cliffs at Saltdean near Brighton over the weekend, the 400-strong crowd used mirrors of all sizes to flash out the dot, dot dot, dash, dash, dash, dot, dot dot, in a "symbolic SOS call".
Who will fold ? Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.
It'll be May.
Sure, we know that TMay will surrender. But what we don't know is who she'll surrender *to*...
I am not sure that she can surrender. If she surrenders to the ERG and goes no deal then she loses a chunk of her cabinet including her Chancellor. If she surrenders to the CU she loses any pretense of having a majority in the Commons. Either way she loses power after which who cares what she thinks?
The majority of Tories now seem to see No Deal as a viable option. So that’s where May will go.
Then she falls from power and there is a GE where Corbyn probably wins against a completely divided, potentially outright split, Tory party. Its not a good option. No wonder she keeps coming back to her deal which has something for everyone if not everything for anyone.
Her Deal only passes with Labour votes. That means concessions written into law and that, too, brings down her government. She has no good options left, so she’ll take the least worst one. For her that’s the one that leads to the smallest Tory split. And that means No Deal.
And stuff the country. That’s why the Tories are not fit for power.
Indeed. The only problem is that the opposition is unfit for power too. Our political system has broken down. It is very hard to see how it gets put back together again.
There has to be an election. It may not solve anything if we get a similar makeup of parliament, but at this point it's a necessary if not sufficient step at resolving the impasse. May is highly unlikely to get her deal through at MV4 because the pendulum has swung away from "my deal or soft brexit" to "my deal or no deal or no brexit", so the extremes on both sides are again energised. Have we heard recent comments from ERG turncoats like Boris on whether they still back the deal after last night's indicative votes dealt soft brexit a blow?
Honestly the best thing now for the tories is to lose an election and let Corbyn try and deal with Brexit. It would clog up his parliament so he won't get much else sorted, and it would lead him to shoulder the blame afterwards.
I can see you would like an election. But by what means do you think one will be delivered?
I think May has to decide an election is her last roll of the dice option. If she says she wants one, Labour will have to back it, and enough Tories will follow the whip that it would probably pass. She would have to put it on her deal, which of course would be very divisive for her party, but having a clear Brexit option would force Labour to come off the fence too. For May, it's also a chance to atone for messing up the last one, and if she loses, well she was already going soon anyway.
Also think she would rather do that than either No Deal or Revoke/2nd ref.
Assume your soft Brexit deal was the same as Cameron's deal except we were officially 'out'. How could a future government change it without the agreement of the EU27?
Go to no deal if they won’t agree? If Gerard Batten became PM you think our relationship with the EU would stay as it was if if we left with Mays deal?
I am only a leaver because being in the EU means FOM, I’d we could’ve opted out of that I’d have voted Remain.
A deal based on membership of the EU has a route to 'No Deal' within 2 years by invoking Article 50. Has invoking it unlocked hitherto untapped negotiating leverage for the UK, or has it done the opposite?
If you're only a leaver because of free movement, would you still think Brexit was worth it if the UK ends up with a relationship in which there is free movement?
Mr. Observer, I seem to recall reading it at the time, but I don't save every address of every news story I read...
Even if you want to disregard that completely, then consider this:
The EU has said there'll be no hard border if we leave with no deal. If no hard border can be achieved without the backstop, why do they refuse to remove or amend the backstop?
If it's only to be temporary, why do they refuse a time limit and insist it can only be left with their permission?
And why does Varadkar go along with this, even though it's increased, dramatically, the chances of the UK leaving with no deal (which will either cause the hard border the backstop is meant to avoid *or* prove the backstop was never needed in the first place)?
They’ve said there’ll be no hard border at the actual border.
But that there will be a hard border somewhere, probably in the Irish Sea.
I think May should probably request an extension, and give her resignation as the reason for it. Labour bods are coming up with the excuse that they don't trust the Gov't as they won't know who is in charge sorted. Well the Tories should have their blood letting now so that can no longer be posted as an objection.
I think May should probably request an extension, and give her resignation as the reason for it. Labour bods are coming up with the excuse that they don't trust the Gov't as they won't know who is in charge sorted. Well the Tories should have their blood letting now so that can no longer be posted as an objection.
Mr. Observer, I seem to recall reading it at the time, but I don't save every address of every news story I read...
Even if you want to disregard that completely, then consider this:
The EU has said there'll be no hard border if we leave with no deal. If no hard border can be achieved without the backstop, why do they refuse to remove or amend the backstop?
If it's only to be temporary, why do they refuse a time limit and insist it can only be left with their permission?
And why does Varadkar go along with this, even though it's increased, dramatically, the chances of the UK leaving with no deal (which will either cause the hard border the backstop is meant to avoid *or* prove the backstop was never needed in the first place)?
The permanent backstop is there to increase the EU's leverage in the actual leave negotiations once the WA has passed. They don't want to give that up.
I think May should probably request an extension, and give her resignation as the reason for it. Labour bods are coming up with the excuse that they don't trust the Gov't as they won't know who is in charge sorted. Well the Tories should have their blood letting now so that can no longer be posted as an objection.
That's unlikely to satisfy the EU, however. They've often indicated they'd like some process-driven reason for delay, namely the much-discussed election or referendum, and a tory leadership contest or even quick change of leader, with all the uncertainty it entails, may simply represent the acme of chaos for them.
I think May should probably request an extension, and give her resignation as the reason for it. Labour bods are coming up with the excuse that they don't trust the Gov't as they won't know who is in charge sorted. Well the Tories should have their blood letting now so that can no longer be posted as an objection.
Labour will just find another objection.
Then Jezza Hunt or whoever calls for an election. The Tories need to change leader, like right now. Someone who actually has the stones for "No deal"
Varadkar is in real crisis as he must answer the question what he does when the EU put in place their border on the 13th April post no deal
In addition it may not be known here but he is in serious trouble with his fishermen
Kudos to him, he used his position to try to get to meet Kylie Minogue.
Not sure I understand your point Alastair
Furthermore, the IREXIT freedom party are growing and support the fishermen
Have you got any recent polling on the popularity of Irexit? Last time I saw the Irish were favouring staying in the EU by about 90% to 10%.
My wife is in touch with the Irish fishing community through her late Fathers and families long standard fishing ties and they are furious with Varadkar over his favouring EU fishermen at the expense of his own, thereby promoting increasing anger and support for the IREXIT party. It is very bitter and of course if Brexit goes to no deal, Varadkar would become very unpopular and who knows
I do not know the polling and I doubt IREXIT are too relevant, but the underlying anger in Ireland is not to be dismissed
How big is the Irish fishing community? The British one seems to have influnce out of all proportion to it's size.
The Irish Fishing Fleet has access to 1.3 million tonnes of fish with a landing value of 1.44 billion euros
Mr. Observer, Kenny and the UK Government were working on an electronic border, with manifests submitted ahead of time and some category (preferred business, or suchlike) of firms effectively functioning as now, plus the electronic 'paperwork' [assuming that doesn't happen already].
All such co-operation ceased because the EU has decreed that it's impossible. Unlike having GPS control of every new car on every road in the EU by 2022, which will work flawlessly*.
*I'm aware the UK Government backs this. The EU are powerful bullshit merchants, but do not have a monopoly on supply.
Yes, the buccaneers often make this claim about Kenny, but never supply any evidence.
I think May should probably request an extension, and give her resignation as the reason for it. Labour bods are coming up with the excuse that they don't trust the Gov't as they won't know who is in charge sorted. Well the Tories should have their blood letting now so that can no longer be posted as an objection.
Labour will just find another objection.
Then Jezza Hunt or whoever calls for an election. The Tories need to change leader, like right now. Someone who actually has the stones for "No deal"
Well the Tories need to change leader asap as may has been shown totally unsuitable in the role.
I detect a change in calculus and mood. Up to now I have held the view (and a robust view too) that the only way a 2nd referendum comes about is via a pre Brexit GE with Labour offering it and winning. Not so sure now. The Tories are terrified of an election and in any case they need time to choose a new leader. So, if there is not to be a GE pre Brexit, either the WA must somehow pass or there must be a long extension (assuming, as I still do, that No Deal is verboten). Now, the EU might, I suppose, grant a long extension with no commitment to GE or REF2. But if they don't, and the Tories cannot stomach a GE, there must now be a real possibility that TM caves and brings back her Deal with referendum attached. Which would pass. I still don't think so but I'm no longer laying it. I think the 2/1 is about right. It's maybe even a buy now.
May wants to get her deal through. If she can't she will choose No Deal over an extension because that will keep the Tories together more successfully.
Keep the Tories together ! That ship sailed a long time ago . Given the document from Sir Mark Sedwill not sure saying to the public my national security adviser says no deal will be a disaster for our security and then going ahead with it will be a good look.
Mr. Observer, I seem to recall reading it at the time, but I don't save every address of every news story I read...
Even if you want to disregard that completely, then consider this:
The EU has said there'll be no hard border if we leave with no deal. If no hard border can be achieved without the backstop, why do they refuse to remove or amend the backstop?
If it's only to be temporary, why do they refuse a time limit and insist it can only be left with their permission?
And why does Varadkar go along with this, even though it's increased, dramatically, the chances of the UK leaving with no deal (which will either cause the hard border the backstop is meant to avoid *or* prove the backstop was never needed in the first place)?
I would strongly recommend you read this all the way through:
I think May should probably request an extension, and give her resignation as the reason for it. Labour bods are coming up with the excuse that they don't trust the Gov't as they won't know who is in charge sorted. Well the Tories should have their blood letting now so that can no longer be posted as an objection.
That's unlikely to satisfy the EU, however. They've often indicated they'd like some process-driven reason for delay, namely the much-discussed election or referendum, and a tory leadership contest, with all the uncertainty it entails, may simply represent the acme of chaos for them.
Fine, they can chuck us out then. The Tories can then change leader and we can get on with trade negotiations - yes I know a sort of backstop will need to be agreed - but it'll get Brexit over the line.
Varadkar is in real crisis as he must answer the question what he does when the EU put in place their border on the 13th April post no deal
In addition it may not be known here but he is in serious trouble with his fishermen
Kudos to him, he used his position to try to get to meet Kylie Minogue.
Not sure I understand your point Alastair
Furthermore, the IREXIT freedom party are growing and support the fishermen
Have you got any recent polling on the popularity of Irexit? Last time I saw the Irish were favouring staying in the EU by about 90% to 10%.
Big G has transposed the British/Scottish relationship with fishing wherein a tiny amount of the electorate & even tinier percentage of industrial output exerts a disproportionate influence on UK politics. I would be surprised if the same anomaly exists in Ireland.
Not really. There is an Irish specific fight going on between the Irish fishing industry and the Irish government who are taking the side of EU fishermen, inflaming anger in the 1.4 billion euros per annum industry
I think May should probably request an extension, and give her resignation as the reason for it. Labour bods are coming up with the excuse that they don't trust the Gov't as they won't know who is in charge sorted. Well the Tories should have their blood letting now so that can no longer be posted as an objection.
That's unlikely to satisfy the EU, however. They've often indicated they'd like some process-driven reason for delay, namely the much-discussed election or referendum, and a tory leadership contest, with all the uncertainty it entails, may simply represent the acme of chaos for them.
Fine, they can chuck us out then. The Tories can then change leader and we can get on with trade negotiations - yes I know a sort of backstop will need to be agreed - but it'll get Brexit over the line.
The Tories in their present form would be destroyed by that, ofcourse.
I detect a change in calculus and mood. Up to now I have held the view (and a robust view too) that the only way a 2nd referendum comes about is via a pre Brexit GE with Labour offering it and winning. Not so sure now. The Tories are terrified of an election and in any case they need time to choose a new leader. So, if there is not to be a GE pre Brexit, either the WA must somehow pass or there must be a long extension (assuming, as I still do, that No Deal is verboten). Now, the EU might, I suppose, grant a long extension with no commitment to GE or REF2. But if they don't, and the Tories cannot stomach a GE, there must now be a real possibility that TM caves and brings back her Deal with referendum attached. Which would pass. I still don't think so but I'm no longer laying it. I think the 2/1 is about right. It's maybe even a buy now.
May wants to get her deal through. If she can't she will choose No Deal over an extension because that will keep the Tories together more successfully.
Keep the Tories together ! That ship sailed a long time ago . Given the document from Sir Mark Sedwill not sure saying to the public my national security adviser says no deal will be a disaster for our security and then going ahead with it will be a good look.
The Tories are going to fragment whatever happens. But if May's Deal does not pass more of the party's MPs - and certainly the membership - seem to want No Deal rather than any other solution, so that's what May will go with. If she went for an extension or Revoke the Tory split would be even greater. And May's concern is the Conservative party, not the country.
But that's the one positive outcome of crashing out, we wouldn't be able to do a "deal" with the Trump Whitehouse.
To be honest, the US is the one free trade deal that's both available and would make a really meaningful difference. But there's so much hysteria in the UK about Amazon skipping taxes and farmers using chlorine wash to kill salmonella that I don't think a deal would actually be deliverable. So who cares about the customs union?
It would be nice to try and implement common market terms with Singapore, Canada, Australia & NZ etc... With the former, the UK would certainly get access to a highly educated and dedicated workforce that would help open the economies of East Asia to UK business.
But perhaps Rory the Tory and his ilk are right. Just get Brexit done and worry about something else for a while.
If you want an FTA with Singapore, the EU recently signed one, which means we already have one. Most of what the Brexiteers say about FTAs is not even wrong. The EU has lots of FTAs (which means we do because we are in the EU). They are not necessary in order to trade with foreign countries. They are hard to negotiate. They necessarily involve giving up sovereignty and submitting to foreign courts. They have nothing to do with access to Singaporean workers. Even without an FTA between EU and UK, most of our trade will be with Europe because, as Dominic Raab can tell you, it's just off Dover (except for Ireland which is near Ramsgate) and everywhere else is thousands of miles away.
ETA "not even wrong" means so misconceived that it is not possible to say it is right or wrong without your head exploding.
Assume your soft Brexit deal was the same as Cameron's deal except we were officially 'out'. How could a future government change it without the agreement of the EU27?
Go to no deal if they won’t agree? If Gerard Batten became PM you think our relationship with the EU would stay as it was if if we left with Mays deal?
I am only a leaver because being in the EU means FOM, I’d we could’ve opted out of that I’d have voted Remain.
A deal based on membership of the EU has a route to 'No Deal' within 2 years by invoking Article 50. Has invoking it unlocked hitherto untapped negotiating leverage for the UK, or has it done the opposite?
If you're only a leaver because of free movement, would you still think Brexit was worth it if the UK ends up with a relationship in which there is free movement?
I think May should probably request an extension, and give her resignation as the reason for it. Labour bods are coming up with the excuse that they don't trust the Gov't as they won't know who is in charge sorted. Well the Tories should have their blood letting now so that can no longer be posted as an objection.
That's unlikely to satisfy the EU, however. They've often indicated they'd like some process-driven reason for delay, namely the much-discussed election or referendum, and a tory leadership contest, with all the uncertainty it entails, may simply represent the acme of chaos for them.
Fine, they can chuck us out then. The Tories can then change leader and we can get on with trade negotiations - yes I know a sort of backstop will need to be agreed - but it'll get Brexit over the line.
The Tories in their present form would be destroyed by that, ofcourse.
The Tories are going to be destroyed whatever they do. They should, if they have any conscience, do what is best for the country ie what is least bad at this point. Embarking on No Deal is highly risky and potentially very damaging. That is the one thing they should avoid.
I have little faith left that they will act in the country’s interests.
Varadkar is in real crisis as he must answer the question what he does when the EU put in place their border on the 13th April post no deal
In addition it may not be known here but he is in serious trouble with his fishermen
Kudos to him, he used his position to try to get to meet Kylie Minogue.
Not sure I understand your point Alastair
Furthermore, the IREXIT freedom party are growing and support the fishermen
Have you got any recent polling on the popularity of Irexit? Last time I saw the Irish were favouring staying in the EU by about 90% to 10%.
Big G has transposed the British/Scottish relationship with fishing wherein a tiny amount of the electorate & even tinier percentage of industrial output exerts a disproportionate influence on UK politics. I would be surprised if the same anomaly exists in Ireland.
Not really. There is an Irish specific fight going on between the Irish fishing industry and the Irish government who are taking the side of EU fishermen, inflaming anger in the 1.4 billion euros per annum industry
Aren't Irish fishermen also EU fishermen? What specific side is Varadkar taking?
I believe (as with the UK) that the EU is Ireland's main export market for seafood. What do Irish fishermen think should be done to protect that market?
I think May should probably request an extension, and give her resignation as the reason for it. Labour bods are coming up with the excuse that they don't trust the Gov't as they won't know who is in charge sorted. Well the Tories should have their blood letting now so that can no longer be posted as an objection.
That's unlikely to satisfy the EU, however. They've often indicated they'd like some process-driven reason for delay, namely the much-discussed election or referendum, and a tory leadership contest, with all the uncertainty it entails, may simply represent the acme of chaos for them.
Fine, they can chuck us out then. The Tories can then change leader and we can get on with trade negotiations - yes I know a sort of backstop will need to be agreed - but it'll get Brexit over the line.
The Tories in their present form would be destroyed by that, ofcourse.
The Tories are going to be destroyed whatever they do. They should, if they have any conscience, do what is best for the country ie what is least bad at this point. Embarkin on No Deal is highly risky and potentially very damaging. That is the one thing they should avoid.
I have little faith left that they will act in the country’s interests.
I detect a change in calculus and mood. Up to now I have held the view (and a robust view too) that the only way a 2nd referendum comes about is via a pre Brexit GE with Labour offering it and winning. Not so sure now. The Tories are terrified of an election and in any case they need time to choose a new leader. So, if there is not to be a GE pre Brexit, either the WA must somehow pass or there must be a long extension (assuming, as I still do, that No Deal is verboten). Now, the EU might, I suppose, grant a long extension with no commitment to GE or REF2. But if they don't, and the Tories cannot stomach a GE, there must now be a real possibility that TM caves and brings back her Deal with referendum attached. Which would pass. I still don't think so but I'm no longer laying it. I think the 2/1 is about right. It's maybe even a buy now.
May wants to get her deal through. If she can't she will choose No Deal over an extension because that will keep the Tories together more successfully.
Keep the Tories together ! That ship sailed a long time ago . Given the document from Sir Mark Sedwill not sure saying to the public my national security adviser says no deal will be a disaster for our security and then going ahead with it will be a good look.
That document should be published.
Unlikely that will happen but it’s been leaked and will go down on record come the inevitable public inquiry .
But from the leaks this looks pretty damning especially in terms of national security . Can’t see May ex Home Secretary going against the advice of her national security adviser .
I have no time for May but she won’t put national security at risk and won’t do anything to put the Good Friday Agreement at risk either .
Assume your soft Brexit deal was the same as Cameron's deal except we were officially 'out'. How could a future government change it without the agreement of the EU27?
Go to no deal if they won’t agree? If Gerard Batten became PM you think our relationship with the EU would stay as it was if if we left with Mays deal?
I am only a leaver because being in the EU means FOM, I’d we could’ve opted out of that I’d have voted Remain.
A deal based on membership of the EU has a route to 'No Deal' within 2 years by invoking Article 50. Has invoking it unlocked hitherto untapped negotiating leverage for the UK, or has it done the opposite?
If you're only a leaver because of free movement, would you still think Brexit was worth it if the UK ends up with a relationship in which there is free movement?
Yes because the door is open to no FOM
Is it though? If it's not negotiable in isolation, all you'll have achieved is put the UK in a weaker position.
I think May should probably request an extension, and give her resignation as the reason for it. Labour bods are coming up with the excuse that they don't trust the Gov't as they won't know who is in charge sorted. Well the Tories should have their blood letting now so that can no longer be posted as an objection.
That's unlikely to satisfy the EU, however. They've often indicated they'd like some process-driven reason for delay, namely the much-discussed election or referendum, and a tory leadership contest, with all the uncertainty it entails, may simply represent the acme of chaos for them.
Fine, they can chuck us out then. The Tories can then change leader and we can get on with trade negotiations - yes I know a sort of backstop will need to be agreed - but it'll get Brexit over the line.
The Tories in their present form would be destroyed by that, ofcourse.
The Tories are going to be destroyed whatever they do. They should, if they have any conscience, do what is best for the country ie what is least bad at this point. Embarking on No Deal is highly risky and potentially very damaging. That is the one thing they should avoid.
I have little faith left that they will act in the country’s interests.
You wish.
If we deliver Brexit, even with some no deal chaos, the party will survive. Perhaps we’ll go down to 35% or even 30% at the next general election, but we will clearly be the second-largest party in Parliament and the Official Opposition. With rebuilding and new leadership, we should be able to seriously challenge Labour after 1 or 2 elections.
If the party splits and we haemorrhage seats a la Canadian Tories in 1993, the path to power gets a lot blurrier and a Marxist-led Labour Party will be guaranteed 15+ years in office. That will inflict far more damage than a no-deal Brexit.
Varadkar is in real crisis as he must answer the question what he does when the EU put in place their border on the 13th April post no deal
In addition it may not be known here but he is in serious trouble with his fishermen
Kudos to him, he used his position to try to get to meet Kylie Minogue.
Not sure I understand your point Alastair
Furthermore, the IREXIT freedom party are growing and support the fishermen
Have you got any recent polling on the popularity of Irexit? Last time I saw the Irish were favouring staying in the EU by about 90% to 10%.
Big G has transposed the British/Scottish relationship with fishing wherein a tiny amount of the electorate & even tinier percentage of industrial output exerts a disproportionate influence on UK politics. I would be surprised if the same anomaly exists in Ireland.
Not really. There is an Irish specific fight going on between the Irish fishing industry and the Irish government who are taking the side of EU fishermen, inflaming anger in the 1.4 billion euros per annum industry
Aren't Irish fishermen also EU fishermen? What specific side is Varadkar taking?
I believe (as with the UK), the EU is Ireland's main export market. What do Irish fishermen think should be done to protect that market?
If Irish fishermen are anything like UK ones, they would be unhappy about just about anything. I was also surprised to discover that despite having relatives in the fishing business, including my father having worked on a fishing boat, I knew next to nothing about it and all my assumptions were wrong. As were those of people actually working in the business.
But that's the one positive outcome of crashing out, we wouldn't be able to do a "deal" with the Trump Whitehouse.
To be honest, the US is the one free trade deal that's both available and would make a really meaningful difference. But there's so much hysteria in the UK about Amazon skipping taxes and farmers using chlorine wash to kill salmonella that I don't think a deal would actually be deliverable. So who cares about the customs union?
It would be nice to try and implement common market terms with Singapore, Canada, Australia & NZ etc... With the former, the UK would certainly get access to a highly educated and dedicated workforce that would help open the economies of East Asia to UK business.
But perhaps Rory the Tory and his ilk are right. Just get Brexit done and worry about something else for a while.
If you want an FTA with Singapore, the EU recently signed one, which means we already have one. Most of what the Brexiteers say about FTAs is not even wrong. The EU has lots of FTAs (which means we do because we are in the EU). They are not necessary in order to trade with foreign countries. They are hard to negotiate. They necessarily involve giving up sovereignty and submitting to foreign courts. They have nothing to do with access to Singaporean workers. Even without an FTA between EU and UK, most of our trade will be with Europe because, as Dominic Raab can tell you, it's just off Dover (except for Ireland which is near Ramsgate) and everywhere else is thousands of miles away.
ETA "not even wrong" means so misconceived that it is not possible to say it is right or wrong without your head exploding.
I am aware. You are quite mistaken if you think it easy for Singaporean citizens to move to the UK. And Australian ones for that matter. It’s a tired arguement and no minds will be changed now but the EU has done nothing more than a passable job in negotiating free trade agreements, because at heart it’s quite a protectionist club. Calais being close to Dover doesn’t do much for most services industries either.
Hundreds of people have gathered at cliffs on the south coast to signal an SOS signal to Europe using mirrors.
Lining up on the cliffs at Saltdean near Brighton over the weekend, the 400-strong crowd used mirrors of all sizes to flash out the dot, dot dot, dash, dash, dash, dot, dot dot, in a "symbolic SOS call".
Who will fold ? Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.
It'll be May.
Sure, we know that TMay will surrender. But what we don't know is who she'll surrender *to*...
I am not sure that she can surrender. If she surrenders to the ERG and goes no deal then she loses a chunk of her cabinet including her Chancellor. If she surrenders to the CU she loses any pretense of having a majority in the Commons. Either way she loses power after which who cares what she thinks?
The majority of Tories now seem to see No Deal as a viable option. So that’s where May will go.
Then she falls from power and there is a GE where Corbyn probably wins against a completely divided, potentially outright split, Tory party. Its not a good option. No wonder she keeps coming back to her deal which has something for everyone if not everything for anyone.
Her Deal only passes with Labour votes. That means concessions written into law and that, too, brings down her government. She has no good options left, so she’ll take the least worst one. For her that’s the one that leads to the smallest Tory split. And that means No Deal.
And stuff the country. That’s why the Tories are not fit for power.
Indeed. The only problem is that the opposition is unfit for power too. Our political system has broken down. It is very hard to see how it gets put back together again.
Yes, many comments only make make sense if Labour had a leadership ideologically located within the bounds of western democracy. They are not so located so there is a crucial extra dimension to the crisis. Because Corbyn has been leader for several years the extremism within Labour is being normalised and many are falling into the trap of thinking that there is a continuity of normal politics within Labour. We need to resolve the Brexit issue and prevent Corbyn / McDonnell getting in to power. Failure in one or both of those objectives will imperil democracy.
I think May should probably request an extension, and give her resignation as the reason for it. Labour bods are coming up with the excuse that they don't trust the Gov't as they won't know who is in charge sorted. Well the Tories should have their blood letting now so that can no longer be posted as an objection.
That is the kind of service for her country that Theresa May has shown no signs of undertaking.
I think May should probably request an extension, and give her resignation as the reason for it. Labour bods are coming up with the excuse that they don't trust the Gov't as they won't know who is in charge sorted. Well the Tories should have their blood letting now so that can no longer be posted as an objection.
That's unlikely to satisfy the EU, however. They've often indicated they'd like some process-driven reason for delay, namely the much-discussed election or referendum, and a tory leadership contest, with all the uncertainty it entails, may simply represent the acme of chaos for them.
Fine, they can chuck us out then. The Tories can then change leader and we can get on with trade negotiations - yes I know a sort of backstop will need to be agreed - but it'll get Brexit over the line.
The Tories in their present form would be destroyed by that, ofcourse.
The Tories are going to be destroyed whatever they do. They should, if they have any conscience, do what is best for the country ie what is least bad at this point. Embarking on No Deal is highly risky and potentially very damaging. That is the one thing they should avoid.
I have little faith left that they will act in the country’s interests.
You wish.
If we deliver Brexit, even with some no deal chaos, the party will survive. Perhaps we’ll go down to 35% or even 30% at the next general election, but we will clearly be the second-largest party in Parliament and the Official Opposition. With rebuilding and new leadership, we should be able to seriously challenge Labour after 1 or 2 elections.
If the party splits and we haemorrhage seats a la Canadian Tories in 1993, the path to power gets a lot blurrier and a Marxist-led Labour Party will be guaranteed 15+ years in office. That will inflict far more damage than a no-deal Brexit.
I find the post-no deal predictions there slightly on the optimistic side. The Conservatives will gradually lose a large chunk of centre-ground business and other support after no-deal. My own prediction would be a slump at least down to the mid-20s per cent, which would take a long time to recover from.
As far as the parliamentary split, that would seem to be a given, given what so many Cabinet ministers have said off the record.
But that's the one positive outcome of crashing out, we wouldn't be able to do a "deal" with the Trump Whitehouse.
To be honest, the US is the one free trade deal that's both available and would make a really meaningful difference. But there's so much hysteria in the UK about Amazon skipping taxes and farmers using chlorine wash to kill salmonella that I don't think a deal would actually be deliverable. So who cares about the customs union?
It would be nice to try and implement common market terms with Singapore, Canada, Australia & NZ etc... With the former, the UK would certainly get access to a highly educated and dedicated workforce that would help open the economies of East Asia to UK business.
But perhaps Rory the Tory and his ilk are right. Just get Brexit done and worry about something else for a while.
If you want an FTA with Singapore, the EU recently signed one, which means we already have one. Most of what the Brexiteers say about FTAs is not even wrong. The EU has lots of FTAs (which means we do because we are in the EU). They are not necessary in order to trade with foreign countries. They are hard to negotiate. They necessarily involve giving up sovereignty and submitting to foreign courts. They have nothing to do with access to Singaporean workers. Even without an FTA between EU and UK, most of our trade will be with Europe because, as Dominic Raab can tell you, it's just off Dover (except for Ireland which is near Ramsgate) and everywhere else is thousands of miles away.
ETA "not even wrong" means so misconceived that it is not possible to say it is right or wrong without your head exploding.
I am aware. You are quite mistaken if you think it easy for Singaporean citizens to move to the UK. And Australian ones for that matter. It’s a tired arguement and no minds will be changed now but the EU has done nothing more than a passable job in negotiating free trade agreements, because at heart it’s quite a protectionist club. Calais being close to Dover doesn’t do much for most services industries either.
Services industries have been thrown to the wolves because the government preferred to talk to the EU about goods (where the EU has a surplus and we have the deficit) and Freedom of Movement.
A free trade agreement has nothing to do with whether Singaporean citizens, or anyone else, can settle in Britain.
I think May should probably request an extension, and give her resignation as the reason for it. Labour bods are coming up with the excuse that they don't trust the Gov't as they won't know who is in charge sorted. Well the Tories should have their blood letting now so that can no longer be posted as an objection.
That's unlikely to satisfy the EU, however. They've often indicated they'd like some process-driven reason for delay, namely the much-discussed election or referendum, and a tory leadership contest, with all the uncertainty it entails, may simply represent the acme of chaos for them.
Fine, they can chuck us out then. The Tories can then change leader and we can get on with trade negotiations - yes I know a sort of backstop will need to be agreed - but it'll get Brexit over the line.
The Tories in their present form would be destroyed by that, ofcourse.
The Tories are going to be destroyed whatever they do. They should, if they have any conscience, do what is best for the country ie what is least bad at this point. Embarking on No Deal is highly risky and potentially very damaging. That is the one thing they should avoid.
I have little faith left that they will act in the country’s interests.
You wish.
If we deliver Brexit, even with some no deal chaos, the party will survive. Perhaps we’ll go down to 35% or even 30% at the next general election, but we will clearly be the second-largest party in Parliament and the Official Opposition. With rebuilding and new leadership, we should be able to seriously challenge Labour after 1 or 2 elections.
If the party splits and we haemorrhage seats a la Canadian Tories in 1993, the path to power gets a lot blurrier and a Marxist-led Labour Party will be guaranteed 15+ years in office. That will inflict far more damage than a no-deal Brexit.
The party is effectively split now.
The way it is behaving is making a Marxist-led government ever more likely. A Corbyn government inside the EU is one thing. One outside it is very much worse. One taking power in the aftermath of a messy No Deal exit, which is where the Tories are headed , will be interesting - and not in a good way.
The Tories - foolishly in my view - seem to think that Corbyn is the reason Labour won’t get into power. And yet everything they are doing makes it more likely that he will.
I think May should probably request an extension, and give her resignation as the reason for it. Labour bods are coming up with the excuse that they don't trust the Gov't as they won't know who is in charge sorted. Well the Tories should have their blood letting now so that can no longer be posted as an objection.
That's unlikely to satisfy the EU, however. They've often indicated they'd like some process-driven reason for delay, namely the much-discussed election or referendum, and a tory leadership contest, with all the uncertainty it entails, may simply represent the acme of chaos for them.
Fine, they can chuck us out then. The Tories can then change leader and we can get on with trade negotiations - yes I know a sort of backstop will need to be agreed - but it'll get Brexit over the line.
The Tories in their present form would be destroyed by that, ofcourse.
The Tories are going to be destroyed whatever they do. They should, if they have any conscience, do what is best for the country ie what is least bad at this point. Embarking on No Deal is highly risky and potentially very damaging. That is the one thing they should avoid.
I have little faith left that they will act in the country’s interests.
You wish.
If we deliver Brexit, even with some no deal chaos, the party will survive. Perhaps we’ll go down to 35% or even 30% at the next general election, but we will clearly be the second-largest party in Parliament and the Official Opposition. With rebuilding and new leadership, we should be able to seriously challenge Labour after 1 or 2 elections.
If the party splits and we haemorrhage seats a la Canadian Tories in 1993, the path to power gets a lot blurrier and a Marxist-led Labour Party will be guaranteed 15+ years in office. That will inflict far more damage than a no-deal Brexit.
What do you think the Conservatives' long term message would be to the public after a no-deal Brexit. "Yes, we risked the country's stability for something we passionately believed in, but trust us now"?
No doubt you find that a compelling message but the overwhelming majority who aren't in the death cult will not. Bear in mind also that the death cult is disproportionately comprised of pensioners, so it has a diminishing audience too.
Who will fold ? Not the EU, not Ireland, not Dodds, not Corbyn.
It'll be May.
Sure, we know that TMay will surrender. But what we don't know is who she'll surrender *to*...
I am not sure that she can surrender. If she surrenders to the ERG and goes no deal then she loses a chunk of her cabinet including her Chancellor. If she surrenders to the CU she loses any pretense of having a majority in the Commons. Either way she loses power after which who cares what she thinks?
The majority of Tories now seem to see No Deal as a viable option. So that’s where May will go.
Then she falls from power and there is a GE where Corbyn probably wins against a completely divided, potentially outright split, Tory party. Its not a good option. No wonder she keeps coming back to her deal which has something for everyone if not everything for anyone.
Her Deal only passes with Labour votes. That means concessions written into law and that, too, brings down her government. She has no good options left, so she’ll take the least worst one. For her that’s the one that leads to the smallest Tory split. And that means No Deal.
And stuff the country. That’s why the Tories are not fit for power.
Indeed. The only problem is that the opposition is unfit for power too. Our political system has broken down. It is very hard to see how it gets put back together again.
Yes, many comments only make make sense if Labour had a leadership ideologically located within the bounds of western democracy. They are not so located so there is a crucial extra dimension to the crisis. Because Corbyn has been leader for several years the extremism within Labour is being normalised and many are falling into the trap of thinking that there is a continuity of normal politics within Labour. We need to resolve the Brexit issue and prevent Corbyn / McDonnell getting in to power. Failure in one or both of those objectives will imperil democracy.
Exactly so. Corbyn and McDonnell are not at heart believers in liberal democracy.
I think May should probably request an extension, and give her resignation as the reason for it. Labour bods are coming up with the excuse that they don't trust the Gov't as they won't know who is in charge sorted. Well the Tories should have their blood letting now so that can no longer be posted as an objection.
That's unlikely to satisfy the EU, however. They've often indicated they'd like some process-driven reason for delay, namely the much-discussed election or referendum, and a tory leadership contest, with all the uncertainty it entails, may simply represent the acme of chaos for them.
Fine, they can chuck us out then. The Tories can then change leader and we can get on with trade negotiations - yes I know a sort of backstop will need to be agreed - but it'll get Brexit over the line.
The Tories in their present form would be destroyed by that, ofcourse.
The Tories are going to be destroyed whatever they do. They should, if they have any conscience, do what is best for the country ie what is least bad at this point. Embarking on No Deal is highly risky and potentially very damaging. That is the one thing they should avoid.
I have little faith left that they will act in the country’s interests.
You wish.
If we deliver Brexit, even with some no deal chaos, the party will survive. Perhaps we’ll go down to 35% or even 30% at the next general election, but we will clearly be the second-largest party in Parliament and the Official Opposition. With rebuilding and new leadership, we should be able to seriously challenge Labour after 1 or 2 elections.
If the party splits and we haemorrhage seats a la Canadian Tories in 1993, the path to power gets a lot blurrier and a Marxist-led Labour Party will be guaranteed 15+ years in office. That will inflict far more damage than a no-deal Brexit.
The party is effectively split now.
The way it is behaving is making a Marxist-led government ever more likely. A Corbyn government inside the EU is one thing. One outside it is very much worse. One taking power in the aftermath of a messy No Deal exit, which is where the Tories are headed , will be interesting - and not in a good way.
The Tories - foolishly in my view - seem to think that Corbyn is the reason Labour won’t get into power. And yet everything they are doing makes it more likely that he will.
There are a lot more people who are both centre-right, and in favour of Brexit, than people who are centre-right and opposed to it, so the Conservatives will favour the former over the latter, if they have to.
Hundreds of people have gathered at cliffs on the south coast to signal an SOS signal to Europe using mirrors.
Lining up on the cliffs at Saltdean near Brighton over the weekend, the 400-strong crowd used mirrors of all sizes to flash out the dot, dot dot, dash, dash, dash, dot, dot dot, in a "symbolic SOS call".
That'll get Leave voters in Sunderland onside.
There are plenty of leave voters on the south coast.
I think May should probably request an extension, and give her resignation as the reason for it. Labour bods are coming up with the excuse that they don't trust the Gov't as they won't know who is in charge sorted. Well the Tories should have their blood letting now so that can no longer be posted as an objection.
That is the kind of service for her country that Theresa May has shown no signs of undertaking.
Is it though? Theresa May has not offered to resign immediately but she has offered to resign to get her deal through and also said she would retire before the next election, and now there are hints of a snap election. The question is whether we can join the dots or whether the Prime Minister is just throwing out random thoughts that do not amount to even political promises.
I detect a change in calculus and mood. Up to now I have held the view (and a robust view too) that the only way a 2nd referendum comes about is via a pre Brexit GE with Labour offering it and winning. Not so sure now. The Tories are terrified of an election and in any case they need time to choose a new leader. So, if there is not to be a GE pre Brexit, either the WA must somehow pass or there must be a long extension (assuming, as I still do, that No Deal is verboten). Now, the EU might, I suppose, grant a long extension with no commitment to GE or REF2. But if they don't, and the Tories cannot stomach a GE, there must now be a real possibility that TM caves and brings back her Deal with referendum attached. Which would pass. I still don't think so but I'm no longer laying it. I think the 2/1 is about right. It's maybe even a buy now.
May wants to get her deal through. If she can't she will choose No Deal over an extension because that will keep the Tories together more successfully.
Keep the Tories together ! That ship sailed a long time ago . Given the document from Sir Mark Sedwill not sure saying to the public my national security adviser says no deal will be a disaster for our security and then going ahead with it will be a good look.
The Tories are going to fragment whatever happens. But if May's Deal does not pass more of the party's MPs - and certainly the membership - seem to want No Deal rather than any other solution, so that's what May will go with. If she went for an extension or Revoke the Tory split would be even greater. And May's concern is the Conservative party, not the country.
One wonders why, because undoubtedly her party will throw her to the wolves without a moment's hesitation, once they think there's a consensus that it will be to their advantage.
Comments
A more recent, and possibly less partisan one still had the Irish overwhelmingly supporting the EU over the UK - but not quite that decisively.
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-data-poll-irish-overwhelmingly-back-governments-pressure-on-backstop-11629673
I remember in my youth, when still at university, listening to a speech by Lord Thomas of Tonypandy which inluded the exhortation "NEVER lose your FAITH in DEMOCRACY". But my faith in representative parliamentary democracy has largely disappeared since then. The single thread that survives is Churchill's dictum about democracy being worse than all the alternatives that have been tried. But I think now that just reflects the fact that better alternatives have not yet been tried.
Saying I’d have accepted his renegotiation was a way of saying I’d take the softest style of Brexit for now in the knowledge that if we elected a different govt next time they could change it.
Or you are saying that the withdrawal agreement is set in stone forever?
https://twitter.com/darranmarshall/status/1109123555474714624?s=21
Bas ‘t Aard, spokesman for the city council told DutchNews.nl
‘We simply don’t have the manpower to police this,’ spokesman Boysen Blaauw said.
Lawyer Tjerk Meier-Kok
etc.
This from 2015 (!) -
https://gawker.com/joe-biden-we-need-to-talk-about-the-way-you-touch-wome-1686648038
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-38993912
I don't get either the eagerness for a trade deal with them or the 'fear' some raise that we might not be able to get one.
The line "We should capitulate to the EU because the US demands it" isn't one that persuades me.
Applying Dave's deal's terms to a possible Brexit and saying you would have accepted it is a category error. Or at least a very bad example.
It would be nice to try and implement common market terms with Singapore, Canada, Australia & NZ etc... With the former, the UK would certainly get access to a highly educated and dedicated workforce that would help open the economies of East Asia to UK business.
But perhaps Rory the Tory and his ilk are right. Just get Brexit done and worry about something else for a while.
All such co-operation ceased because the EU has decreed that it's impossible. Unlike having GPS control of every new car on every road in the EU by 2022, which will work flawlessly*.
*I'm aware the UK Government backs this. The EU are powerful bullshit merchants, but do not have a monopoly on supply.
People who can see into the minds of our politicians and determine so precisely what they will do and why.
Being able to judge motivations so clearly must make these people feel really special.
Shame that most of it is just people making stuff up to advance their own agenda.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RCtX03pT8Wc
This is why it is difficult for political comedians now. I also heard Richard Burgon talk about Labours immigration policy this morning is high was like the long Johns at their best. He was both for and against free movement depending on the whether it came under Labours policy which was ‘fair’ immigration:
https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/1113013763215708160
https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1113009963096473600
If Labour win, it is all down to the genius of Jeremy Corbyn holding his party together on Brexit. If they lose, it is all the fault of Milibandist, Blairite running dogs in the Taffia.
I did study Psychology at university...
I am only a leaver because being in the EU means FOM, I’d we could’ve opted out of that I’d have voted Remain.
Not really, I was using it to illustrate tothat I would accept soft Brexit under the then government rather than risk never leaving. Many people say Mays deal isbt Brexit either but I’d take it.
Even if you want to disregard that completely, then consider this:
The EU has said there'll be no hard border if we leave with no deal. If no hard border can be achieved without the backstop, why do they refuse to remove or amend the backstop?
If it's only to be temporary, why do they refuse a time limit and insist it can only be left with their permission?
And why does Varadkar go along with this, even though it's increased, dramatically, the chances of the UK leaving with no deal (which will either cause the hard border the backstop is meant to avoid *or* prove the backstop was never needed in the first place)?
Lining up on the cliffs at Saltdean near Brighton over the weekend, the 400-strong crowd used mirrors of all sizes to flash out the dot, dot dot, dash, dash, dash, dot, dot dot, in a "symbolic SOS call".
Also think she would rather do that than either No Deal or Revoke/2nd ref.
If you're only a leaver because of free movement, would you still think Brexit was worth it if the UK ends up with a relationship in which there is free movement?
But that there will be a hard border somewhere, probably in the Irish Sea.
https://www.thejournal.ie/david-davis-comments-brexit-3949438-Apr2018/
https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/991353277433483266
https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2019/0330/1039471-brexit-no-deal-tony-connelly/
But if you want a specific answer to your question go to the final few paragraphs.
Thanks to all for the advice.
I do not think there is any trade deal that could get through both Parliament and Congress.
ETA "not even wrong" means so misconceived that it is not possible to say it is right or wrong without your head exploding.
I have little faith left that they will act in the country’s interests.
I believe (as with the UK) that the EU is Ireland's main export market for seafood. What do Irish fishermen think should be done to protect that market?
But from the leaks this looks pretty damning especially in terms of national security . Can’t see May ex Home Secretary going against the advice of her national security adviser .
I have no time for May but she won’t put national security at risk and won’t do anything to put the Good Friday Agreement at risk either .
If we deliver Brexit, even with some no deal chaos, the party will survive. Perhaps we’ll go down to 35% or even 30% at the next general election, but we will clearly be the second-largest party in Parliament and the Official Opposition. With rebuilding and new leadership, we should be able to seriously challenge Labour after 1 or 2 elections.
If the party splits and we haemorrhage seats a la Canadian Tories in 1993, the path to power gets a lot blurrier and a Marxist-led Labour Party will be guaranteed 15+ years in office. That will inflict far more damage than a no-deal Brexit.
As far as the parliamentary split, that would seem to be a given, given what so many Cabinet ministers have said off the record.
A free trade agreement has nothing to do with whether Singaporean citizens, or anyone else, can settle in Britain.
The way it is behaving is making a Marxist-led government ever more likely. A Corbyn government inside the EU is one thing. One outside it is very much worse. One taking power in the aftermath of a messy No Deal exit, which is where the Tories are headed , will be interesting - and not in a good way.
The Tories - foolishly in my view - seem to think that Corbyn is the reason Labour won’t get into power. And yet everything they are doing makes it more likely that he will.
No doubt you find that a compelling message but the overwhelming majority who aren't in the death cult will not. Bear in mind also that the death cult is disproportionately comprised of pensioners, so it has a diminishing audience too.
https://twitter.com/Psythor/status/1113023602474041344