> @AndyJS said: > The Tories probably won't want the leadership voting among MPs to go on for more than 2 weeks, which would mean a maximum of 4 ballots. With so many candidates that'll mean a lot of pressure could be put on low-scoring candidates to pull out after the first round or second round to avoid a large number of rounds being necessary.
I don't think they've finalized the process yet - couldn't they run it faster? Winnow down to the top three in a single day - ballot, breakfast, ballot, elevenses, ballot, lunch, ballot, scones, ballot, dinner, ballot, pub. Then have a week for the survivors to do debates and things and argue about who gets voted off the island.
The surreal thing about this is that a referendum is the only known way to get the Conservative Party out of the treacle, and quite possibly total destruction. But nobody's allowed to say it.
I wonder if the leadership candidates are thinking it.
It must have crossed their minds. It might, and probably would, mean failing to deliver Brexit, but theyd hope the blame would fall on remain parties.
I think that optimistic. We were unable to stop them is not a point of strength.
> Given the losing side never really accepted the result of the last referendum why would the losing side accept this one?
They would, but you don't need to believe that, because it wouldn't be up to them. You do it the same way the AV referendum worked, with the referendum legislation legislating what happens in each case, so there's no need for any further parliamentary votes to make it happen. This works when, as now parliament is split into several mutually distrusting factions: The same thing that makes it hard to pass things makes it hard to reverse them.
I dont see why theyd make it binding even then. Sure remain think they'll win but they dont want to risk Brexit so should leave it open again.
> @kle4 said: > I dont see why theyd make it binding even then. Sure remain think they'll win but they dont want to risk Brexit so should leave it open again.
I think a binding referendum would be easier to pass, and also much easier for the PM to sell, since a lot of people on the Leave side will have the same take as @brendan16.
> @edmundintokyo said: > > @AndyJS said: > > The Tories probably won't want the leadership voting among MPs to go on for more than 2 weeks, which would mean a maximum of 4 ballots. With so many candidates that'll mean a lot of pressure could be put on low-scoring candidates to pull out after the first round or second round to avoid a large number of rounds being necessary. > > I don't think they've finalized the process yet - couldn't they run it faster? Winnow down to the top three in a single day - ballot, breakfast, ballot, elevenses, ballot, lunch, ballot, scones, ballot, dinner, ballot, pub. Then have a week for the survivors to do debates and things and argue about who gets voted off the island.
Of course the process could (and probably should) be quicker but a cynic might wonder if the rather drawn out and leisurely preliminary timetable was not insisted on by Theresa May as a condition of resignation, since she will remember it was her own three-week election that scuppered Cameron's intended last few months in Downing Street.
> @GIN1138 said: > > @rottenborough said: > > What a thread. BP stopped FB spending in last few days. Why? > > > > https://twitter.com/rowlsmanthorpe/status/1132760478218956800 > > Where's their money coming from that's what I'd like to know... > > On the hand look how much less Brexit Party spent yet everyone acknowledges their digital campaign has been brilliant.
Yeo. The less I see a party's adverts on social media, the more I actually want to vote for them......
> @dixiedean said: > > @AndyJS said: > > The Greens got more votes than the Tories and Labour if you exclude London. > > There has been a noticeable lack of comment here about that. I know an EU election is a free hit, but that was a great performance that seems to have gone under the radar.
It is a great performance by the greens but I am mildly sceptical about how much we can read into the Lab/Con meltdown in an election that became a quasi-referendum.
> @edmundintokyo said: > > @AndyJS said: > > The Tories probably won't want the leadership voting among MPs to go on for more than 2 weeks, which would mean a maximum of 4 ballots. With so many candidates that'll mean a lot of pressure could be put on low-scoring candidates to pull out after the first round or second round to avoid a large number of rounds being necessary. > > I don't think they've finalized the process yet - couldn't they run it faster? Winnow down to the top three in a single day - ballot, breakfast, ballot, elevenses, ballot, lunch, ballot, scones, ballot, dinner, ballot, pub. Then have a week for the survivors to do debates and things and argue about who gets voted off the island.
They could hold ballots 3 or 4 times a week instead of twice a week.
But as I said before I think if the first round looks something like this...
... it obviously means L gets eliminated, but also the candidates from E downwards would probably be expected to "strongly consider pulling out for the good of the party".
> @DecrepitJohnL said: > It is a great performance by the greens but I am mildly sceptical about how much we can read into the Lab/Con meltdown in an election that became a quasi-referendum.
That would be true if it only happened in Britain, but the Greens went up all over the place.
That would be true if it only happened in Britain, but the Greens went up all over the place.
And not just in Europe - 'the environment' was a major factor in former PM Tony Abbott losing his seat in the Australian Federal elections. I've been hearing "the Greens are coming" for over 30 years.....but this time....
Top reason for voting for party in EU Elections: Con: "Always voted for that party" (34) Lab: "Always voted for that Party" (36) LibD: "Best Policy on Brexit" (58) Brexit: "Show dissatisfaction with govt policy" (44) ChUK: "Best policy on Brexit" (26) SNP: "Always voted for that Party" (30) Green: "Best Policy on Brexit" (22)
Clearly the LibDems had great cut-through behind a simple message -much more so than ChUK (58 vs 26) while the three biggest parties relied on inertia, and the Brexit party had a large chunk of 'protest vote' - even when looking at 'Top 3' reasons ' Dissatisfaction' still beat 'Best policy on Brexit' (84 vs 76).
On 'Leadership' there's a clear winner - Sturgeon 'Best Leadership of the Parties on Offer' (Top 3) : 49 vs May 26, Corbyn 31, Farage 31, Vince 14, ChUK 11.
> @nunuone said: > > @GIN1138 said: > > > @rottenborough said: > > > What a thread. BP stopped FB spending in last few days. Why? > > > > > > https://twitter.com/rowlsmanthorpe/status/1132760478218956800 > > > > Where's their money coming from that's what I'd like to know... > > > > On the hand look how much less Brexit Party spent yet everyone acknowledges their digital campaign has been brilliant. > > Yeo. The less I see a party's adverts on social media, the more I actually want to vote for them......
I think there's surely a fairly simple reason for this - Change UK are the only one of the parties that didn't really have a Facebook/social media structure of support to disseminate their campaign materials. The BXP had loads of existing likes from both UKIP and Leave.EU - it had done the big spend in the referendum and since (and I think when it launched) so didn't need to this time,
> @edmundintokyo said: > > @DecrepitJohnL said: > > It is a great performance by the greens but I am mildly sceptical about how much we can read into the Lab/Con meltdown in an election that became a quasi-referendum. > > That would be true if it only happened in Britain, but the Greens went up all over the place.
Yes, the greens did well. This also fits with greater public concern about plastics, recycling and the growth of veganism, so there are grounds for taking this at face value.
What I am sceptical about is writing off Lab/Con whose ambiguous positions made the major parties irrelevant in a de facto referendum.
> @Casino_Royale said: > I also think Hunt will have now injured himself: he's gone Remainer > Born-again hard Brexiteer > No Deal would be a catastrophe. > > He'll wake up all the fears amongst pro-Brexit MPs and members that he's just another May. > > Although it might help him in the MP rounds it won't help him unite the party if he does win.
Who cares? Or rather, does anyone care? Will any members be voting for who can best unite the party, and how would they know? If Hunt can get MPs wondering what happens next after no deal, he might win. Or he might help the Brexiteer with the most convincing answer, because Hunt himself does not seem to have moved very far beyond posing the question.
It is an important question and one that deserves to be answered rather than shrugged off as Project Fear or with bland assurances that planes will keep flying. Are WTO terms the end goal of no deal, or just a transition state? If the latter, transition to where?
But our task as punters is to bet on who will win, not who should win.
> @DecrepitJohnL said: > > @Casino_Royale said: > > I also think Hunt will have now injured himself: he's gone Remainer > Born-again hard Brexiteer > No Deal would be a catastrophe. > > > > He'll wake up all the fears amongst pro-Brexit MPs and members that he's just another May. > > > > Although it might help him in the MP rounds it won't help him unite the party if he does win. > > Who cares? Or rather, does anyone care? Will any members be voting for who can best unite the party, and how would they know? If Hunt can get MPs wondering what happens next after no deal, he might win. Or he might help the Brexiteer with the most convincing answer, because Hunt himself does not seem to have moved very far beyond posing the question. > > It is an important question and one that deserves to be answered rather than shrugged off as Project Fear or with bland assurances that planes will keep flying. Are WTO terms the end goal of no deal, or just a transition state? If the latter, transition to where? > > But our task as punters is to bet on who will win, not who should win.
More to the point, his stance further undermines Boris’s credibility in the eyes of both MPs and the public, hopefully leaving the Tories’ obsessive membership out in the cold.
> @rottenborough said: > The surreal thing about this is that a referendum is the only known way to get the Conservative Party out of the treacle, and quite possibly total destruction. But nobody's allowed to say it. > > > > I wonder if the leadership candidates are thinking it. > > The trick is to engineer HoC forcing you to have a 2nd vote, rather than proposing one.
Well that's nearly every MP's attitude to Brexit - wanting things to happen without their fingerprints on them.
> @DecrepitJohnL said: > > @edmundintokyo said: > > > @DecrepitJohnL said: > > > It is a great performance by the greens but I am mildly sceptical about how much we can read into the Lab/Con meltdown in an election that became a quasi-referendum. > > > > That would be true if it only happened in Britain, but the Greens went up all over the place. > > Yes, the greens did well. This also fits with greater public concern about plastics, recycling and the growth of veganism, so there are grounds for taking this at face value. > > What I am sceptical about is writing off Lab/Con whose ambiguous positions made the major parties irrelevant in a de facto referendum. > >
The most striking finding in the Ashcroft poll cited downthread is that so many of the switchers are saying they will stick to their new choice in a general election, especially on the Lab to LibDem side but also many Tory to BXP’ers. While saying it now and sticking to it when the time comes are different things, it does illustrate the depth of disillusion with the two main parties. In Scotland, the number one reason for switching to the SNP was given as their competence, which underlined how Tory and Labour are driving voters in their direction as a result of their own lack of it.
I also notice that while Ashcroft did find that concern for green issues was the number one reason for switching to Green, opposition to Brexit was the number two issue. The Greens also had the greatest number of switchers making their decision only at the last minute.
> > I also think Hunt will have now injured himself: he's gone Remainer > Born-again hard Brexiteer > No Deal would be a catastrophe.
> >
> > He'll wake up all the fears amongst pro-Brexit MPs and members that he's just another May.
> >
> > Although it might help him in the MP rounds it won't help him unite the party if he does win.
>
> Who cares? Or rather, does anyone care? Will any members be voting for who can best unite the party, and how would they know? If Hunt can get MPs wondering what happens next after no deal, he might win. Or he might help the Brexiteer with the most convincing answer, because Hunt himself does not seem to have moved very far beyond posing the question.
>
> It is an important question and one that deserves to be answered rather than shrugged off as Project Fear or with bland assurances that planes will keep flying. Are WTO terms the end goal of no deal, or just a transition state? If the latter, transition to where?
>
> But our task as punters is to bet on who will win, not who should win.
More to the point, his stance further undermines Boris’s credibility in the eyes of both MPs and the public, hopefully leaving the Tories’ obsessive membership out in the cold.
There’s too much stereotyping of the Tory membership going on.
They’ll want someone who can deliver on Brexit, yes, but above all they’ll want to vote for a winner.
> @CarlottaVance said: > Interesting stuff in the Ashcroft poll: > > Top reason for voting for party in EU Elections: > Con: "Always voted for that party" (34) > Lab: "Always voted for that Party" (36) > LibD: "Best Policy on Brexit" (58) > Brexit: "Show dissatisfaction with govt policy" (44) > ChUK: "Best policy on Brexit" (26) > SNP: "Always voted for that Party" (30) > Green: "Best Policy on Brexit" (22) > > Clearly the LibDems had great cut-through behind a simple message -much more so than ChUK (58 vs 26) while the three biggest parties relied on inertia, and the Brexit party had a large chunk of 'protest vote' - even when looking at 'Top 3' reasons ' Dissatisfaction' still beat 'Best policy on Brexit' (84 vs 76). > > On 'Leadership' there's a clear winner - Sturgeon 'Best Leadership of the Parties on Offer' (Top 3) : 49 vs May 26, Corbyn 31, Farage 31, Vince 14, ChUK 11.
Inertia clearly doesn’t work any more! Our recent politics summed up in a sentence.
As I said yesterday, you do wonder what would happen if the SNP copied Italy’s Lega, which started as a northern Italian Independence Party (Lega Nord) them changed tack and went national. People are crying out for some sense and competence from their politicians, which is in short supply at Westminster.
I was listening to a conversation between three elderly female dog owners on poling day, all of whom had already voted BXP. One was clearly very motivated by wanting to leave the EU, but the other two explained their vote as a protest and made comments about how everything was a shambles and the politicians were all useless. It was like hearing two different conversations with the anti-EU lady trying desperately to turn to the evils of the EU whilst the other two just wanted to talk about how our politics has all gone to crap.
> I also think Hunt will have now injured himself: he's gone Remainer > Born-again hard Brexiteer > No Deal would be a catastrophe.
>
> He'll wake up all the fears amongst pro-Brexit MPs and members that he's just another May.
>
> Although it might help him in the MP rounds it won't help him unite the party if he does win.
Who cares? Or rather, does anyone care? Will any members be voting for who can best unite the party, and how would they know? If Hunt can get MPs wondering what happens next after no deal, he might win. Or he might help the Brexiteer with the most convincing answer, because Hunt himself does not seem to have moved very far beyond posing the question.
It is an important question and one that deserves to be answered rather than shrugged off as Project Fear or with bland assurances that planes will keep flying. Are WTO terms the end goal of no deal, or just a transition state? If the latter, transition to where?
But our task as punters is to bet on who will win, not who should win.
I share my view of the candidates as I see it.
I have a lot of money at stake on the race and I’m interested in understanding who will win.
I do also have a view on who should win (or rather, who shouldn’t) and I’m usually clear in making those opinions separate.
There's an assumption that the next Prime Minister will be chosen from the longlist of Conservative candidates.
But this isn't necessarily true.
At any point in the proceedings it is perfectly possible for a Vote of No Confidence to be tabled in the Commons. At the moment that would most likely fail. But suppose we reach a point where the only remaining candidates are all proposing a No Deal Brexit? Or supposing it seems inevitable that Boris would win from a shortlist? Then I think it's entirely conceivable that the one nation Tories would decide to pull the plug. The dissolution of Parliament could precede the Tory election result.
Which could mean the next PM coming from an entirely different party.
> @Casino_Royale said: > > @DecrepitJohnL said: > > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > I also think Hunt will have now injured himself: he's gone Remainer > Born-again hard Brexiteer > No Deal would be a catastrophe. > > > > > > > > He'll wake up all the fears amongst pro-Brexit MPs and members that he's just another May. > > > > > > > > Although it might help him in the MP rounds it won't help him unite the party if he does win. > > > > > > Who cares? Or rather, does anyone care? Will any members be voting for who can best unite the party, and how would they know? If Hunt can get MPs wondering what happens next after no deal, he might win. Or he might help the Brexiteer with the most convincing answer, because Hunt himself does not seem to have moved very far beyond posing the question. > > > > > > It is an important question and one that deserves to be answered rather than shrugged off as Project Fear or with bland assurances that planes will keep flying. Are WTO terms the end goal of no deal, or just a transition state? If the latter, transition to where? > > > > > > But our task as punters is to bet on who will win, not who should win. > > > > More to the point, his stance further undermines Boris’s credibility in the eyes of both MPs and the public, hopefully leaving the Tories’ obsessive membership out in the cold. > > There’s too much stereotyping of the Tory membership going on. > > They’ll want someone who can deliver on Brexit, yes, but above all they’ll want to vote for a winner.
...slipping quietly over the probable incompatibility between those two. Delivering Brexit will likely finish the Tories’ chances of winning.
Certainly the most interesting position adopted in the leadership contest so far. I'm mildly surprised (I would've guessed Hunt would support a/the deal whilst keeping no deal as an option).
It's beginning to look most unlikely that Brexit is going to happen. There's no majority for it among the MPs and now we know there's almost certainly no majority for it among the voters.
I would also say the chances of a majority Labour or Tory government within the next three years is almost zero. For the Tories probably forever.
> @Mysticrose said: > A word of caution. > > There's an assumption that the next Prime Minister will be chosen from the longlist of Conservative candidates. > > But this isn't necessarily true. > > At any point in the proceedings it is perfectly possible for a Vote of No Confidence to be tabled in the Commons. At the moment that would most likely fail. But suppose we reach a point where the only remaining candidates are all proposing a No Deal Brexit? Or supposing it seems inevitable that Boris would win from a shortlist? Then I think it's entirely conceivable that the one nation Tories would decide to pull the plug. The dissolution of Parliament could precede the Tory election result. > > Which could mean the next PM coming from an entirely different party.
Or indeed a different PM before an election, to push through a further extension, or referendum.
I wonder why Labour use so many spokespeople-nearly always female-who sound completely stupid? They have plenty of articulate MPs so it's clearly a choice someone is making. Anyone who uses the word 'PARTY' where the 'r' and 't' is silent is going to sound stupid.
The one I'm listening at the moment thinks Labour did well in the Euros!
> @Morris_Dancer said: > Good morning, everyone. > > Certainly the most interesting position adopted in the leadership contest so far. I'm mildly surprised (I would've guessed Hunt would support a/the deal whilst keeping no deal as an option).
In a crowded field where a handful of votes could avoid early elimination, there is huge pressure to be distinctive, and a lot of competition for publicity and air time.
> @Casino_Royale said: > Betfair still haven’t paid out on the EU parliamentary elections, I see..
I was paid on Thursday about whether it would happen and yesterday on the seat outcomes. I guess they are just waiting for final confirmation on the votes.
> @murali_s said: > > @Chris said: > > > @HYUFD said: > > > https://twitter.com/ZacGoldsmith/status/1133142055385993216?s=20 > > > > Surely Zac Goldsmith should understand by now what the point of Lib Dem leaflets is! > > Not the brightest pea in the pod (like the majority of Tories). Thank God he'll be toast when the next GE happens later this year!
> @IanB2 said: > > @Casino_Royale said: > > Betfair still haven’t paid out on the EU parliamentary elections, I see.. > > > I was paid on Thursday about whether it would happen and yesterday on the seat outcomes. I guess they are just waiting for final confirmation on the votes.
I had to prompt Betfair on Thursday to settle the market on whether the EU election would happen.
> > > I also think Hunt will have now injured himself: he's gone Remainer > Born-again hard Brexiteer > No Deal would be a catastrophe.
>
> > >
>
> > > He'll wake up all the fears amongst pro-Brexit MPs and members that he's just another May.
>
> > >
>
> > > Although it might help him in the MP rounds it won't help him unite the party if he does win.
>
> >
>
> > Who cares? Or rather, does anyone care? Will any members be voting for who can best unite the party, and how would they know? If Hunt can get MPs wondering what happens next after no deal, he might win. Or he might help the Brexiteer with the most convincing answer, because Hunt himself does not seem to have moved very far beyond posing the question.
>
> >
>
> > It is an important question and one that deserves to be answered rather than shrugged off as Project Fear or with bland assurances that planes will keep flying. Are WTO terms the end goal of no deal, or just a transition state? If the latter, transition to where?
>
> >
>
> > But our task as punters is to bet on who will win, not who should win.
>
>
>
> More to the point, his stance further undermines Boris’s credibility in the eyes of both MPs and the public, hopefully leaving the Tories’ obsessive membership out in the cold.
>
> There’s too much stereotyping of the Tory membership going on.
>
> They’ll want someone who can deliver on Brexit, yes, but above all they’ll want to vote for a winner.
...slipping quietly over the probable incompatibility between those two. Delivering Brexit will likely finish the Tories’ chances of winning.
No, I don’t think so.
A No Deal Brexit, perhaps, but that’s very different from a WA with a transition and comprehensive final FTA.
> Betfair still haven’t paid out on the EU parliamentary elections, I see..
I was paid on Thursday about whether it would happen and yesterday on the seat outcomes. I guess they are just waiting for final confirmation on the votes.
Those already exist. Ladbrokes and Sky paid out on theirs yesterday.
In a crowded field where a handful of votes could avoid early elimination, there is huge pressure to be distinctive, and a lot of competition for publicity and air time.
S/Lt (Acting) Mordaunt has been rigged for silent running for some time now. I wonder when she'll surface and hoist colours.
> @Casino_Royale said: > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > @DecrepitJohnL said: > > > > > > > > @Casino_Royale said: > > > > > > > > I also think Hunt will have now injured himself: he's gone Remainer > Born-again hard Brexiteer > No Deal would be a catastrophe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He'll wake up all the fears amongst pro-Brexit MPs and members that he's just another May. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although it might help him in the MP rounds it won't help him unite the party if he does win. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who cares? Or rather, does anyone care? Will any members be voting for who can best unite the party, and how would they know? If Hunt can get MPs wondering what happens next after no deal, he might win. Or he might help the Brexiteer with the most convincing answer, because Hunt himself does not seem to have moved very far beyond posing the question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is an important question and one that deserves to be answered rather than shrugged off as Project Fear or with bland assurances that planes will keep flying. Are WTO terms the end goal of no deal, or just a transition state? If the latter, transition to where? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But our task as punters is to bet on who will win, not who should win. > > > > > > > > > > > > More to the point, his stance further undermines Boris’s credibility in the eyes of both MPs and the public, hopefully leaving the Tories’ obsessive membership out in the cold. > > > > > > There’s too much stereotyping of the Tory membership going on. > > > > > > They’ll want someone who can deliver on Brexit, yes, but above all they’ll want to vote for a winner. > > > > ...slipping quietly over the probable incompatibility between those two. Delivering Brexit will likely finish the Tories’ chances of winning. > > No, I don’t think so. > > A No Deal Brexit, perhaps, but that’s very different from a WA with a transition and comprehensive final FTA.
Curtice has just been on R4 making the point that the former Tory fantasy of an election win followed by a ‘proper’ Brexit is now off the table, and so any Brexit has to be delivered through the current parliament. That means either a crash out - seriously bad news for the Tories as you concede - or no Brexit, also bad news for the Tories as they will share the blame and leavers will go straight to Farage - or the sort of sensible Brexit that you envisage, that would be opposed by a majority of Tory members, and fuel the Tory civil war and betrayal narrative.
I am struggling to see any of those leading to a Tory majority thereafter?
Mr. B2, true, but also a sense that anyone who wants to end up winning must be tougher (in a no deal way) than their opponent in the final two. As a frontrunner, it's still significant from Hunt.
Listening to Labour leaver Lisa Nandy on the radio today, expressing dismay at the growth in support for no deal, impossible to think otherwise than what did she expect ?
Her reason for not voting for May’s deal - ‘there were insufficient guarantees’ - rather misses the point that there are no guarantees with Brexit. And certainly no hope of any at all with no deal.
So who else is left? James Cleverly? Steve Baker? Graham Brady? Priti Patel? Jesse Norman? Tom Tugendhat? There’s no candidate yet for unreconciled Remainer Tories, and that looks to be an omission.
> @Mysticrose said: > Which could mean the next PM coming from an entirely different party.
Yup. The problem is that apart from the obvious possibility of Corbyn, there are lots of different potential caretakers. If the idea is to stop No Deal until there's a new election they could do a Tory like Grieve or Letwin, or Ken Clarke as elder statesman, or a respected competent Labour non-Corbynist like Yvette Cooper, or maybe an ex-party-leader like Ed "Chaos" Miliband or Vince Cable...
> @Morris_Dancer said: > Mr. B2, true, but also a sense that anyone who wants to end up winning must be tougher (in a no deal way) than their opponent in the final two. As a frontrunner, it's still significant from Hunt.
The stance to get through the MPs is not the same as that needed for the members, for sure! So the winner may be the one most deft and nimble at adapting as things go along.
> @MJW said: > > @nunuone said: > > > @GIN1138 said: > > > > @rottenborough said: > > > > What a thread. BP stopped FB spending in last few days. Why? > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/rowlsmanthorpe/status/1132760478218956800 > > > > > > Where's their money coming from that's what I'd like to know... > > > > > > On the hand look how much less Brexit Party spent yet everyone acknowledges their digital campaign has been brilliant. > > > > Yeo. The less I see a party's adverts on social media, the more I actually want to vote for them...... > > I think there's surely a fairly simple reason for this - Change UK are the only one of the parties that didn't really have a Facebook/social media structure of support to disseminate their campaign materials. The BXP had loads of existing likes from both UKIP and Leave.EU - it had done the big spend in the referendum and since (and I think when it launched) so didn't need to this time,
Also £130 000 is not that much money, and CUK lack the membership and infrastructure on the ground to get their message across by other means. Couple that with inept messaging and media strategy and there is no need to look further for a reason.
> @Nigelb said: > Listening to Labour leaver Lisa Nandy on the radio today, expressing dismay at the growth in support for no deal, impossible to think otherwise than what did she expect ? > > Her reason for not voting for May’s deal - ‘there were insufficient guarantees’ - rather misses the point that there are no guarantees with Brexit. And certainly no hope of any at all with no deal.
Doesn’t she mean guarantees that the new PM won’t trash anything that they had agreed?
> @IanB2 said: > The stance to get through the MPs is not the same as that needed for the members, for sure! So the winner may be the one most deft and nimble at adapting as things go along.
This is the argument for Boris: He'll say whatever he needs to to get past the members, but the MPs will know that whatever he says he's lying.
The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path.
If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated.
The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't.
> @Morris_Dancer said: > Mr. Meeks, Mordaunt. > > A hardline Remainer might feel they'd have no hope and take votes from a middle ground candidate, hence it's not worth standing.
How remiss of me to overlook the Cabinet’s most shameless liar. The contest would not be complete without her.
> @IanB2 said: > > @Nigelb said: > > Listening to Labour leaver Lisa Nandy on the radio today, expressing dismay at the growth in support for no deal, impossible to think otherwise than what did she expect ? > > > > Her reason for not voting for May’s deal - ‘there were insufficient guarantees’ - rather misses the point that there are no guarantees with Brexit. And certainly no hope of any at all with no deal. > > Doesn’t she mean guarantees that the new PM won’t trash anything that they had agreed?
What she means is pretty well irrelevant. As David points out below, if you are a leaver and reject the only deal on offer, then no deal is the inevitable result if you also utterly reject, as she does, the possibility of remaining.
> @DavidL said: > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path. > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated. > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't. > >
That’s not Hunt’s problem, that is the whole problem. The current parliament will always block no deal (which actually requires a raft of legislation, as explained yesterday by Evan Davis). Any viable deal requires significant Labour support, which the Tories will not contemplate. And an election is too risky. Leaving no Brexit or another referendum as the only achievable escapes.
> @DavidL said: > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path. > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated. > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't. > >
Part of the reason that negotiations with Labour foundered (apart from Mrs May's lack of people skills) is that Labour could not agree a deal with a PM with a political longevity measured in days. If Hunt was actually chosen by MPs and members, he could agree that PD with Labour, to get that through.
Saying No Deal is a negotiating position is asinine, and it always was. It is a departure without a destination and requires a multiplicity of mini deals, starting with the three issues of the WA.
A very hard WTO Brexit plan was possible 3 years ago, but it would have needed an acceptance of realities, such as a NI border or an Irish Sea one, a need for massive construction and recruitment for customs as well as a plan to restructure the manufacturing economy. The Tories were not willing to either face those realities or do the hard yards.
> @IanB2 said: > > @DavidL said: > > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path. > > > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated. > > > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't. > > > > > > That’s not Hunt’s problem, that is the whole problem. The current parliament will always block no deal (which actually requires a raft of legislation, as explained yesterday by Evan Davis). Any viable deal requires significant Labour support, which the Tories will not contemplate. And an election is too risky. Leaving no Brexit or another referendum as the only achievable escapes.
Boris is ever the pragmatist, and also enjoys surprising people. I could see him backing a referendum in some scenarios, and shocking his base.
> > I do wish all these Tories desperate for a No Deal exit would actually explain to us in some detail what will happen when overnight we become a third country as far as the EU is concerned and fall out of all the agreements we have been part of for the last 46 years (about 700 of them) not all of which will relate to trade.
>
> >
>
> > What is the plan? They do have a plan, don’t they?
>
>
>
> Well you renegotiate them and still aim for a FTA with the EU.
>
>
>
> However the civil service have had 3 years to prepare for all this
>
> Do you have any idea how long it takes to renegotiate 700 agreements?
>
> How many have been renegotiated so far?
>
> What happens in the meanwhile?
Show trials of civil servants, by the sound of it.
It does now rather feel that the only reason to do Brexit is to save the Tory party. And that in order to save themselves they are quite prepared to inflict any amount of damage on the country and, indeed, on the EU. And then, bless, renegotiate all these agreements they’ve just torn up and get an FTA as well.
Because the voters told them to it
“we screwed up the implementation” is just a reason to immolate the Tory party not to revisit the decision
Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament.
I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
> > Thatcher would not have been very good in a Hung Parliament . She was far too divisive and few non-Tories would have supported her. Just imagine the problems she would have encountered with the 'Wets' on her own side without a secure majority to impose her will.
>
> She would never have been in a hung Parliament in the first place as lest we forget The Blessed Margaret knew how to win elections with majorities.
She was lucky her opposition was divided by the Alliance in 1983 and 1987. Mrs May won a similar vote share in 2017 to her - but unluckily for her that didn't happen as the LD vote had collapsed. 43% can deliver a 140 seat majority - or no majority at all under our wonderful system!
That’s as it should be
If there are two parties and one wins 51 vs 49 there should be a small majority
If there are 10 parties and one wins 51 with all the others getting about 5% each then arguably there should be a big majority
In a crowded field where a handful of votes could avoid early elimination, there is huge pressure to be distinctive, and a lot of competition for publicity and air time.
S/Lt (Acting) Mordaunt has been rigged for silent running for some time now. I wonder when she'll surface and hoist colours.
Out of curiosity, why do you mock Mordaunt for claiming she was in the Navy Reserve, when she was, and never seem to criticise Thornberry for having claimed to be an army colonel when she wasn't?
> @WhisperingOracle said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > @DavidL said: > > > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path. > > > > > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated. > > > > > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't. > > > > > > > > > > That’s not Hunt’s problem, that is the whole problem. The current parliament will always block no deal (which actually requires a raft of legislation, as explained yesterday by Evan Davis). Any viable deal requires significant Labour support, which the Tories will not contemplate. And an election is too risky. Leaving no Brexit or another referendum as the only achievable escapes. > > Boris is ever the pragmatist, and also enjoys surprising people. I could see him backing a referendum in some scenarios, and shocking his base.
Since every leader seems to get a good if not necessarily long honeymoon, doing it quickly could actually be quite clever.
> @Jonathan said: > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament. > > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
Which they won’t get - even were they to be offering any such thing.
> @Jonathan said: > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament. > > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
The only clear mandate to rival the Brexit party - no-deal - woud make the Tories split. So that only leaves a referendum, in the hope they could get a mandate for it.
> @Cyclefree said: > I do wish all these Tories desperate for a No Deal exit would actually explain to us in some detail what will happen when overnight we become a third country as far as the EU is concerned and fall out of all the agreements we have been part of for the last 46 years (about 700 of them) not all of which will relate to trade. > > What is the plan? They do have a plan, don’t they?
The lack of planning was a major failure on the part of the government and undermined their negotiating position. It is possible that they might have got a deal without the backstop had they looked even vaguely serious about preparing for no deal at any point but they didn't.
The answer to your question is complicated but the broad strokes would be that we would be looking for mini deals to keep things moving. We have them already in a series of areas such as transport but we would need more. We would also need to act unilaterally in a series of areas that would have been covered by the agreement. Gove's move yesterday in respect of citizenship for EU citizens, was a good and imaginative response to one of the problems.
One of the areas we would need to act unilaterally would be to undertake to pay all of the liabilities we have agreed that we have in May's agreement. To fail to do so would make relationships much, much more difficult. One of the lies told by the enthusiasts for no deal is that these payments are a gift. They are not.
In summary no deal would look an awful lot like May's deal in many respects but without the transition arrangements (which are desirable) except to the extent that we can agree them individually. There is a risk of some disruption but there would also be an urgency to having a trade deal with the EU which the transitional provisions might postpone. Again, I suspect that that trade deal is going to look very like May's deal.
> @Nigelb said: > > @Jonathan said: > > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament. > > > > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution. > > Which they won’t get - even were they to be offering any such thing. > >
I’m not so sure. If someone has a route of this hell, I suspect enough people will follow. The aggressive move would be to go for an election to decide who delivers a post no deal settlement and time the election such that Oct 31 becomes a fait accompli.
> @Jonathan said: > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament. > > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
But they won't win that election as Nigel will either split the vote by taking the "must leave" vote or were the Tories to placate Nigel the Tories will lose the moderate vote
Either way without May and the sympathy some had with her (at least this may work) solution there is zero chance of the Conservative party winning any near future election.
> @DavidL said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > I do wish all these Tories desperate for a No Deal exit would actually explain to us in some detail what will happen when overnight we become a third country as far as the EU is concerned and fall out of all the agreements we have been part of for the last 46 years (about 700 of them) not all of which will relate to trade. > > > > What is the plan? They do have a plan, don’t they? > > The lack of planning was a major failure on the part of the government and undermined their negotiating position. It is possible that they might have got a deal without the backstop had they looked even vaguely serious about preparing for no deal at any point but they didn't. > > The answer to your question is complicated but the broad strokes would be that we would be looking for mini deals to keep things moving. We have them already in a series of areas such as transport but we would need more. We would also need to act unilaterally in a series of areas that would have been covered by the agreement. Gove's move yesterday in respect of citizenship for EU citizens, was a good and imaginative response to one of the problems. > > One of the areas we would need to act unilaterally would be to undertake to pay all of the liabilities we have agreed that we have in May's agreement. To fail to do so would make relationships much, much more difficult. One of the lies told by the enthusiasts for no deal is that these payments are a gift. They are not. > > In summary no deal would look an awful lot like May's deal in many respects but without the transition arrangements (which are desirable) except to the extent that we can agree them individually. There is a risk of some disruption but there would also be an urgency to having a trade deal with the EU which the transitional provisions might postpone. Again, I suspect that that trade deal is going to look very like May's deal. >
Do you really imagine that any administration pushing through no deal would be so pragmatic ? Even if it were to command a parliamentary majority...
Such an approach would be labelled betrayal by most proponents of no deal.
> @Jonathan said: > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament. > > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
> @Jonathan said: > > @Nigelb said: > > > @Jonathan said: > > > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament. > > > > > > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution. > > > > Which they won’t get - even were they to be offering any such thing. > > > > > > I’m not so sure. If someone has a route of this hell, I suspect enough people will follow. The aggressive move would be to go for an election to decide who delivers a post no deal settlement and time the election such that Oct 31 becomes a fait accompli. >
> @Charles said: > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > > > > I do wish all these Tories desperate for a No Deal exit would actually explain to us in some detail what will happen when overnight we become a third country as far as the EU is concerned and fall out of all the agreements we have been part of for the last 46 years (about 700 of them) not all of which will relate to trade. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the plan? They do have a plan, don’t they? > > > > > > > > > > > > Well you renegotiate them and still aim for a FTA with the EU. > > > > > > > > > > > > However the civil service have had 3 years to prepare for all this > > > > > > Do you have any idea how long it takes to renegotiate 700 agreements? > > > > > > How many have been renegotiated so far? > > > > > > What happens in the meanwhile? > > > > Show trials of civil servants, by the sound of it. > > It does now rather feel that the only reason to do Brexit is to save the Tory party. And that in order to save themselves they are quite prepared to inflict any amount of damage on the country and, indeed, on the EU. And then, bless, renegotiate all these agreements they’ve just torn up and get an FTA as well. > > > > Because the voters told them to it > > “we screwed up the implementation” is just a reason to immolate the Tory party not to revisit the decision
In my world "we screwed up the implementation" is a completely valid reason to reset things and that would mean revisiting the original decision once we have identified the lessons learnt.
> @Jonathan said: > If you go to the country immediately you force MPs to quit or stand on your manifesto. Most MPs will cling to nanny.
There is no way the Tories can make a unified choice between a deal or no deal. And no way they can contemplate an election when huge chunks of their former supporters are saying they will stick with the BXP and the LibDems.
Re below, as it is the Brexit party would mash the Tories, or at least put a huge dent into their seats. They would need some very clear distinguishing or competing factor with Farage's Brexit-in-all-cases , and they don't have anything like that so far .
> @kle4 said: > > @Philip_Thompson said: > > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > Claiming that the messiest and most chaotic of all possible Brexits is a 'clean' Brexit is wondrously 1984ish. > > > > A clean break is a long established term not Newspeak. > > If people are going to criticise people's vote as a term, which is reasonable, using clean break can also be criticised for the same reasoning. Defending one and not the other, when bother are trying to present a partisan friendly approach, is a sure sign of the attacks on the other being nothing but political. It certainly has not been the most commonly used term for no deal until recently, which indicates an attempt to change the messaging.
The criticism of people's vote normally is that we already have had one. That doesn't apply to a clean break.
> @IanB2 said: > > @DavidL said: > > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path. > > > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated. > > > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't. > > > > > > That’s not Hunt’s problem, that is the whole problem. The current parliament will always block no deal (which actually requires a raft of legislation, as explained yesterday by Evan Davis). Any viable deal requires significant Labour support, which the Tories will not contemplate. And an election is too risky. Leaving no Brexit or another referendum as the only achievable escapes.
What legislation? The EU Withdrawal Act is already on the statute book (MV and all). That contains most of the Henry VIII powers that would allow Ministers to legislate where required. Some of these are subject to Commons approval but are MPs really going to leave us with no legislative framework at all?
Of course the failure to pass the relevant legislation when Parliament has been doing the square root of hee haw for 2 years now is another major failure on May's part. Such legislation should have been passed but not brought into effect unless required. It was so obvious but she couldn't see an alternative to her deal and everyone was going to compromise/agree with her eventually, weren't they?
> @Nigelb said: > > @DavidL said: > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > I do wish all these Tories desperate for a No Deal exit would actually explain to us in some detail what will happen when overnight we become a third country as far as the EU is concerned and fall out of all the agreements we have been part of for the last 46 years (about 700 of them) not all of which will relate to trade. > > > > > > What is the plan? They do have a plan, don’t they? > > > > The lack of planning was a major failure on the part of the government and undermined their negotiating position. It is possible that they might have got a deal without the backstop had they looked even vaguely serious about preparing for no deal at any point but they didn't. > > > > The answer to your question is complicated but the broad strokes would be that we would be looking for mini deals to keep things moving. We have them already in a series of areas such as transport but we would need more. We would also need to act unilaterally in a series of areas that would have been covered by the agreement. Gove's move yesterday in respect of citizenship for EU citizens, was a good and imaginative response to one of the problems. > > > > One of the areas we would need to act unilaterally would be to undertake to pay all of the liabilities we have agreed that we have in May's agreement. To fail to do so would make relationships much, much more difficult. One of the lies told by the enthusiasts for no deal is that these payments are a gift. They are not. > > > > In summary no deal would look an awful lot like May's deal in many respects but without the transition arrangements (which are desirable) except to the extent that we can agree them individually. There is a risk of some disruption but there would also be an urgency to having a trade deal with the EU which the transitional provisions might postpone. Again, I suspect that that trade deal is going to look very like May's deal. > > > > Do you really imagine that any administration pushing through no deal would be so pragmatic ? Even if it were to command a parliamentary majority... > > Such an approach would be labelled betrayal by most proponents of no deal. > >
While we in desperation might have some urgency in getting a trade deal with the EU why / how would the EU have the same urgency...
One of the biggest screw ups we have done with Brexit is not thinking about how the other half will think...
> @ydoethur said: > In a crowded field where a handful of votes could avoid early elimination, there is huge pressure to be distinctive, and a lot of competition for publicity and air time. > > S/Lt (Acting) Mordaunt has been rigged for silent running for some time now. I wonder when she'll surface and hoist colours. > > Out of curiosity, why do you mock Mordaunt for claiming she was in the Navy Reserve, when she was, and never seem to criticise Thornberry for having claimed to be an army colonel when she wasn't?
or Francois for claiming to be a "veteran" when he was briefly in the TA?
> @Philip_Thompson said: > > @kle4 said: > > > @Philip_Thompson said: > > > > @Richard_Nabavi said: > > > > Claiming that the messiest and most chaotic of all possible Brexits is a 'clean' Brexit is wondrously 1984ish. > > > > > > A clean break is a long established term not Newspeak. > > > > If people are going to criticise people's vote as a term, which is reasonable, using clean break can also be criticised for the same reasoning. Defending one and not the other, when bother are trying to present a partisan friendly approach, is a sure sign of the attacks on the other being nothing but political. It certainly has not been the most commonly used term for no deal until recently, which indicates an attempt to change the messaging. > > The criticism of people's vote normally is that we already have had one. That doesn't apply to a clean break.
It may be a break but it wont be clean.
It's all Blair's fault; after trashing anything became "modernisation", there was no going back.
> @Foxy said: > > @DavidL said: > > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path. > > > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated. > > > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't. > > > > > > Part of the reason that negotiations with Labour foundered (apart from Mrs May's lack of people skills) is that Labour could not agree a deal with a PM with a political longevity measured in days. If Hunt was actually chosen by MPs and members, he could agree that PD with Labour, to get that through. > > Saying No Deal is a negotiating position is asinine, and it always was. It is a departure without a destination and requires a multiplicity of mini deals, starting with the three issues of the WA. > > A very hard WTO Brexit plan was possible 3 years ago, but it would have needed an acceptance of realities, such as a NI border or an Irish Sea one, a need for massive construction and recruitment for customs as well as a plan to restructure the manufacturing economy. The Tories were not willing to either face those realities or do the hard yards.
Whilst preparation in terms of infrastructure etc would have been sensible (and was blocked by Hammond) I think you exaggerate the difficulties. If we choose to accept that lorries from the EU carry goods that meet our (EU) standards that is a matter for us. If we choose not to apply tariffs ditto. There's a lot we can do unilaterally. It is then up to the EU to decide if they want the problems at their end.
> @Foxy said: > > @DavidL said: > > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path. > > > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated. > > > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't. > > > > > > Part of the reason that negotiations with Labour foundered (apart from Mrs May's lack of people skills) is that Labour could not agree a deal with a PM with a political longevity measured in days. If Hunt was actually chosen by MPs and members, he could agree that PD with Labour, to get that through. > > Saying No Deal is a negotiating position is asinine, and it always was. It is a departure without a destination and requires a multiplicity of mini deals, starting with the three issues of the WA. > > A very hard WTO Brexit plan was possible 3 years ago, but it would have needed an acceptance of realities, such as a NI border or an Irish Sea one, a need for massive construction and recruitment for customs as well as a plan to restructure the manufacturing economy. The Tories were not willing to either face those realities or do the hard yards.
Whilst preparation in terms of infrastructure etc would have been sensible (and was blocked by Hammond) I think you exaggerate the difficulties. If we choose to accept that lorries from the EU carry goods that meet our (EU) standards that is a matter for us. If we choose not to apply tariffs ditto. There's a lot we can do unilaterally. It is then up to the EU to decide if they want the problems at their end.
> @eek said: > > @Jonathan said: > > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament. > > > > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution. > > But they won't win that election as Nigel will either split the vote by taking the "must leave" vote or were the Tories to placate Nigel the Tories will lose the moderate vote > > Either way without May and the sympathy some had with her (at least this may work) solution there is zero chance of the Conservative party winning any near future election.
57% of 2017 Tories who voted voted Brexit Party on Thursday only 12% voted LD (significantly less than the number of 2017 Labour voters who voted LD) so the Tories could actually win an election on a hard Brexit platform that wins back Brexit Party voters, they cannot win though on a further extension of Article 50 or EUref2 ticket
> @Roger said: > > @Jonathan said: > > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament. > > > > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution. > > .....and who would win?
Quite possibly Farage at the moment under FPTP with the Tories and Labour split
> @HYUFD said: > > @eek said: > > > @Jonathan said: > > > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament. > > > > > > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution. > > > > But they won't win that election as Nigel will either split the vote by taking the "must leave" vote or were the Tories to placate Nigel the Tories will lose the moderate vote > > > > Either way without May and the sympathy some had with her (at least this may work) solution there is zero chance of the Conservative party winning any near future election. > > 57% of 2017 Tories who voted voted Brexit Party on Thursday only 12% voted LD (significantly less than the number of 2017 Labour voters who voted LD) so the Tories could actually win an election on a hard Brexit platform that wins back Brexit Party voters, they cannot win though on a further extension of Article 50 or EUref2 ticket
As mentioned below, there's some anecdotal evidence that some of the Tory>Brex Party move was an anti-politics one, rather than a positive one for hard Brexit, but I accept that may be the minority. That minority could turn out to be important, though.
> @HYUFD said: > > @eek said: > > > @Jonathan said: > > > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament. > > > > > > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution. > > > > But they won't win that election as Nigel will either split the vote by taking the "must leave" vote or were the Tories to placate Nigel the Tories will lose the moderate vote > > > > Either way without May and the sympathy some had with her (at least this may work) solution there is zero chance of the Conservative party winning any near future election. > > 57% of 2017 Tories who voted voted Brexit Party on Thursday only 12% voted LD (significantly less than the number of 2017 Labour voters who voted LD) so the Tories could actually win an election on a hard Brexit platform that wins back Brexit Party voters, they cannot win though on a further extension of Article 50 or EUref2 ticket
If you are already the government it would make no sense to fight an election on a referendum platform anyway; you just propose the referendum and get on with it.
Rory Stewart represents Cameron's biggest failure as Prime Minister, namely his refusal to promote the top talent ahead of his chums. Rory should have been in Cabinet for at least 5 years by now. Instead he had to make do with Select Committees and providing informal foreign policy advice to Obama.
If Rory had been responsible for herding May's deal through Parliament and the nation during its formation, I've little doubt even with is flaws it would have passed. Had he been Foreign Secretary from 2016 onwards (not inconceivable), we would not only have passed a Brexit but most likely be in a position where the poison from the debate was extinguished.
Read the Places In Between and tell me that the guy doesn't have the minerals. He's eloquent, modest, brave and patriotic.
He's also completely the wrong leader for 2019. But circa 2022? With luck he'll make the final two this time and (despite what he says now) take a big job, ready to step up when the present mess is over.
> > > > Part of the reason that negotiations with Labour foundered (apart from Mrs May's lack of people skills) is that Labour could not agree a deal with a PM with a political longevity measured in days. If Hunt was actually chosen by MPs and members, he could agree that PD with Labour, to get that through. > > > > Saying No Deal is a negotiating position is asinine, and it always was. It is a departure without a destination and requires a multiplicity of mini deals, starting with the three issues of the WA. > > > > A very hard WTO Brexit plan was possible 3 years ago, but it would have needed an acceptance of realities, such as a NI border or an Irish Sea one, a need for massive construction and recruitment for customs as well as a plan to restructure the manufacturing economy. The Tories were not willing to either face those realities or do the hard yards. > > Whilst preparation in terms of infrastructure etc would have been sensible (and was blocked by Hammond) I think you exaggerate the difficulties. If we choose to accept that lorries from the EU carry goods that meet our (EU) standards that is a matter for us. If we choose not to apply tariffs ditto. There's a lot we can do unilaterally. It is then up to the EU to decide if they want the problems at their end.
And how does that work under WTO rules - whatever we unilaterally charge in tariffs to the EU (none) is then the maximum we can charge other countries.
One reason why South Korea has agreements with most countries is because their tariffs are the maximum allowed unless you have a trade agreement - to get to that position we need a signed deal with the EU before we start elsewhere otherwise the maximum we can charge is the 0% we are charging the EU.
> @DavidL said: > > @Foxy said: > > > @DavidL said: > > > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path. > > > > > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated. > > > > > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't. > > > > > > > > > > Part of the reason that negotiations with Labour foundered (apart from Mrs May's lack of people skills) is that Labour could not agree a deal with a PM with a political longevity measured in days. If Hunt was actually chosen by MPs and members, he could agree that PD with Labour, to get that through. > > > > Saying No Deal is a negotiating position is asinine, and it always was. It is a departure without a destination and requires a multiplicity of mini deals, starting with the three issues of the WA. > > > > A very hard WTO Brexit plan was possible 3 years ago, but it would have needed an acceptance of realities, such as a NI border or an Irish Sea one, a need for massive construction and recruitment for customs as well as a plan to restructure the manufacturing economy. The Tories were not willing to either face those realities or do the hard yards. > > Whilst preparation in terms of infrastructure etc would have been sensible (and was blocked by Hammond) I think you exaggerate the difficulties. If we choose to accept that lorries from the EU carry goods that meet our (EU) standards that is a matter for us. If we choose not to apply tariffs ditto. There's a lot we can do unilaterally. It is then up to the EU to decide if they want the problems at their end.
> @eek said: > > @Nigelb said: > > > @DavidL said: > > > > @Cyclefree said: > > > > > > > > > > The lack of planning was a major failure on the part of the government and undermined their negotiating position. It is possible that they might have got a deal without the backstop had they looked even vaguely serious about preparing for no deal at any point but they didn't. > > > > > > The answer to your question is complicated but the broad strokes would be that we would be looking for mini deals to keep things moving. We have them already in a series of areas such as transport but we would need more. We would also need to act unilaterally in a series of areas that would have been covered by the agreement. Gove's move yesterday in respect of citizenship for EU citizens, was a good and imaginative response to one of the problems. > > > > > > One of the areas we would need to act unilaterally would be to undertake to pay all of the liabilities we have agreed that we have in May's agreement. To fail to do so would make relationships much, much more difficult. One of the lies told by the enthusiasts for no deal is that these payments are a gift. They are not. > > > > > > In summary no deal would look an awful lot like May's deal in many respects but without the transition arrangements (which are desirable) except to the extent that we can agree them individually. There is a risk of some disruption but there would also be an urgency to having a trade deal with the EU which the transitional provisions might postpone. Again, I suspect that that trade deal is going to look very like May's deal. > > > > > > > Do you really imagine that any administration pushing through no deal would be so pragmatic ? Even if it were to command a parliamentary majority... > > > > Such an approach would be labelled betrayal by most proponents of no deal. > > > > > > While we in desperation might have some urgency in getting a trade deal with the EU why / how would the EU have the same urgency... > > One of the biggest screw ups we have done with Brexit is not thinking about how the other half will think...
Their attitude will be influenced by our attitude. That is why looking after their citizens, paying our debts, generally being cooperative in NI etc, are so important. If we act in a grown up manner then I think we can assume that they will respond in kind. Of course the reverse is also true: if we act like arseholes they will retaliate. I think we can say that that is the pattern of the negotiations to date. Given May's ineptitude the deal she was offered was far more balanced than it might have been.
Comments
> The Tories probably won't want the leadership voting among MPs to go on for more than 2 weeks, which would mean a maximum of 4 ballots. With so many candidates that'll mean a lot of pressure could be put on low-scoring candidates to pull out after the first round or second round to avoid a large number of rounds being necessary.
I don't think they've finalized the process yet - couldn't they run it faster? Winnow down to the top three in a single day - ballot, breakfast, ballot, elevenses, ballot, lunch, ballot, scones, ballot, dinner, ballot, pub. Then have a week for the survivors to do debates and things and argue about who gets voted off the island.
Banging on about what Thatcher would do will no more change the parliamentary maths than yelling Brexit very loudly.
It really does make you wonder what a single remain ticket sans Labour might have achieved.
But in fairness given the MEPs will be serving a full term best the party divisions be represented.
I think that optimistic. We were unable to stop them is not a point of strength.
> https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/1133165206966808576?s=20
Terrible colour scheme.
> I dont see why theyd make it binding even then. Sure remain think they'll win but they dont want to risk Brexit so should leave it open again.
I think a binding referendum would be easier to pass, and also much easier for the PM to sell, since a lot of people on the Leave side will have the same take as @brendan16.
> > @AndyJS said:
> > The Tories probably won't want the leadership voting among MPs to go on for more than 2 weeks, which would mean a maximum of 4 ballots. With so many candidates that'll mean a lot of pressure could be put on low-scoring candidates to pull out after the first round or second round to avoid a large number of rounds being necessary.
>
> I don't think they've finalized the process yet - couldn't they run it faster? Winnow down to the top three in a single day - ballot, breakfast, ballot, elevenses, ballot, lunch, ballot, scones, ballot, dinner, ballot, pub. Then have a week for the survivors to do debates and things and argue about who gets voted off the island.
Of course the process could (and probably should) be quicker but a cynic might wonder if the rather drawn out and leisurely preliminary timetable was not insisted on by Theresa May as a condition of resignation, since she will remember it was her own three-week election that scuppered Cameron's intended last few months in Downing Street.
> > @rottenborough said:
> > What a thread. BP stopped FB spending in last few days. Why?
> >
> > https://twitter.com/rowlsmanthorpe/status/1132760478218956800
>
> Where's their money coming from that's what I'd like to know...
>
> On the hand look how much less Brexit Party spent yet everyone acknowledges their digital campaign has been brilliant.
Yeo. The less I see a party's adverts on social media, the more I actually want to vote for them......
> Looks like Esther!
>
> Freedom for Britain!
>
> #nodeal
Yes! Her or Raab.
> > @AndyJS said:
> > The Greens got more votes than the Tories and Labour if you exclude London.
>
> There has been a noticeable lack of comment here about that. I know an EU election is a free hit, but that was a great performance that seems to have gone under the radar.
It is a great performance by the greens but I am mildly sceptical about how much we can read into the Lab/Con meltdown in an election that became a quasi-referendum.
> > @AndyJS said:
> > The Tories probably won't want the leadership voting among MPs to go on for more than 2 weeks, which would mean a maximum of 4 ballots. With so many candidates that'll mean a lot of pressure could be put on low-scoring candidates to pull out after the first round or second round to avoid a large number of rounds being necessary.
>
> I don't think they've finalized the process yet - couldn't they run it faster? Winnow down to the top three in a single day - ballot, breakfast, ballot, elevenses, ballot, lunch, ballot, scones, ballot, dinner, ballot, pub. Then have a week for the survivors to do debates and things and argue about who gets voted off the island.
They could hold ballots 3 or 4 times a week instead of twice a week.
But as I said before I think if the first round looks something like this...
A: 50
B: 45
C: 40
D 35
E: 20
F: 18
G: 16
H: 14
I: 12
J: 11
K: 10
L: 8
... it obviously means L gets eliminated, but also the candidates from E downwards would probably be expected to "strongly consider pulling out for the good of the party".
> It is a great performance by the greens but I am mildly sceptical about how much we can read into the Lab/Con meltdown in an election that became a quasi-referendum.
That would be true if it only happened in Britain, but the Greens went up all over the place.
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/05/boeing-737-max-crash-reveals-a-severe-problem-with-older-boeing-737-ngs.html
> In other news - the grounded Boeing 737MAX problems with the stabiliser have thrown up issues with the stab in the 7,000 still-flying 737NG:
>
> https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/05/boeing-737-max-crash-reveals-a-severe-problem-with-older-boeing-737-ngs.html
Very interesting, thanks.
Top reason for voting for party in EU Elections:
Con: "Always voted for that party" (34)
Lab: "Always voted for that Party" (36)
LibD: "Best Policy on Brexit" (58)
Brexit: "Show dissatisfaction with govt policy" (44)
ChUK: "Best policy on Brexit" (26)
SNP: "Always voted for that Party" (30)
Green: "Best Policy on Brexit" (22)
Clearly the LibDems had great cut-through behind a simple message -much more so than ChUK (58 vs 26) while the three biggest parties relied on inertia, and the Brexit party had a large chunk of 'protest vote' - even when looking at 'Top 3' reasons ' Dissatisfaction' still beat 'Best policy on Brexit' (84 vs 76).
On 'Leadership' there's a clear winner - Sturgeon 'Best Leadership of the Parties on Offer' (Top 3) : 49 vs May 26, Corbyn 31, Farage 31, Vince 14, ChUK 11.
> > @GIN1138 said:
> > > @rottenborough said:
> > > What a thread. BP stopped FB spending in last few days. Why?
> > >
> > > https://twitter.com/rowlsmanthorpe/status/1132760478218956800
> >
> > Where's their money coming from that's what I'd like to know...
> >
> > On the hand look how much less Brexit Party spent yet everyone acknowledges their digital campaign has been brilliant.
>
> Yeo. The less I see a party's adverts on social media, the more I actually want to vote for them......
I think there's surely a fairly simple reason for this - Change UK are the only one of the parties that didn't really have a Facebook/social media structure of support to disseminate their campaign materials. The BXP had loads of existing likes from both UKIP and Leave.EU - it had done the big spend in the referendum and since (and I think when it launched) so didn't need to this time,
It very much depends on who he's up against.
He'll wake up all the fears amongst pro-Brexit MPs and members that he's just another May.
Although it might help him in the MP rounds it won't help him unite the party if he does win.
> > @DecrepitJohnL said:
> > It is a great performance by the greens but I am mildly sceptical about how much we can read into the Lab/Con meltdown in an election that became a quasi-referendum.
>
> That would be true if it only happened in Britain, but the Greens went up all over the place.
Yes, the greens did well. This also fits with greater public concern about plastics, recycling and the growth of veganism, so there are grounds for taking this at face value.
What I am sceptical about is writing off Lab/Con whose ambiguous positions made the major parties irrelevant in a de facto referendum.
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/joke-battles/images/4/40/18360-doge-doge-simple.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20151209161638&f=1
> I also think Hunt will have now injured himself: he's gone Remainer > Born-again hard Brexiteer > No Deal would be a catastrophe.
>
> He'll wake up all the fears amongst pro-Brexit MPs and members that he's just another May.
>
> Although it might help him in the MP rounds it won't help him unite the party if he does win.
Who cares? Or rather, does anyone care? Will any members be voting for who can best unite the party, and how would they know? If Hunt can get MPs wondering what happens next after no deal, he might win. Or he might help the Brexiteer with the most convincing answer, because Hunt himself does not seem to have moved very far beyond posing the question.
It is an important question and one that deserves to be answered rather than shrugged off as Project Fear or with bland assurances that planes will keep flying. Are WTO terms the end goal of no deal, or just a transition state? If the latter, transition to where?
But our task as punters is to bet on who will win, not who should win.
> > @Casino_Royale said:
> > I also think Hunt will have now injured himself: he's gone Remainer > Born-again hard Brexiteer > No Deal would be a catastrophe.
> >
> > He'll wake up all the fears amongst pro-Brexit MPs and members that he's just another May.
> >
> > Although it might help him in the MP rounds it won't help him unite the party if he does win.
>
> Who cares? Or rather, does anyone care? Will any members be voting for who can best unite the party, and how would they know? If Hunt can get MPs wondering what happens next after no deal, he might win. Or he might help the Brexiteer with the most convincing answer, because Hunt himself does not seem to have moved very far beyond posing the question.
>
> It is an important question and one that deserves to be answered rather than shrugged off as Project Fear or with bland assurances that planes will keep flying. Are WTO terms the end goal of no deal, or just a transition state? If the latter, transition to where?
>
> But our task as punters is to bet on who will win, not who should win.
More to the point, his stance further undermines Boris’s credibility in the eyes of both MPs and the public, hopefully leaving the Tories’ obsessive membership out in the cold.
> The surreal thing about this is that a referendum is the only known way to get the Conservative Party out of the treacle, and quite possibly total destruction. But nobody's allowed to say it.
>
>
>
> I wonder if the leadership candidates are thinking it.
>
> The trick is to engineer HoC forcing you to have a 2nd vote, rather than proposing one.
Well that's nearly every MP's attitude to Brexit - wanting things to happen without their fingerprints on them.
> O/T Unlikely star of Episode 2 of the superb BBC2 documentary on Mrs T is none other than John Nott.
Not a here today gone tomorrow politician after all.
> > @HYUFD said:
> > https://twitter.com/ZacGoldsmith/status/1133142055385993216?s=20
>
> Surely Zac Goldsmith should understand by now what the point of Lib Dem leaflets is!
Not the brightest pea in the pod (like the majority of Tories). Thank God he'll be toast when the next GE happens later this year!
> > @edmundintokyo said:
> > > @DecrepitJohnL said:
> > > It is a great performance by the greens but I am mildly sceptical about how much we can read into the Lab/Con meltdown in an election that became a quasi-referendum.
> >
> > That would be true if it only happened in Britain, but the Greens went up all over the place.
>
> Yes, the greens did well. This also fits with greater public concern about plastics, recycling and the growth of veganism, so there are grounds for taking this at face value.
>
> What I am sceptical about is writing off Lab/Con whose ambiguous positions made the major parties irrelevant in a de facto referendum.
>
>
The most striking finding in the Ashcroft poll cited downthread is that so many of the switchers are saying they will stick to their new choice in a general election, especially on the Lab to LibDem side but also many Tory to BXP’ers. While saying it now and sticking to it when the time comes are different things, it does illustrate the depth of disillusion with the two main parties. In Scotland, the number one reason for switching to the SNP was given as their competence, which underlined how Tory and Labour are driving voters in their direction as a result of their own lack of it.
I also notice that while Ashcroft did find that concern for green issues was the number one reason for switching to Green, opposition to Brexit was the number two issue. The Greens also had the greatest number of switchers making their decision only at the last minute.
They’ll want someone who can deliver on Brexit, yes, but above all they’ll want to vote for a winner.
> Interesting stuff in the Ashcroft poll:
>
> Top reason for voting for party in EU Elections:
> Con: "Always voted for that party" (34)
> Lab: "Always voted for that Party" (36)
> LibD: "Best Policy on Brexit" (58)
> Brexit: "Show dissatisfaction with govt policy" (44)
> ChUK: "Best policy on Brexit" (26)
> SNP: "Always voted for that Party" (30)
> Green: "Best Policy on Brexit" (22)
>
> Clearly the LibDems had great cut-through behind a simple message -much more so than ChUK (58 vs 26) while the three biggest parties relied on inertia, and the Brexit party had a large chunk of 'protest vote' - even when looking at 'Top 3' reasons ' Dissatisfaction' still beat 'Best policy on Brexit' (84 vs 76).
>
> On 'Leadership' there's a clear winner - Sturgeon 'Best Leadership of the Parties on Offer' (Top 3) : 49 vs May 26, Corbyn 31, Farage 31, Vince 14, ChUK 11.
Inertia clearly doesn’t work any more! Our recent politics summed up in a sentence.
As I said yesterday, you do wonder what would happen if the SNP copied Italy’s Lega, which started as a northern Italian Independence Party (Lega Nord) them changed tack and went national. People are crying out for some sense and competence from their politicians, which is in short supply at Westminster.
I was listening to a conversation between three elderly female dog owners on poling day, all of whom had already voted BXP. One was clearly very motivated by wanting to leave the EU, but the other two explained their vote as a protest and made comments about how everything was a shambles and the politicians were all useless. It was like hearing two different conversations with the anti-EU lady trying desperately to turn to the evils of the EU whilst the other two just wanted to talk about how our politics has all gone to crap.
I have a lot of money at stake on the race and I’m interested in understanding who will win.
I do also have a view on who should win (or rather, who shouldn’t) and I’m usually clear in making those opinions separate.
There's an assumption that the next Prime Minister will be chosen from the longlist of Conservative candidates.
But this isn't necessarily true.
At any point in the proceedings it is perfectly possible for a Vote of No Confidence to be tabled in the Commons. At the moment that would most likely fail. But suppose we reach a point where the only remaining candidates are all proposing a No Deal Brexit? Or supposing it seems inevitable that Boris would win from a shortlist? Then I think it's entirely conceivable that the one nation Tories would decide to pull the plug. The dissolution of Parliament could precede the Tory election result.
Which could mean the next PM coming from an entirely different party.
> > @DecrepitJohnL said:
>
> > > @Casino_Royale said:
>
> > > I also think Hunt will have now injured himself: he's gone Remainer > Born-again hard Brexiteer > No Deal would be a catastrophe.
>
> > >
>
> > > He'll wake up all the fears amongst pro-Brexit MPs and members that he's just another May.
>
> > >
>
> > > Although it might help him in the MP rounds it won't help him unite the party if he does win.
>
> >
>
> > Who cares? Or rather, does anyone care? Will any members be voting for who can best unite the party, and how would they know? If Hunt can get MPs wondering what happens next after no deal, he might win. Or he might help the Brexiteer with the most convincing answer, because Hunt himself does not seem to have moved very far beyond posing the question.
>
> >
>
> > It is an important question and one that deserves to be answered rather than shrugged off as Project Fear or with bland assurances that planes will keep flying. Are WTO terms the end goal of no deal, or just a transition state? If the latter, transition to where?
>
> >
>
> > But our task as punters is to bet on who will win, not who should win.
>
>
>
> More to the point, his stance further undermines Boris’s credibility in the eyes of both MPs and the public, hopefully leaving the Tories’ obsessive membership out in the cold.
>
> There’s too much stereotyping of the Tory membership going on.
>
> They’ll want someone who can deliver on Brexit, yes, but above all they’ll want to vote for a winner.
...slipping quietly over the probable incompatibility between those two. Delivering Brexit will likely finish the Tories’ chances of winning.
Certainly the most interesting position adopted in the leadership contest so far. I'm mildly surprised (I would've guessed Hunt would support a/the deal whilst keeping no deal as an option).
I would also say the chances of a majority Labour or Tory government within the next three years is almost zero. For the Tories probably forever.
> A word of caution.
>
> There's an assumption that the next Prime Minister will be chosen from the longlist of Conservative candidates.
>
> But this isn't necessarily true.
>
> At any point in the proceedings it is perfectly possible for a Vote of No Confidence to be tabled in the Commons. At the moment that would most likely fail. But suppose we reach a point where the only remaining candidates are all proposing a No Deal Brexit? Or supposing it seems inevitable that Boris would win from a shortlist? Then I think it's entirely conceivable that the one nation Tories would decide to pull the plug. The dissolution of Parliament could precede the Tory election result.
>
> Which could mean the next PM coming from an entirely different party.
Or indeed a different PM before an election, to push through a further extension, or referendum.
The one I'm listening at the moment thinks Labour did well in the Euros!
> Good morning, everyone.
>
> Certainly the most interesting position adopted in the leadership contest so far. I'm mildly surprised (I would've guessed Hunt would support a/the deal whilst keeping no deal as an option).
In a crowded field where a handful of votes could avoid early elimination, there is huge pressure to be distinctive, and a lot of competition for publicity and air time.
> Betfair still haven’t paid out on the EU parliamentary elections, I see..
I was paid on Thursday about whether it would happen and yesterday on the seat outcomes. I guess they are just waiting for final confirmation on the votes.
> > @Chris said:
> > > @HYUFD said:
> > > https://twitter.com/ZacGoldsmith/status/1133142055385993216?s=20
> >
> > Surely Zac Goldsmith should understand by now what the point of Lib Dem leaflets is!
>
> Not the brightest pea in the pod (like the majority of Tories). Thank God he'll be toast when the next GE happens later this year!
He should look at the result in his own patch!
> > @Casino_Royale said:
> > Betfair still haven’t paid out on the EU parliamentary elections, I see..
>
>
> I was paid on Thursday about whether it would happen and yesterday on the seat outcomes. I guess they are just waiting for final confirmation on the votes.
I had to prompt Betfair on Thursday to settle the market on whether the EU election would happen.
A No Deal Brexit, perhaps, but that’s very different from a WA with a transition and comprehensive final FTA.
Their market maker probably isn’t in yet.
> > @Casino_Royale said:
>
> > > @DecrepitJohnL said:
>
> >
>
> > > > @Casino_Royale said:
>
> >
>
> > > > I also think Hunt will have now injured himself: he's gone Remainer > Born-again hard Brexiteer > No Deal would be a catastrophe.
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > He'll wake up all the fears amongst pro-Brexit MPs and members that he's just another May.
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Although it might help him in the MP rounds it won't help him unite the party if he does win.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Who cares? Or rather, does anyone care? Will any members be voting for who can best unite the party, and how would they know? If Hunt can get MPs wondering what happens next after no deal, he might win. Or he might help the Brexiteer with the most convincing answer, because Hunt himself does not seem to have moved very far beyond posing the question.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > It is an important question and one that deserves to be answered rather than shrugged off as Project Fear or with bland assurances that planes will keep flying. Are WTO terms the end goal of no deal, or just a transition state? If the latter, transition to where?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > But our task as punters is to bet on who will win, not who should win.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > More to the point, his stance further undermines Boris’s credibility in the eyes of both MPs and the public, hopefully leaving the Tories’ obsessive membership out in the cold.
>
> >
>
> > There’s too much stereotyping of the Tory membership going on.
>
> >
>
> > They’ll want someone who can deliver on Brexit, yes, but above all they’ll want to vote for a winner.
>
>
>
> ...slipping quietly over the probable incompatibility between those two. Delivering Brexit will likely finish the Tories’ chances of winning.
>
> No, I don’t think so.
>
> A No Deal Brexit, perhaps, but that’s very different from a WA with a transition and comprehensive final FTA.
Curtice has just been on R4 making the point that the former Tory fantasy of an election win followed by a ‘proper’ Brexit is now off the table, and so any Brexit has to be delivered through the current parliament. That means either a crash out - seriously bad news for the Tories as you concede - or no Brexit, also bad news for the Tories as they will share the blame and leavers will go straight to Farage - or the sort of sensible Brexit that you envisage, that would be opposed by a majority of Tory members, and fuel the Tory civil war and betrayal narrative.
I am struggling to see any of those leading to a Tory majority thereafter?
Her reason for not voting for May’s deal - ‘there were insufficient guarantees’ - rather misses the point that there are no guarantees with Brexit. And certainly no hope of any at all with no deal.
> Which could mean the next PM coming from an entirely different party.
Yup. The problem is that apart from the obvious possibility of Corbyn, there are lots of different potential caretakers. If the idea is to stop No Deal until there's a new election they could do a Tory like Grieve or Letwin, or Ken Clarke as elder statesman, or a respected competent Labour non-Corbynist like Yvette Cooper, or maybe an ex-party-leader like Ed "Chaos" Miliband or Vince Cable...
> Mr. B2, true, but also a sense that anyone who wants to end up winning must be tougher (in a no deal way) than their opponent in the final two. As a frontrunner, it's still significant from Hunt.
The stance to get through the MPs is not the same as that needed for the members, for sure! So the winner may be the one most deft and nimble at adapting as things go along.
> > @nunuone said:
> > > @GIN1138 said:
> > > > @rottenborough said:
> > > > What a thread. BP stopped FB spending in last few days. Why?
> > > >
> > > > https://twitter.com/rowlsmanthorpe/status/1132760478218956800
> > >
> > > Where's their money coming from that's what I'd like to know...
> > >
> > > On the hand look how much less Brexit Party spent yet everyone acknowledges their digital campaign has been brilliant.
> >
> > Yeo. The less I see a party's adverts on social media, the more I actually want to vote for them......
>
> I think there's surely a fairly simple reason for this - Change UK are the only one of the parties that didn't really have a Facebook/social media structure of support to disseminate their campaign materials. The BXP had loads of existing likes from both UKIP and Leave.EU - it had done the big spend in the referendum and since (and I think when it launched) so didn't need to this time,
Also £130 000 is not that much money, and CUK lack the membership and infrastructure on the ground to get their message across by other means. Couple that with inept messaging and media strategy and there is no need to look further for a reason.
> Listening to Labour leaver Lisa Nandy on the radio today, expressing dismay at the growth in support for no deal, impossible to think otherwise than what did she expect ?
>
> Her reason for not voting for May’s deal - ‘there were insufficient guarantees’ - rather misses the point that there are no guarantees with Brexit. And certainly no hope of any at all with no deal.
Doesn’t she mean guarantees that the new PM won’t trash anything that they had agreed?
A hardline Remainer might feel they'd have no hope and take votes from a middle ground candidate, hence it's not worth standing.
> The stance to get through the MPs is not the same as that needed for the members, for sure! So the winner may be the one most deft and nimble at adapting as things go along.
This is the argument for Boris: He'll say whatever he needs to to get past the members, but the MPs will know that whatever he says he's lying.
If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated.
The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't.
> Mr. Meeks, Mordaunt.
>
> A hardline Remainer might feel they'd have no hope and take votes from a middle ground candidate, hence it's not worth standing.
How remiss of me to overlook the Cabinet’s most shameless liar. The contest would not be complete without her.
So we can expect a starting field of 15 or so?
> https://twitter.com/gsoh31/status/1133089692939935745
If you didn't see this last nite, it's worth looking up if only for Mark Francois' expression.
> > @Nigelb said:
> > Listening to Labour leaver Lisa Nandy on the radio today, expressing dismay at the growth in support for no deal, impossible to think otherwise than what did she expect ?
> >
> > Her reason for not voting for May’s deal - ‘there were insufficient guarantees’ - rather misses the point that there are no guarantees with Brexit. And certainly no hope of any at all with no deal.
>
> Doesn’t she mean guarantees that the new PM won’t trash anything that they had agreed?
What she means is pretty well irrelevant. As David points out below, if you are a leaver and reject the only deal on offer, then no deal is the inevitable result if you also utterly reject, as she does, the possibility of remaining.
Perhaps there's a reason why the favourite never gets the crown.
> The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path.
>
> If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated.
>
> The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't.
>
>
That’s not Hunt’s problem, that is the whole problem. The current parliament will always block no deal (which actually requires a raft of legislation, as explained yesterday by Evan Davis). Any viable deal requires significant Labour support, which the Tories will not contemplate. And an election is too risky. Leaving no Brexit or another referendum as the only achievable escapes.
> The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path.
>
> If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated.
>
> The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't.
>
>
Part of the reason that negotiations with Labour foundered (apart from Mrs May's lack of people skills) is that Labour could not agree a deal with a PM with a political longevity measured in days. If Hunt was actually chosen by MPs and members, he could agree that PD with Labour, to get that through.
Saying No Deal is a negotiating position is asinine, and it always was. It is a departure without a destination and requires a multiplicity of mini deals, starting with the three issues of the WA.
A very hard WTO Brexit plan was possible 3 years ago, but it would have needed an acceptance of realities, such as a NI border or an Irish Sea one, a need for massive construction and recruitment for customs as well as a plan to restructure the manufacturing economy. The Tories were not willing to either face those realities or do the hard yards.
> > @DavidL said:
> > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path.
> >
> > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated.
> >
> > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't.
> >
> >
>
> That’s not Hunt’s problem, that is the whole problem. The current parliament will always block no deal (which actually requires a raft of legislation, as explained yesterday by Evan Davis). Any viable deal requires significant Labour support, which the Tories will not contemplate. And an election is too risky. Leaving no Brexit or another referendum as the only achievable escapes.
Boris is ever the pragmatist, and also enjoys surprising people. I could see him backing a referendum in some scenarios, and shocking his base.
“we screwed up the implementation” is just a reason to immolate the Tory party not to revisit the decision
I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
If there are two parties and one wins 51 vs 49 there should be a small majority
If there are 10 parties and one wins 51 with all the others getting about 5% each then arguably there should be a big majority
> > @IanB2 said:
> > > @DavidL said:
> > > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path.
> > >
> > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated.
> > >
> > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > That’s not Hunt’s problem, that is the whole problem. The current parliament will always block no deal (which actually requires a raft of legislation, as explained yesterday by Evan Davis). Any viable deal requires significant Labour support, which the Tories will not contemplate. And an election is too risky. Leaving no Brexit or another referendum as the only achievable escapes.
>
> Boris is ever the pragmatist, and also enjoys surprising people. I could see him backing a referendum in some scenarios, and shocking his base.
Since every leader seems to get a good if not necessarily long honeymoon, doing it quickly could actually be quite clever.
> Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament.
>
> I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
Which they won’t get - even were they to be offering any such thing.
> Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament.
>
> I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
The only clear mandate to rival the Brexit party - no-deal - woud make the Tories split. So that only leaves a referendum, in the hope they could get a mandate for it.
> I do wish all these Tories desperate for a No Deal exit would actually explain to us in some detail what will happen when overnight we become a third country as far as the EU is concerned and fall out of all the agreements we have been part of for the last 46 years (about 700 of them) not all of which will relate to trade.
>
> What is the plan? They do have a plan, don’t they?
The lack of planning was a major failure on the part of the government and undermined their negotiating position. It is possible that they might have got a deal without the backstop had they looked even vaguely serious about preparing for no deal at any point but they didn't.
The answer to your question is complicated but the broad strokes would be that we would be looking for mini deals to keep things moving. We have them already in a series of areas such as transport but we would need more. We would also need to act unilaterally in a series of areas that would have been covered by the agreement. Gove's move yesterday in respect of citizenship for EU citizens, was a good and imaginative response to one of the problems.
One of the areas we would need to act unilaterally would be to undertake to pay all of the liabilities we have agreed that we have in May's agreement. To fail to do so would make relationships much, much more difficult. One of the lies told by the enthusiasts for no deal is that these payments are a gift. They are not.
In summary no deal would look an awful lot like May's deal in many respects but without the transition arrangements (which are desirable) except to the extent that we can agree them individually. There is a risk of some disruption but there would also be an urgency to having a trade deal with the EU which the transitional provisions might postpone. Again, I suspect that that trade deal is going to look very like May's deal.
He is starting to look like Gordon Brown.
How is having a General Election a policy? Don’t you need a policy in order to have a General Election?
> > @Jonathan said:
> > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament.
> >
> > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
>
> Which they won’t get - even were they to be offering any such thing.
>
>
I’m not so sure. If someone has a route of this hell, I suspect enough people will follow. The aggressive move would be to go for an election to decide who delivers a post no deal settlement and time the election such that Oct 31 becomes a fait accompli.
> Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament.
>
> I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
But they won't win that election as Nigel will either split the vote by taking the "must leave" vote or were the Tories to placate Nigel the Tories will lose the moderate vote
Either way without May and the sympathy some had with her (at least this may work) solution there is zero chance of the Conservative party winning any near future election.
> > @Cyclefree said:
> > I do wish all these Tories desperate for a No Deal exit would actually explain to us in some detail what will happen when overnight we become a third country as far as the EU is concerned and fall out of all the agreements we have been part of for the last 46 years (about 700 of them) not all of which will relate to trade.
> >
> > What is the plan? They do have a plan, don’t they?
>
> The lack of planning was a major failure on the part of the government and undermined their negotiating position. It is possible that they might have got a deal without the backstop had they looked even vaguely serious about preparing for no deal at any point but they didn't.
>
> The answer to your question is complicated but the broad strokes would be that we would be looking for mini deals to keep things moving. We have them already in a series of areas such as transport but we would need more. We would also need to act unilaterally in a series of areas that would have been covered by the agreement. Gove's move yesterday in respect of citizenship for EU citizens, was a good and imaginative response to one of the problems.
>
> One of the areas we would need to act unilaterally would be to undertake to pay all of the liabilities we have agreed that we have in May's agreement. To fail to do so would make relationships much, much more difficult. One of the lies told by the enthusiasts for no deal is that these payments are a gift. They are not.
>
> In summary no deal would look an awful lot like May's deal in many respects but without the transition arrangements (which are desirable) except to the extent that we can agree them individually. There is a risk of some disruption but there would also be an urgency to having a trade deal with the EU which the transitional provisions might postpone. Again, I suspect that that trade deal is going to look very like May's deal.
>
Do you really imagine that any administration pushing through no deal would be so pragmatic ? Even if it were to command a parliamentary majority...
Such an approach would be labelled betrayal by most proponents of no deal.
> Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament.
>
> I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
.....and who would win?
> > @Nigelb said:
> > > @Jonathan said:
> > > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament.
> > >
> > > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
> >
> > Which they won’t get - even were they to be offering any such thing.
> >
> >
>
> I’m not so sure. If someone has a route of this hell, I suspect enough people will follow. The aggressive move would be to go for an election to decide who delivers a post no deal settlement and time the election such that Oct 31 becomes a fait accompli.
>
FTPA.
> > @Cyclefree said:
>
> > > @Cyclefree said:
>
> >
>
> > > I do wish all these Tories desperate for a No Deal exit would actually explain to us in some detail what will happen when overnight we become a third country as far as the EU is concerned and fall out of all the agreements we have been part of for the last 46 years (about 700 of them) not all of which will relate to trade.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > What is the plan? They do have a plan, don’t they?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Well you renegotiate them and still aim for a FTA with the EU.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > However the civil service have had 3 years to prepare for all this
>
> >
>
> > Do you have any idea how long it takes to renegotiate 700 agreements?
>
> >
>
> > How many have been renegotiated so far?
>
> >
>
> > What happens in the meanwhile?
>
>
>
> Show trials of civil servants, by the sound of it.
>
> It does now rather feel that the only reason to do Brexit is to save the Tory party. And that in order to save themselves they are quite prepared to inflict any amount of damage on the country and, indeed, on the EU. And then, bless, renegotiate all these agreements they’ve just torn up and get an FTA as well.
>
>
>
> Because the voters told them to it
>
> “we screwed up the implementation” is just a reason to immolate the Tory party not to revisit the decision
In my world "we screwed up the implementation" is a completely valid reason to reset things and that would mean revisiting the original decision once we have identified the lessons learnt.
> If you go to the country immediately you force MPs to quit or stand on your manifesto. Most MPs will cling to nanny.
There is no way the Tories can make a unified choice between a deal or no deal. And no way they can contemplate an election when huge chunks of their former supporters are saying they will stick with the BXP and the LibDems.
> > @Philip_Thompson said:
> > > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > > Claiming that the messiest and most chaotic of all possible Brexits is a 'clean' Brexit is wondrously 1984ish.
> >
> > A clean break is a long established term not Newspeak.
>
> If people are going to criticise people's vote as a term, which is reasonable, using clean break can also be criticised for the same reasoning. Defending one and not the other, when bother are trying to present a partisan friendly approach, is a sure sign of the attacks on the other being nothing but political. It certainly has not been the most commonly used term for no deal until recently, which indicates an attempt to change the messaging.
The criticism of people's vote normally is that we already have had one. That doesn't apply to a clean break.
> > @DavidL said:
> > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path.
> >
> > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated.
> >
> > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't.
> >
> >
>
> That’s not Hunt’s problem, that is the whole problem. The current parliament will always block no deal (which actually requires a raft of legislation, as explained yesterday by Evan Davis). Any viable deal requires significant Labour support, which the Tories will not contemplate. And an election is too risky. Leaving no Brexit or another referendum as the only achievable escapes.
What legislation? The EU Withdrawal Act is already on the statute book (MV and all). That contains most of the Henry VIII powers that would allow Ministers to legislate where required. Some of these are subject to Commons approval but are MPs really going to leave us with no legislative framework at all?
Of course the failure to pass the relevant legislation when Parliament has been doing the square root of hee haw for 2 years now is another major failure on May's part. Such legislation should have been passed but not brought into effect unless required. It was so obvious but she couldn't see an alternative to her deal and everyone was going to compromise/agree with her eventually, weren't they?
> > @DavidL said:
> > > @Cyclefree said:
> > > I do wish all these Tories desperate for a No Deal exit would actually explain to us in some detail what will happen when overnight we become a third country as far as the EU is concerned and fall out of all the agreements we have been part of for the last 46 years (about 700 of them) not all of which will relate to trade.
> > >
> > > What is the plan? They do have a plan, don’t they?
> >
> > The lack of planning was a major failure on the part of the government and undermined their negotiating position. It is possible that they might have got a deal without the backstop had they looked even vaguely serious about preparing for no deal at any point but they didn't.
> >
> > The answer to your question is complicated but the broad strokes would be that we would be looking for mini deals to keep things moving. We have them already in a series of areas such as transport but we would need more. We would also need to act unilaterally in a series of areas that would have been covered by the agreement. Gove's move yesterday in respect of citizenship for EU citizens, was a good and imaginative response to one of the problems.
> >
> > One of the areas we would need to act unilaterally would be to undertake to pay all of the liabilities we have agreed that we have in May's agreement. To fail to do so would make relationships much, much more difficult. One of the lies told by the enthusiasts for no deal is that these payments are a gift. They are not.
> >
> > In summary no deal would look an awful lot like May's deal in many respects but without the transition arrangements (which are desirable) except to the extent that we can agree them individually. There is a risk of some disruption but there would also be an urgency to having a trade deal with the EU which the transitional provisions might postpone. Again, I suspect that that trade deal is going to look very like May's deal.
> >
>
> Do you really imagine that any administration pushing through no deal would be so pragmatic ? Even if it were to command a parliamentary majority...
>
> Such an approach would be labelled betrayal by most proponents of no deal.
>
>
While we in desperation might have some urgency in getting a trade deal with the EU why / how would the EU have the same urgency...
One of the biggest screw ups we have done with Brexit is not thinking about how the other half will think...
> In a crowded field where a handful of votes could avoid early elimination, there is huge pressure to be distinctive, and a lot of competition for publicity and air time.
>
> S/Lt (Acting) Mordaunt has been rigged for silent running for some time now. I wonder when she'll surface and hoist colours.
>
> Out of curiosity, why do you mock Mordaunt for claiming she was in the Navy Reserve, when she was, and never seem to criticise Thornberry for having claimed to be an army colonel when she wasn't?
or Francois for claiming to be a "veteran" when he was briefly in the TA?
> > @kle4 said:
> > > @Philip_Thompson said:
> > > > @Richard_Nabavi said:
> > > > Claiming that the messiest and most chaotic of all possible Brexits is a 'clean' Brexit is wondrously 1984ish.
> > >
> > > A clean break is a long established term not Newspeak.
> >
> > If people are going to criticise people's vote as a term, which is reasonable, using clean break can also be criticised for the same reasoning. Defending one and not the other, when bother are trying to present a partisan friendly approach, is a sure sign of the attacks on the other being nothing but political. It certainly has not been the most commonly used term for no deal until recently, which indicates an attempt to change the messaging.
>
> The criticism of people's vote normally is that we already have had one. That doesn't apply to a clean break.
It may be a break but it wont be clean.
It's all Blair's fault; after trashing anything became "modernisation", there was no going back.
> > @DavidL said:
> > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path.
> >
> > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated.
> >
> > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't.
> >
> >
>
> Part of the reason that negotiations with Labour foundered (apart from Mrs May's lack of people skills) is that Labour could not agree a deal with a PM with a political longevity measured in days. If Hunt was actually chosen by MPs and members, he could agree that PD with Labour, to get that through.
>
> Saying No Deal is a negotiating position is asinine, and it always was. It is a departure without a destination and requires a multiplicity of mini deals, starting with the three issues of the WA.
>
> A very hard WTO Brexit plan was possible 3 years ago, but it would have needed an acceptance of realities, such as a NI border or an Irish Sea one, a need for massive construction and recruitment for customs as well as a plan to restructure the manufacturing economy. The Tories were not willing to either face those realities or do the hard yards.
Whilst preparation in terms of infrastructure etc would have been sensible (and was blocked by Hammond) I think you exaggerate the difficulties. If we choose to accept that lorries from the EU carry goods that meet our (EU) standards that is a matter for us. If we choose not to apply tariffs ditto. There's a lot we can do unilaterally. It is then up to the EU to decide if they want the problems at their end.
> > @DavidL said:
> > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path.
> >
> > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated.
> >
> > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't.
> >
> >
>
> Part of the reason that negotiations with Labour foundered (apart from Mrs May's lack of people skills) is that Labour could not agree a deal with a PM with a political longevity measured in days. If Hunt was actually chosen by MPs and members, he could agree that PD with Labour, to get that through.
>
> Saying No Deal is a negotiating position is asinine, and it always was. It is a departure without a destination and requires a multiplicity of mini deals, starting with the three issues of the WA.
>
> A very hard WTO Brexit plan was possible 3 years ago, but it would have needed an acceptance of realities, such as a NI border or an Irish Sea one, a need for massive construction and recruitment for customs as well as a plan to restructure the manufacturing economy. The Tories were not willing to either face those realities or do the hard yards.
Whilst preparation in terms of infrastructure etc would have been sensible (and was blocked by Hammond) I think you exaggerate the difficulties. If we choose to accept that lorries from the EU carry goods that meet our (EU) standards that is a matter for us. If we choose not to apply tariffs ditto. There's a lot we can do unilaterally. It is then up to the EU to decide if they want the problems at their end.
> > @Jonathan said:
> > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament.
> >
> > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
>
> But they won't win that election as Nigel will either split the vote by taking the "must leave" vote or were the Tories to placate Nigel the Tories will lose the moderate vote
>
> Either way without May and the sympathy some had with her (at least this may work) solution there is zero chance of the Conservative party winning any near future election.
57% of 2017 Tories who voted voted Brexit Party on Thursday only 12% voted LD (significantly less than the number of 2017 Labour voters who voted LD) so the Tories could actually win an election on a hard Brexit platform that wins back Brexit Party voters, they cannot win though on a further extension of Article 50 or EUref2 ticket
> > @Jonathan said:
> > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament.
> >
> > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
>
> .....and who would win?
Quite possibly Farage at the moment under FPTP with the Tories and Labour split
> > @eek said:
> > > @Jonathan said:
> > > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament.
> > >
> > > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
> >
> > But they won't win that election as Nigel will either split the vote by taking the "must leave" vote or were the Tories to placate Nigel the Tories will lose the moderate vote
> >
> > Either way without May and the sympathy some had with her (at least this may work) solution there is zero chance of the Conservative party winning any near future election.
>
> 57% of 2017 Tories who voted voted Brexit Party on Thursday only 12% voted LD (significantly less than the number of 2017 Labour voters who voted LD) so the Tories could actually win an election on a hard Brexit platform that wins back Brexit Party voters, they cannot win though on a further extension of Article 50 or EUref2 ticket
As mentioned below, there's some anecdotal evidence that some of the Tory>Brex Party move was an anti-politics one, rather than a positive one for hard Brexit, but I accept that may be the minority. That minority could turn out to be important, though.
> > @eek said:
> > > @Jonathan said:
> > > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament.
> > >
> > > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
> >
> > But they won't win that election as Nigel will either split the vote by taking the "must leave" vote or were the Tories to placate Nigel the Tories will lose the moderate vote
> >
> > Either way without May and the sympathy some had with her (at least this may work) solution there is zero chance of the Conservative party winning any near future election.
>
> 57% of 2017 Tories who voted voted Brexit Party on Thursday only 12% voted LD (significantly less than the number of 2017 Labour voters who voted LD) so the Tories could actually win an election on a hard Brexit platform that wins back Brexit Party voters, they cannot win though on a further extension of Article 50 or EUref2 ticket
If you are already the government it would make no sense to fight an election on a referendum platform anyway; you just propose the referendum and get on with it.
If Rory had been responsible for herding May's deal through Parliament and the nation during its formation, I've little doubt even with is flaws it would have passed. Had he been Foreign Secretary from 2016 onwards (not inconceivable), we would not only have passed a Brexit but most likely be in a position where the poison from the debate was extinguished.
Read the Places In Between and tell me that the guy doesn't have the minerals. He's eloquent, modest, brave and patriotic.
He's also completely the wrong leader for 2019. But circa 2022? With luck he'll make the final two this time and (despite what he says now) take a big job, ready to step up when the present mess is over.
> > @Foxy said:
> >
> > Part of the reason that negotiations with Labour foundered (apart from Mrs May's lack of people skills) is that Labour could not agree a deal with a PM with a political longevity measured in days. If Hunt was actually chosen by MPs and members, he could agree that PD with Labour, to get that through.
> >
> > Saying No Deal is a negotiating position is asinine, and it always was. It is a departure without a destination and requires a multiplicity of mini deals, starting with the three issues of the WA.
> >
> > A very hard WTO Brexit plan was possible 3 years ago, but it would have needed an acceptance of realities, such as a NI border or an Irish Sea one, a need for massive construction and recruitment for customs as well as a plan to restructure the manufacturing economy. The Tories were not willing to either face those realities or do the hard yards.
>
> Whilst preparation in terms of infrastructure etc would have been sensible (and was blocked by Hammond) I think you exaggerate the difficulties. If we choose to accept that lorries from the EU carry goods that meet our (EU) standards that is a matter for us. If we choose not to apply tariffs ditto. There's a lot we can do unilaterally. It is then up to the EU to decide if they want the problems at their end.
And how does that work under WTO rules - whatever we unilaterally charge in tariffs to the EU (none) is then the maximum we can charge other countries.
One reason why South Korea has agreements with most countries is because their tariffs are the maximum allowed unless you have a trade agreement - to get to that position we need a signed deal with the EU before we start elsewhere otherwise the maximum we can charge is the 0% we are charging the EU.
> > @Foxy said:
> > > @DavidL said:
> > > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path.
> > >
> > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated.
> > >
> > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Part of the reason that negotiations with Labour foundered (apart from Mrs May's lack of people skills) is that Labour could not agree a deal with a PM with a political longevity measured in days. If Hunt was actually chosen by MPs and members, he could agree that PD with Labour, to get that through.
> >
> > Saying No Deal is a negotiating position is asinine, and it always was. It is a departure without a destination and requires a multiplicity of mini deals, starting with the three issues of the WA.
> >
> > A very hard WTO Brexit plan was possible 3 years ago, but it would have needed an acceptance of realities, such as a NI border or an Irish Sea one, a need for massive construction and recruitment for customs as well as a plan to restructure the manufacturing economy. The Tories were not willing to either face those realities or do the hard yards.
>
> Whilst preparation in terms of infrastructure etc would have been sensible (and was blocked by Hammond) I think you exaggerate the difficulties. If we choose to accept that lorries from the EU carry goods that meet our (EU) standards that is a matter for us. If we choose not to apply tariffs ditto. There's a lot we can do unilaterally. It is then up to the EU to decide if they want the problems at their end.
Simplistic.
> > @Nigelb said:
> > > @DavidL said:
> > > > @Cyclefree said:
> > > >
> > >
> > > The lack of planning was a major failure on the part of the government and undermined their negotiating position. It is possible that they might have got a deal without the backstop had they looked even vaguely serious about preparing for no deal at any point but they didn't.
> > >
> > > The answer to your question is complicated but the broad strokes would be that we would be looking for mini deals to keep things moving. We have them already in a series of areas such as transport but we would need more. We would also need to act unilaterally in a series of areas that would have been covered by the agreement. Gove's move yesterday in respect of citizenship for EU citizens, was a good and imaginative response to one of the problems.
> > >
> > > One of the areas we would need to act unilaterally would be to undertake to pay all of the liabilities we have agreed that we have in May's agreement. To fail to do so would make relationships much, much more difficult. One of the lies told by the enthusiasts for no deal is that these payments are a gift. They are not.
> > >
> > > In summary no deal would look an awful lot like May's deal in many respects but without the transition arrangements (which are desirable) except to the extent that we can agree them individually. There is a risk of some disruption but there would also be an urgency to having a trade deal with the EU which the transitional provisions might postpone. Again, I suspect that that trade deal is going to look very like May's deal.
> > >
> >
> > Do you really imagine that any administration pushing through no deal would be so pragmatic ? Even if it were to command a parliamentary majority...
> >
> > Such an approach would be labelled betrayal by most proponents of no deal.
> >
> >
>
> While we in desperation might have some urgency in getting a trade deal with the EU why / how would the EU have the same urgency...
>
> One of the biggest screw ups we have done with Brexit is not thinking about how the other half will think...
Their attitude will be influenced by our attitude. That is why looking after their citizens, paying our debts, generally being cooperative in NI etc, are so important. If we act in a grown up manner then I think we can assume that they will respond in kind. Of course the reverse is also true: if we act like arseholes they will retaliate. I think we can say that that is the pattern of the negotiations to date. Given May's ineptitude the deal she was offered was far more balanced than it might have been.