But remember a deal was done once before but - unaccountably - did not get through Parliament.
So it’s not done until that happens.
So best keep that prosecco (disgusting stuff BTW) on ice for now.
Agreed. It does feel like this deal will do a lot better than May's. Boris has seemingly taken the time to get the DUP and Spartans on side and also thrown a few bones regarding the environment and workers rights to the Labour rebels. The EU seem to like it too, but things can unravel quickly.
Fingers crossed though, this deal passing IMO is the best scenario for Britain and mending any post 2016 wounds.
I don't think we yet have the numbers for a referendum. I think there are probably still enough Labour Leavers who will vote against and, if Johnson moves towards one he will meet Theresa May's fate faster than you can say "shortest serving PM" and he knows it.
We go to a GE. The question then is whether Johnson repudiates his deal to secure his Brexit flank. I think he will - though @Brom might be right and this could just be some last minute theatre to bounce everyone into passing the deal.
time to wind up labour supporters ....... if the deal gets through without a referendum, the Tories will poll 45% in an opinion poll before end November
And a 25% gap over both Labour and the LibDems.....
But remember a deal was done once before but - unaccountably - did not get through Parliament.
So it’s not done until that happens.
So best keep that prosecco (disgusting stuff BTW) on ice for now.
Agreed. It does feel like this deal will do a lot better than May's. Boris has seemingly taken the time to get the DUP and Spartans on side and also thrown a few bones regarding the environment and workers rights to the Labour rebels. The EU seem to like it too, but things can unravel quickly.
Fingers crossed though, this deal passing IMO is the best scenario for Britain and mending any post 2016 wounds.
It may do a lot better than May’s but is it actually any better than May’s deal? What does it give Britain that May’s deal didn’t?
Or is it in fact substantively worse than May’s deal?
Perhaps at some point we will actually be told what the deal is.
How much gold are we stuffing in their mouths? More than £350 million a week?
To be fair, if you asked most people who are critical of Brexit whether deprived areas of the UK should receive more investment, especially to mitigate the costs of Brexit, I expect they would say yes. It's just when you mention that it's Northern Ireland and the DUP are negotiating it, they suddenly start huffing and puffing.
Seems to me that Boris being forced to hold a second referendum is becoming more and more likely.
I know the conventional wisdom has been that, practically, you can't force a government to hold one if they don't want to. But - given what's happened with the Benn Bill - if MPs legislate for a referendum, and place legal requirements on the government to organise for one, can the government really do anything to stop it, no matter how much huffing and puffing they'll do?
The question is to what extent we are in a de facto coalition with parliament making consensual decisions that the government must implement.
Boris won't offer a 2nd referendum under any circumstances. The Conservatives would be decimated by the Brexit party at the next election. He would however like to fight an election opposing one.
The scenario I'm talking about wouldn't be that Boris has "offered" a second referendum. It would be that Parliament imposes a law on him that there must be a referendum (and continued to refuse any requests for an election).
I don't think we yet have the numbers for a referendum. I think there are probably still enough Labour Leavers who will vote against and, if Johnson moves towards one he will meet Theresa May's fate faster than you can say "shortest serving PM" and he knows it.
We go to a GE. The question then is whether Johnson repudiates his deal to secure his Brexit flank. I think he will - though @Brom might be right and this could just be some last minute theatre to bounce everyone into passing the deal.
Indeed, only 280 MPs voted for EUref2 in the indicative votes
Mr. Gate, Labour are to whip for a second referendum.
Does that have the numbers to pass, I wonder?
I think the number of Labour rebels against a referendum might fall quite dramatically (especially since they might see a referendum as an alternative to an election, in which they might lose their seats).
But I don't know whether there'll be enough votes from the 21 ex-Tories to get it through.
I see londoners have taken direct action against the eco-fascists blocking the tube. Blocking the tube not a very smart of getting people on board your cause and besides surely they want people using public transport rather than cars?
Seems to me that Boris being forced to hold a second referendum is becoming more and more likely.
I know the conventional wisdom has been that, practically, you can't force a government to hold one if they don't want to. But - given what's happened with the Benn Bill - if MPs legislate for a referendum, and place legal requirements on the government to organise for one, can the government really do anything to stop it, no matter how much huffing and puffing they'll do?
The question is to what extent we are in a de facto coalition with parliament making consensual decisions that the government must implement.
Boris won't offer a 2nd referendum under any circumstances. The Conservatives would be decimated by the Brexit party at the next election. He would however like to fight an election opposing one.
The scenario I'm talking about wouldn't be that Boris has "offered" a second referendum. It would be that Parliament imposes a law on him that there must be a referendum (and continued to refuse any requests for an election).
If that happens he'll resign.
Possibly, but I doubt it.
If he has to choose between complying with a law he hates, or resigning as PM, I think he'll usually choose the former. As we may find out in a couple of days.
How much gold are we stuffing in their mouths? More than £350 million a week?
To be fair, if you asked most people who are critical of Brexit whether deprived areas of the UK should receive more investment, especially to mitigate the costs of Brexit, I expect they would say yes. It's just when you mention that it's Northern Ireland and the DUP are negotiating it, they suddenly start huffing and puffing.
Do you think that’s why Leave voters on the mainland voted for Brexit? To give more money to NI, a province which voted to remain? Or did they want some of the money to be spent on them?
Seems to me that Boris being forced to hold a second referendum is becoming more and more likely.
I know the conventional wisdom has been that, practically, you can't force a government to hold one if they don't want to. But - given what's happened with the Benn Bill - if MPs legislate for a referendum, and place legal requirements on the government to organise for one, can the government really do anything to stop it, no matter how much huffing and puffing they'll do?
2nd ref died when the Libs moved to revoke. Certainly expect the People's Vote campaign to wind down after this weekend.
That's the LibDems' policy if they win a majority at the next election.
This side of a general election, they say they'll still vote for a referendum any opportunity they're given.
Well there is not the numbers for it and there would need to be a GE with substantial Lib Dem gains before a referendum becomes likely. Without a GE it just won't happen.
Pretty close, when I just totted them up. If Lab whip for it, they’ve got 244. Assume some hardcore Leavers like Hoey break the whip; say up to 240 for referendum there. Add 20 from LDs and Stephen Lloyd. That’s 260. Add the SNP if they go for it. That’s 295. The Whipless Tories should go for it; most supported it in the IVs. We’re somewhere between 310-315 now. Add Plaid Cymru and the Green - 315-320.
Which means Boris needs all his remaining Tories with no further rebels, the DUP, some Labour rebels, almost all the Independents (Most of whom are ex-Labour) and the Independent Group for Change.
Actually, it could really be on. I hadn’t thought it could be until doing the totting up in response to your post.
Lab won't get 240, the Kinnock mob won't 100% support a deal but they have already ruled out a referendum so that would be some U-Turn. Half the whipless Tories will support it but all of them? I'm not sure. I think if it gets over 300 it has done well (could be wrong of course!).
Flint, Nandy, Kinnock etc will not vote for EUref2 as that means handing their seats to the Brexit Party or the Tories.
The likes of Skinner and Mann and Stringer are also ideologically opposed to EUref2 and will vote against.
Only Grieve, Greening and Bebb and maybe Rudd of the whipless Tories would vote for EUref2 too
If Johnson has the DUP votes there will be few ERG holdouts and he should have the numbers. The majority might even make it into double figures if he doesn't lose many of the Anti-No-Deal rebels who voted for May's Deal.
Clearly, Johnson is taking the line that the desire to get the A50 question resolved is so great that those daring to vote down this Deal will be effectively signing their own political suicide note.
Perhaps but we've gone from "No deal is better than a bad deal" to "Any deal will do".
We're also still in the dark as to the content of the new WA. Is it radically different from the WA already rejected three times by the Commons and if so, how? If, as I suspect, Johnson has made more concessions to the EU, how can the ERG and DUP, who claimed the original WA would make us "a vassal State of the EU" suddenly think this is such a good deal?
Forget the Commons for a moment. Can a UK government of English Nationalists simply impose a constitutional settlement on NI when the NI representatives are opposed to it?
If Johnson has the DUP votes there will be few ERG holdouts and he should have the numbers. The majority might even make it into double figures if he doesn't lose many of the Anti-No-Deal rebels who voted for May's Deal.
If there is no extension, he doesn't need the DUP.....
Forget the Commons for a moment. Can a UK government of English Nationalists simply impose a constitutional settlement on NI when the NI representatives are opposed to it?
What Johnson cannot now do is blame No Deal on the EU.
He can blame it on parliament instead. Cummings may well have something up his sleeve if parliament votes down another deal, and Its possible the EU wont be bothered to stop it happening given their patience must be wearing thin with Britain.
Forget the Commons for a moment. Can a UK government of English Nationalists simply impose a constitutional settlement on NI when the NI representatives are opposed to it?
The issue is that we don't know if all the NI representatives are opposed to it as we don't know Sinn Fein's position.
And that could well depend on how much money is thrown in NI's direction - as one issue that needs to be fixed is how poor NI is compared to the rest of Ireland (and large parts of the UK as well).
Clearly, Johnson is taking the line that the desire to get the A50 question resolved is so great that those daring to vote down this Deal will be effectively signing their own political suicide note.
Perhaps but we've gone from "No deal is better than a bad deal" to "Any deal will do".
We're also still in the dark as to the content of the new WA. Is it radically different from the WA already rejected three times by the Commons and if so, how? If, as I suspect, Johnson has made more concessions to the EU, how can the ERG and DUP, who claimed the original WA would make us "a vassal State of the EU" suddenly think this is such a good deal?
Someone needs to tell him what the Benn Act actually requires. A vote in favour of the deal in principle is not enough. The requirements are very specific. The complete legal text is needed, for one thing.
That seems incredibly strange logic to me. If it's "this deal or No Deal", why would the ERG support the deal over their preferred outcome? They're surely only willing to support this deal because they believe Delay/Remain is the alterative.
Seems to me that Boris being forced to hold a second referendum is becoming more and more likely.
I know the conventional wisdom has been that, practically, you can't force a government to hold one if they don't want to. But - given what's happened with the Benn Bill - if MPs legislate for a referendum, and place legal requirements on the government to organise for one, can the government really do anything to stop it, no matter how much huffing and puffing they'll do?
The question is to what extent we are in a de facto coalition with parliament making consensual decisions that the government must implement.
Boris won't offer a 2nd referendum under any circumstances. The Conservatives would be decimated by the Brexit party at the next election. He would however like to fight an election opposing one.
The scenario I'm talking about wouldn't be that Boris has "offered" a second referendum. It would be that Parliament imposes a law on him that there must be a referendum (and continued to refuse any requests for an election).
The key is the EU. I very much doubt they will allow an extension for months for a referendum, more likely to allow for a GE
Why would the EU risk a general election that may not actually resolve anything.
A referendum at least puts an end to this unless we have an exact 50/50 split.
Puts an end to it how? the last one clearly didn't. If there is a deal on the table EU will expect us to vote it through this time. There is no benefit on their side for either a GE or 2nd Ref. That time has passed.
This time it could be a referendum with all the conditions known, no outside interference, following the rules and known in advance to be binding, not just advisory.
Someone needs to tell him what the Benn Act actually requires. A vote in favour of the deal in principle is not enough. The requirements are very specific. The complete legal text is needed, for one thing.
Is that ready yet?
If the EU lets it be known there is going to be no further extension under any circumstances, then the Benn Act is tomorrow's chip paper....
Seems to me that Boris being forced to hold a second referendum is becoming more and more likely.
I know the conventional wisdom has been that, practically, you can't force a government to hold one if they don't want to. But - given what's happened with the Benn Bill - if MPs legislate for a referendum, and place legal requirements on the government to organise for one, can the government really do anything to stop it, no matter how much huffing and puffing they'll do?
The question is to what extent we are in a de facto coalition with parliament making consensual decisions that the government must implement.
Boris won't offer a 2nd referendum under any circumstances. The Conservatives would be decimated by the Brexit party at the next election. He would however like to fight an election opposing one.
The scenario I'm talking about wouldn't be that Boris has "offered" a second referendum. It would be that Parliament imposes a law on him that there must be a referendum (and continued to refuse any requests for an election).
The key is the EU. I very much doubt they will allow an extension for months for a referendum, more likely to allow for a GE
Why would the EU risk a general election that may not actually resolve anything.
A referendum at least puts an end to this unless we have an exact 50/50 split.
Puts an end to it how? the last one clearly didn't. If there is a deal on the table EU will expect us to vote it through this time. There is no benefit on their side for either a GE or 2nd Ref. That time has passed.
This time it could be a referendum with all the conditions known, no outside interference, following the rules and known in advance to be binding, not just advisory.
I would vote differently in such a referendum.
That wouldn't change anything, the losing side would never accept the result because of the precedent that was set last time. A deal is the only realistic way to settle things.
That seems incredibly strange logic to me. If it's "this deal or No Deal", why would the ERG support the deal over their preferred outcome? They're surely only willing to support this deal because they believe Delay/Remain is the alterative.
The ERG is not and never was a bloc vote or had a consensus outcome, and what passes for its intellectual heft, viz Jacob Rees-Mogg, has sold his soul for a seat at Cabinet.
That seems incredibly strange logic to me. If it's "this deal or No Deal", why would the ERG support the deal over their preferred outcome? They're surely only willing to support this deal because they believe Delay/Remain is the alterative.
As the Deal removes the backstop for GB which was the main objection to the May Deal for most of the ERG if not the DUP
Remainers graciously accepting defeat and trying to see the positives, I see
"I wasn't trying anyway" up next
I don’t see a deal as a defeat. We had a deal a year ago. Which was trashed by many of those now in government, for reasons which had more to do with their own egos and personal ambitions than anything particularly wrong with the deal itself.
But I’d like to know two things:-
1. What are the terms of this deal 2. What does it offer Britain that we didn’t have in November 2018 or, indeed, December 2017?
Or do you somehow think that asking these questions is illegitimate?
Forget the Commons for a moment. Can a UK government of English Nationalists simply impose a constitutional settlement on NI when the NI representatives are opposed to it?
Yes
With reference to the Troubles and GFA? Imposing something a country doesn't want usually is a Bad Idea. Doubly so when its NI.
I think the priority for Johnson is positioning for the GE in 2020. All else is way down the list. And I think he's sitting pretty so long as he brings back a Deal that his own MPs vote for. If it passes bingo - he's the man who delivered Brexit. Wins GE on the back of that. If it fails also bingo - he can pin the blame on other parties. Wins GE on a "let's get it done FFS" ticket.
Its entirely possible. Of course the political problem for Johnson is then that all the people gaslit to believe that a surrender deal isn't proper Brexit will then all trot off to vote for Farage so that Brexit can finally happen.
What Johnson cannot now do is blame No Deal on the EU.
He can blame it on parliament though.
How can he? Parliament would never vote for no deal.
If he presents a deal, they vote it down...and we know from the polling people want this resolved.
The public have seen HoC decide time and time again they are against every option. It is clear this is being set up as one final chance to vote for something.
I am not saying i agree with all of this, rather what the spin will be.
That seems incredibly strange logic to me. If it's "this deal or No Deal", why would the ERG support the deal over their preferred outcome? They're surely only willing to support this deal because they believe Delay/Remain is the alterative.
I’d be shocked if Johnson agreed this deal without getting the DUP on board .
But apparently not , this is crazy .
How does it hurt Boris's plan - it's likely he will be blocked but can blame Parliament and push for the deal as part of a referendum.
And I think pushing for it via a referendum is actually less painful for Boris than pushing for an election with us still inside.
Yes but you don't vote Tory. I always have and 2nd ref means I'm off to Brexit party.
Um, you don't know how I vote - it was Tory until May made a pigs ear of selling her deal - and Boris's deal will be worse once you start looking at it.
I think the priority for Johnson is positioning for the GE in 2020. All else is way down the list. And I think he's sitting pretty so long as he brings back a Deal that his own MPs vote for. If it passes bingo - he's the man who delivered Brexit. Wins GE on the back of that. If it fails also bingo - he can pin the blame on other parties. Wins GE on a "let's get it done FFS" ticket.
He's playing a blinder. Unfortunately.
Agree. The only way it goes wrong is if the other parties make a GNU and deliver brexit, but that's harder to do if Con are pushing a deal as well.
Its entirely possible. Of course the political problem for Johnson is then that all the people gaslit to believe that a surrender deal isn't proper Brexit will then all trot off to vote for Farage so that Brexit can finally happen.
They won't, as the Boris Deal removes the backstop for GB just leaves it for NI only with control for the Assembly etc
Comments
Fingers crossed though, this deal passing IMO is the best scenario for Britain and mending any post 2016 wounds.
We go to a GE. The question then is whether Johnson repudiates his deal to secure his Brexit flank. I think he will - though @Brom might be right and this could just be some last minute theatre to bounce everyone into passing the deal.
Many thanks!
We've got a great new Brexit deal
Well played them if so.
Boris calls for election the day after...seen as a hero to Brexiteers and high momentum...
Hes's a lucky general if this works out
Does that have the numbers to pass, I wonder?
Or is it in fact substantively worse than May’s deal?
Perhaps at some point we will actually be told what the deal is.
It's just when you mention that it's Northern Ireland and the DUP are negotiating it, they suddenly start huffing and puffing.
But I don't know whether there'll be enough votes from the 21 ex-Tories to get it through.
But apparently not , this is crazy .
Bloody hell.
If he has to choose between complying with a law he hates, or resigning as PM, I think he'll usually choose the former. As we may find out in a couple of days.
https://twitter.com/mattshuham/status/1184568607952510977
The likes of Skinner and Mann and Stringer are also ideologically opposed to EUref2 and will vote against.
Only Grieve, Greening and Bebb and maybe Rudd of the whipless Tories would vote for EUref2 too
Hmm.
And I think pushing for it via a referendum is actually less painful for Boris than pushing for an election with us still inside.
That is the missing piece of the jigsaw. And it should be a no-brainer for the EU.
lolololol!
Perhaps but we've gone from "No deal is better than a bad deal" to "Any deal will do".
We're also still in the dark as to the content of the new WA. Is it radically different from the WA already rejected three times by the Commons and if so, how? If, as I suspect, Johnson has made more concessions to the EU, how can the ERG and DUP, who claimed the original WA would make us "a vassal State of the EU" suddenly think this is such a good deal?
"I wasn't trying anyway" up next
Not sure what’s going to happen now !
And that could well depend on how much money is thrown in NI's direction - as one issue that needs to be fixed is how poor NI is compared to the rest of Ireland (and large parts of the UK as well).
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1184768817664319489?s=20
Is that ready yet?
I would vote differently in such a referendum.
Don't see how #ref 2 gets through without CON. So Extend and Election?
Boris: Deal
BPE: No Deal
Labour: Ref #2
LD: Revoke
I always have and 2nd ref means I'm off to Brexit party.
But I’d like to know two things:-
1. What are the terms of this deal
2. What does it offer Britain that we didn’t have in November 2018 or, indeed, December 2017?
Or do you somehow think that asking these questions is illegitimate?
He's playing a blinder. Unfortunately.
The public have seen HoC decide time and time again they are against every option. It is clear this is being set up as one final chance to vote for something.
I am not saying i agree with all of this, rather what the spin will be.
Ha!
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1184772335389282304