John_N4 said:

Bringing my thoughts together this lunchtime...

1) There needs to be a new prime minister fast. When Theresa May wins the first round tomorrow, any other candidates who are reluctant to drop out should have their heads knocked together until they change their minds.

2) May should state as follows.

a) It was a failing of the previous government that it did not plan properly for the contingency of a Leave win.

b) Article 50 may only be invoked by the will of Parliament, because it would effectively repeal the European Communities Act 1972 or at least turn that Act into a dead letter, neither of which may be effected except by will of Parliament. To try to invoke it by royal prerogative would therefore be unlawful, and it would also be a breach of the spirit of both the Sewel convention and the Ponsonby rule.

c) This government will over the course of the next few months draw up a plan for leaving the EU. It cannot of course be sure of achieving its aims, because they depend on negotiation with the other 27 states, but it will do its best, and it will develop a clear policy regarding EFTA, EEA and the movement of people.

d) It will then put its plan to the House of Commons.

i) If the house does not support its plan, Britain will not invoke A50 and will stay in the EU.

ii) If the house supports its plan, the government will then call a binding referendum. If the answer is yes, article 50 will be invoked immediately. If the answer is no, Britain will stay in the EU.

e) The government will introduce a motion before the House of Commons RIGHT NOW in favour of this course of action. That motion will also be a confidence motion. If it fails, May will call an immediate general election.

...
5) The Chilcot report will be published at 10am on Wednesday. I predict that the withdrawal of the last candidate for the Tory leadership who isn't Theresa May will happen within two hours of that time. She may even call a press conference at 10 or 10.30.

Whilst your series of extra hoops before we leave the EU grabs the attention, I'd put down another point: the most (indeed arguably only) positive thing to emerge so far from the EUref vote is the much stronger hand it has given reformers within the EU. This is a good thing and something we would want to cheer on, whether leaving or staying. Reform within the EU won't happen overnight, we know that. Therefore as someone who would like to stay, I nevertheless want the widescale reforms the EU is finally talking about to be pushed forward. My worry with your scenario is that, potentially, it lets the EU off the hook way too early.

Plus, the only way public opinion would stand for a reversal of the leave decision is if it has demonstrably proved to be seriously damaging for the Uk economy. This won't become obvious for a year or probably longer.

PlatoSaid said:

DearPB said:

Paristonda said:

HYUFD said:

Given UKIP are now going to focus primarily on an anti immigration, anti free movement, anti EEA platform targeting the white working class and lower middle-class they need someone from that background to appeal to them which maybe why the rather poacher Nigel Farage decided to quit. The northern Paul Nuttall comes from a working class background and is probably their best bet to succeed him as leader

Yes he probably is - I recall seeing him on question time and he seemed to perform well on TV as well which never hurts. He'll need to backtrack on those NHS privatisation statements but I don't think that will hold him back much.

If UKIP do become more explicitly labour-targeting, it leaves an opening for the tories to become more centre ground without losing the old traditional tory/kipper votes on the right flank. Would expect Theresa to tack further left, much more in the mould of Merkel than Thatcher. Labour could be seriously screwed, losing votes up north to kippers, no sign of a comeback in Scotland, a resurgent and explicitly pro-eu lib dem party taking youth votes (more so if Corbyn is deposed), and the tories solidifying their grasp on centrist voters.

Steven Woolfe also fits the bill background wise - northern, working class, but has a slightly more impressive professional track record. And he's mixed race.

A woman leading the Tories, someone of mixed race leading UKIP, and a 67 year old middle class white man leading Labour - I'd love that so much, the existential crisis on the left would be wonderful to watch!

Jezza is a vegetarian though, if we are looking at minorities :-)

John_N4 said:

Bringing my thoughts together this lunchtime...

1) There needs to be a new prime minister fast. When Theresa May wins the first round tomorrow, any other candidates who are reluctant to drop out should have their heads knocked together until they change their minds.

2) May should state as follows.

a) It was a failing of the previous government that it did not plan properly for the contingency of a Leave win.

b) Article 50 may only be invoked by the will of Parliament, because it would effectively repeal the European Communities Act 1972 or at least turn that Act into a dead letter, neither of which may be effected except by will of Parliament. To try to invoke it by royal prerogative would therefore be unlawful, and it would also be a breach of the spirit of both the Sewel convention and the Ponsonby rule.

c) This government will over the course of the next few months draw up a plan for leaving the EU. It cannot of course be sure of achieving its aims, because they depend on negotiation with the other 27 states, but it will do its best, and it will develop a clear policy regarding EFTA, EEA and the movement of people.

d) It will then put its plan to the House of Commons.

i) If the house does not support its plan, Britain will not invoke A50 and will stay in the EU........

I was with you up to 2(d)(i)....

If the new PM, in one of her first utterances, as someone who supported (in a lukewarm way) the Remain campaign, declares that we may not actually leave the EU, then unholy hell will break loose and there could be riots on the streets.

The new administration needs to bring calmness, moderate and sensible thinking, and a plan for implementing the will of a narrow majority of the people without causing the sky to fall in.

It may well be that, down the line, the Commons doesn't back the deal negotiated or votes to stay in the EU. I don't think entertaining that prospect as an active option from day 1 would be a wise course!

MaxPB said:

ToryJim said:

rottenborough said:

ToryJim said:

rottenborough said:

Davis backs May. Coming back in from the cold?

Source?

Guardian blog

Got it. It seems the preponderance of Boris backers are heading to May. First Ballot will be instructive but suspect TM probably heading towards half the party in R1 and not beyond the bounds of possibility she could breach 200 on final MP vote.

I think she'll want some of her supporters to back Crabb enough to pull ahead of Leadsom in the first round so the leave backers coalesce around Gove who will be easy pickings given all of his statements about not being up to the job.

Looking at their agendas they will be fishing in the same lake anyway. I suspect May and her team know exactly what they are doing!

anotherDave said:

MikeL said:

MaxPB said:

Tissue_Price said:

david_herdson said:

Tissue_Price said:

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Parliamentary Party decide to offer the members the choice of May vs Gove, just in case. Theresa must have MPs to spare.

That would be the sensible tactical move but it's a delicate game. She'd need to boost Gove in the first round to avoid (1) it looking obvious as to what's going on, and (2) losing votes from round-to-round, which would make it look as if opinion was moving away from her.

That's what spreadsheets are for.

Assuming 330 vote (might not be true)

Rnd 1

TM 145 (-30 tactical)
MG 65 (+30 tactical)
AL 55
SC 45
LF 20

Fox out, he backs May

Rnd 2

TM 150 (-35 tactical)
MG 71 (+35 tactical)
AL 63
SC 46

Crabb out, he backs May too

Rnd 3

TM 185 (-40 tactical, NB a comfortable majority)
MG 75 (+40 tactical)
AL 70

Surely easier to back Crabb into round 3 to ensure that the die hards don't all umite behind Leadsom.

But most Crabb supporters will back May.

Crabb dropping out gives them far more votes to play with.

If R3 is May, Crabb and Leadsom, most of Gove will have transferred to Leadsom. To then get Cranbb into the Final requires May's total to fall very substantially - so she would no longer be the clear winner. Indeed it may be almost impossible if Leadsom can get close to 110 - which she may very well do with all of Gove's transfers.

Guido has Leadsom in 2nd place among declared supporters.

May 95, Leadsom 30, Gove 24, Crabb 22

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19mKbV0UnIbX_lbiinKiquP0ghiFpsMl0owUO6_TJyzI/htmlview?usp=sharing&pref=2&pli=1&sle=true

David Davis backs Theresa May

MikeL said:

MaxPB said:

Tissue_Price said:

david_herdson said:

Tissue_Price said:

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Parliamentary Party decide to offer the members the choice of May vs Gove, just in case. Theresa must have MPs to spare.

That would be the sensible tactical move but it's a delicate game. She'd need to boost Gove in the first round to avoid (1) it looking obvious as to what's going on, and (2) losing votes from round-to-round, which would make it look as if opinion was moving away from her.

That's what spreadsheets are for.

Assuming 330 vote (might not be true)

Rnd 1

TM 145 (-30 tactical)
MG 65 (+30 tactical)
AL 55
SC 45
LF 20

Fox out, he backs May

Rnd 2

TM 150 (-35 tactical)
MG 71 (+35 tactical)
AL 63
SC 46

Crabb out, he backs May too

Rnd 3

TM 185 (-40 tactical, NB a comfortable majority)
MG 75 (+40 tactical)
AL 70

Surely easier to back Crabb into round 3 to ensure that the die hards don't all umite behind Leadsom.

But most Crabb supporters will back May.

Crabb dropping out gives them far more votes to play with.

If R3 is May, Crabb and Leadsom, most of Gove will have transferred to Leadsom. To then get Crabb into the Final requires May's total to fall very substantially - so she would no longer be the clear winner. Indeed it may be almost impossible if Leadsom can get close to 110 - which she may very well do with all of Gove's transfers.

Clark beat IDS amongst the MPs in 2001 so winning the MP vote by a big margin doesn't necessarily matter. It's a new contest when it's the final 2.

Though there may be value in having more than 50% in the final MP ballot - no-one ever has before.

IanB2 said:

John_N4 said:

Bringing my thoughts together this lunchtime...

1) There needs to be a new prime minister fast. When Theresa May wins the first round tomorrow, any other candidates who are reluctant to drop out should have their heads knocked together until they change their minds.

2) May should state as follows.

a) It was a failing of the previous government that it did not plan properly for the contingency of a Leave win.

b) Article 50 may only be invoked by the will of Parliament, because it would effectively repeal the European Communities Act 1972 or at least turn that Act into a dead letter, neither of which may be effected except by will of Parliament. To try to invoke it by royal prerogative would therefore be unlawful, and it would also be a breach of the spirit of both the Sewel convention and the Ponsonby rule.

c) This government will over the course of the next few months draw up a plan for leaving the EU. It cannot of course be sure of achieving its aims, because they depend on negotiation with the other 27 states, but it will do its best, and it will develop a clear policy regarding EFTA, EEA and the movement of people.

d) It will then put its plan to the House of Commons.

i) If the house does not support its plan, Britain will not invoke A50 and will stay in the EU.

ii) If the house supports its plan, the government will then call a binding referendum. If the answer is yes, article 50 will be invoked immediately. If the answer is no, Britain will stay in the EU.

e) The government will introduce a motion before the House of Commons RIGHT NOW in favour of this course of action. That motion will also be a confidence motion. If it fails, May will call an immediate general election.

.

Whilst your series of extra hoops before we leave the EU grabs the attention, I'd put down another point: the most (indeed arguably only) positive thing to emerge so far from the EUref vote is the much stronger hand it has given reformers within the EU. This is a good thing and something we would want to cheer on, whether leaving or staying. Reform within the EU won't happen overnight, we know that. Therefore as someone who would like to stay, I nevertheless want the widescale reforms the EU is finally talking about to be pushed forward. My worry with your scenario is that, potentially, it lets the EU off the hook way too early.

Plus, the only way public opinion would stand for a reversal of the leave decision is if it has demonstrably proved to be seriously damaging for the Uk economy. This won't become obvious for a year or probably longer.

You only need a swing of 2% and that has probably already happened.

IanB2 said:

John_N4 said:

Bringing my thoughts together this lunchtime...

1) There needs to be a new prime minister fast. When Theresa May wins the first round tomorrow, any other candidates who are reluctant to drop out should have their heads knocked together until they change their minds.

Whilst your series of extra hoops before we leave the EU grabs the attention, I'd put down another point: the most (indeed arguably only) positive thing to emerge so far from the EUref vote is the much stronger hand it has given reformers within the EU. This is a good thing and something we would want to cheer on, whether leaving or staying. Reform within the EU won't happen overnight, we know that. Therefore as someone who would like to stay, I nevertheless want the widescale reforms the EU is finally talking about to be pushed forward. My worry with your scenario is that, potentially, it lets the EU off the hook way too early.

Plus, the only way public opinion would stand for a reversal of the leave decision is if it has demonstrably proved to be seriously damaging for the Uk economy. This won't become obvious for a year or probably longer.

There are two ways this could work for the EU (and the fact that the first significant event was Merkel kicking Junckers in the balls gives me some hope).

With Brexit, the liberal, free-trade bloc loses its blocking minority in QMV. That's bad. So we might see an even more dirigiste, centralising, protectionist Europe on our doorstep. Super bad.

Alternatively, they might reflect a bit and realise that having 13% of your population and 17% of your GDP departing isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the direction of travel, and start doing serious, practical work on EMU and formalising a two-speed Europe. That would be good.

IanB2 said:

John_N4 said:

Bringing my thoughts together this lunchtime...

1) There needs to be a new prime minister fast. When Theresa May wins the first round tomorrates who are reluctant to drop out should have their heads knocked together until they change their minds.

2) May should state as follows.

a) It was a failing of the previous government that it did not plan properly for the contingency of a Leave win.

b) Article 50 may only be invoked by the will of Parliament, because it would effectively repeal the European Communities Act 1972 or at least turn that Act of which may be effected except by will of Parliament. To try to invoke it by royal prerogative would therefore be unlawful, and it would also be a breach of the spirit of both the Sewel convention and the Ponsonby rule.

c) This government will over the course of the next few months draw up a plan for leaving the EU. It cannot of course be sure of achieving its aims, because they depend on negotiation with the other 27 states, but it will do its best, and it will develop a clear policy regarding EFTA, EEA and the movement of people.

d) It will then put its plan to the House of Commons.

i) If the house does not support its plan, Britain will not invoke A50 and will stay in the EU.

ii) If the house supports its plan, the government will then call a binding referendum. If the answer is yes, article 50 will be invoked immediately. If the answer is no, Britain wwithin two hours of that time. She may even call a press conference at 10 or 10.30.

Whilst your series of extra hoops before we leave the EU grabs the attention, I'd put down another point: the most (indeed arguably only) positive thing to emerge so far from the EUref vote is the much stronger hand it has given reformers within the EU. This is a good thing and something we would want to cheer on, whether leaving or staying. Reform within the EU won't happen overnight, we know that. Therefore as someone who would like to stay, I nevertheless want the widescale reforms the EU is finally talking about to be pushed forward. My worry with your scenario is that, potentially, it lets the EU off the hook way too early.

Plus, the only way public opinion would stand for a reversal of the leave decision is if it has demonstrably proved to be seriously damaging for the Uk economy. This won't become obvious for a year or probably longer.

While any plan that gives several options for us to not Leave will go up in flames and anyone who proposed it with it - and the Tories will be made to swear in blood they won't do so during the leadership contest - I do think it is right that the EU may well be improved by all this. It is a shame that it would take us actually leaving for it to become flexible enough to be the sort of EU we might well have been OK with!

John_N4 said:

Bringing my thoughts together this lunchtime...

I think they were probably better when they were scattered.

DearPB said:

MikeL said:

MaxPB said:

Tissue_Price said:

david_herdson said:

Tissue_Price said:

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Parliamentary Party decide to offer the members the choice of May vs Gove, just in case. Theresa must have MPs to spare.

That would be the sensible tactical move but it's a delicate game. She'd need to boost Gove in the first round to avoid (1) it looking obvious as to what's going on, and (2) losing votes from round-to-round, which would make it look as if opinion was moving away from her.

That's what spreadsheets are for.

Assuming 330 vote (might not be true)

Rnd 1

TM 145 (-30 tactical)
MG 65 (+30 tactical)
AL 55
SC 45
LF 20

Fox out, he backs May

Rnd 2

TM 150 (-35 tactical)
MG 71 (+35 tactical)
AL 63
SC 46

Crabb out, he backs May too

Rnd 3

TM 185 (-40 tactical, NB a comfortable majority)
MG 75 (+40 tactical)
AL 70

Surely easier to back Crabb into round 3 to ensure that the die hards don't all umite behind Leadsom.

But most Crabb supporters will back May.

Crabb dropping out gives them far more votes to play with.

If R3 is May, Crabb and Leadsom, most of Gove will have transferred to Leadsom. To then get Crabb into the Final requires May's total to fall very substantially - so she would no longer be the clear winner. Indeed it may be almost impossible if Leadsom can get close to 110 - which she may very well do with all of Gove's transfers.

Clark beat IDS amongst the MPs in 2001 so winning the MP vote by a big margin doesn't necessarily matter. It's a new contest when it's the final 2.

Though there may be value in having more than 50% in the final MP ballot - no-one ever has before.

That must mean many MPS abstain.

anotherDave said:

MikeL said:

MaxPB said:

Tissue_Price said:

david_herdson said:

Tissue_Price said:

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Parliamentary Party decide to offer the members the choice of May vs Gove, just in case. Theresa must have MPs to spare.

That would be the sensible tactical move but it's a delicate game. She'd need to boost Gove in the first round to avoid (1) it looking obvious as to what's going on, and (2) losing votes from round-to-round, which would make it look as if opinion was moving away from her.

That's what spreadsheets are for.

Assuming 330 vote (might not be true)

Rnd 1

TM 145 (-30 tactical)
MG 65 (+30 tactical)
AL 55
SC 45
LF 20

Fox out, he backs May

Rnd 2

TM 150 (-35 tactical)
MG 71 (+35 tactical)
AL 63
SC 46

Crabb out, he backs May too

Rnd 3

TM 185 (-40 tactical, NB a comfortable majority)
MG 75 (+40 tactical)
AL 70

Surely easier to back Crabb into round 3 to ensure that the die hards don't all umite behind Leadsom.

But most Crabb supporters will back May.

Crabb dropping out gives them far more votes to play with.

If R3 is May, Crabb and Leadsom, most of Gove will have transferred to Leadsom. To then get Cranbb into the Final requires May's total to fall very substantially - so she would no longer be the clear winner. Indeed it may be almost impossible if Leadsom can get close to 110 - which she may very well do with all of Gove's transfers.

Guido has Leadsom in 2nd place among declared supporters.

May 95, Leadsom 30, Gove 24, Crabb 22

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19mKbV0UnIbX_lbiinKiquP0ghiFpsMl0owUO6_TJyzI/htmlview?usp=sharing&pref=2&pli=1&sle=true

There are still a lot of undeclared MPs. I really don't believe we know the state of play until after tomorrow's ballot.

DearPB said:

anotherDave said:

MikeL said:

MaxPB said:

Tissue_Price said:

david_herdson said:

Tissue_Price said:

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Parliamentary Party decide to offer the members the choice of May vs Gove, just in case. Theresa must have MPs to spare.

That would be the sensible tactical move but it's a delicate game. She'd need to boost Gove in the first round to avoid (1) it looking obvious as to what's going on, and (2) losing votes from round-to-round, which would make it look as if opinion was moving away from her.

That's what spreadsheets are for.

Assuming 330 vote (might not be true)

Rnd 1

TM 145 (-30 tactical)
MG 65 (+30 tactical)
AL 55
SC 45
LF 20

Fox out, he backs May

Rnd 2

TM 150 (-35 tactical)
MG 71 (+35 tactical)
AL 63
SC 46

Crabb out, he backs May too

Rnd 3

TM 185 (-40 tactical, NB a comfortable majority)
MG 75 (+40 tactical)
AL 70

Surely easier to back Crabb into round 3 to ensure that the die hards don't all umite behind Leadsom.

But most Crabb supporters will back May.

Crabb dropping out gives them far more votes to play with.

If R3 is May, Crabb and Leadsom, most of Gove will have transferred to Leadsom. To then get Cranbb into the Final requires May's total to fall very substantially - so she would no longer be the clear winner. Indeed it may be almost impossible if Leadsom can get close to 110 - which she may very well do with all of Gove's transfers.

Guido has Leadsom in 2nd place among declared supporters.

May 95, Leadsom 30, Gove 24, Crabb 22

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19mKbV0UnIbX_lbiinKiquP0ghiFpsMl0owUO6_TJyzI/htmlview?usp=sharing&pref=2&pli=1&sle=true

There are still a lot of undeclared MPs. I really don't believe we know the state of play until after tomorrow's ballot.

True. But the public declarations is all we have until tomorrow.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

DearPB said:

MikeL said:

MaxPB said:

Tissue_Price said:

david_herdson said:

Tissue_Price said:

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Parliamentary Party decide to offer the members the choice of May vs Gove, just in case. Theresa must have MPs to spare.

That would be the sensible tactical move but it's a delicate game. She'd need to boost Gove in the first round to avoid (1) it looking obvious as to what's going on, and (2) losing votes from round-to-round, which would make it look as if opinion was moving away from her.

That's what spreadsheets are for.

Assuming 330 vote (might not be true)

Rnd 1

TM 145 (-30 tactical)
MG 65 (+30 tactical)
AL 55
SC 45
LF 20

Fox out, he backs May

Rnd 2

TM 150 (-35 tactical)
MG 71 (+35 tactical)
AL 63
SC 46

Crabb out, he backs May too

Rnd 3

TM 185 (-40 tactical, NB a comfortable majority)
MG 75 (+40 tactical)
AL 70

Surely easier to back Crabb into round 3 to ensure that the die hards don't all umite behind Leadsom.

But most Crabb supporters will back May.

Crabb dropping out gives them far more votes to play with.

If R3 is May, Crabb and Leadsom, most of Gove will have transferred to Leadsom. To then get Crabb into the Final requires May's total to fall very substantially - so she would no longer be the clear winner. Indeed it may be almost impossible if Leadsom can get close to 110 - which she may very well do with all of Gove's transfers.

Clark beat IDS amongst the MPs in 2001 so winning the MP vote by a big margin doesn't necessarily matter. It's a new contest when it's the final 2.

Though there may be value in having more than 50% in the final MP ballot - no-one ever has before.

That must mean many MPS abstain.

No; they vote for the candidate that comes third and gets knocked out. In 2001:

Kenneth Clarke 59 35.5
Iain Duncan Smith 54 32.5
Michael Portillo 53 32

DearPB said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

DearPB said:

MikeL said:

MaxPB said:

Tissue_Price said:

david_herdson said:

Tissue_Price said:

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Parliamentary Party decide to offer the members the choice of May vs Gove, just in case. Theresa must have MPs to spare.

That would be the sensible tactical move but it's a delicate game. She'd need to boost Gove in the first round to avoid (1) it looking obvious as to what's going on, and (2) losing votes from round-to-round, which would make it look as if opinion was moving away from her.

That's what spreadsheets are for.

Assuming 330 vote (might not be true)

Rnd 1

TM 145 (-30 tactical)
MG 65 (+30 tactical)
AL 55
SC 45
LF 20

Fox out, he backs May

Rnd 2

TM 150 (-35 tactical)
MG 71 (+35 tactical)
AL 63
SC 46

Crabb out, he backs May too

Rnd 3

TM 185 (-40 tactical, NB a comfortable majority)
MG 75 (+40 tactical)
AL 70

Surely easier to back Crabb into round 3 to ensure that the die hards don't all umite behind Leadsom.

But most Crabb supporters will back May.

Crabb dropping out gives them far more votes to play with.

If R3 is May, Crabb and Leadsom, most of Gove will have transferred to Leadsom. To then get Crabb into the Final requires May's total to fall very substantially - so she would no longer be the clear winner. Indeed it may be almost impossible if Leadsom can get close to 110 - which she may very well do with all of Gove's transfers.

Clark beat IDS amongst the MPs in 2001 so winning the MP vote by a big margin doesn't necessarily matter. It's a new contest when it's the final 2.

Though there may be value in having more than 50% in the final MP ballot - no-one ever has before.

That must mean many MPS abstain.

No; they vote for the candidate that comes third and gets knocked out. In 2001:

Kenneth Clarke 59 35.5
Iain Duncan Smith 54 32.5
Michael Portillo 53 32

Percentages on the right

Big_G_NorthWales said:

John_M said:

theakes said:

Cons, Labour, UKIP, Greens all with women leaders, way hay. Farron the exception, Lib Dems have a problem with women?

Lib Dems: male, pale and stale. #SocialJusticeWarriorMe

You missed out the SNP, Scots Cons and Scots Labour

Also Plaid Cymru and Northern Ireland First Minister

SeanT said:

AlastairMeeks said:

As a thought experiment, would some of our EEA Leavers care to comment on whether they would still be happy with the way things were going if Andrea Leadsom becomes the next Prime Minister?

i think it would be disastrous if she followed through on her promise to trigger A50 immediately.

We have a reasonable chance of a reasonable deal. If we screw this up we really could be looking a GDP drops of 10% or more.

The only advantage of declaring immediately is to reassure people who are paranoid it won't be declared. Delaying a few months is not a problem. Since anyTory PM who tried to not declare at all would be toast, there's no need to worry on that score, and promising to declare immediately is unnecessary.

John_M said:

AlastairMeeks said:

As a thought experiment, would some of our EEA Leavers care to comment on whether they would still be happy with the way things were going if Andrea Leadsom becomes the next Prime Minister?

At this point, I'm with Carney. A plan is better than no plan. A plan that had been run past our major trading partners and European allies, however informally, would be better still.

Won't that give away our bargaining position? This is my concern with politicians saying that EU citizens resident in the UK can all stay - at some point the government may need to use them as a point of negotiation.

John N4 wrote a long post. Let me summarise: 'Boohoo. Wrong result. Let's frustrate it.'

SeanT said:

HurstLlama said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tissue_Price said:

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Parliamentary Party decide to offer the members the choice of May vs Gove, just in case. Theresa must have MPs to spare.

Maybe May v Crabb.

That might be a provocation too far.

Have they learned nothing from Labour? Try to mess around and you my get a nasty surprise.

If they decide not to offer Leadsom to the membership, that will indicate that they have, in fact, learned their lesson well.

If Theresa May cannot beat Leadsom, then maybe Cameron needs to do a Farage and un-resign.

Cameron does seem head and shoulders above all of the candidates.

Which is why so many of us are shaking their heads at how he committed political suicide over the referendum.

Perhaps he wasn't very good at his job.

When Cameron got nothing of significance over immigration, he should have delayed the referendum, and gone back to Brussels for more, telling his EU partners - I was wrong, I am going to lose this.

A decent politician who made vast strategic and tactical blunders, who will only be remembered for Brexit. History will not be kind.

In Cameron's defence, I don't think there was any point where I thought Leave was going to win. I was beginning to become hopeful just before poor Jo Cox's murder. After that, I thought swingback would bring Dave home.

Even the Leavers were conceding on the night.

SeanT said:

HurstLlama said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tissue_Price said:

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Parliamentary Party decide to offer the members the choice of May vs Gove, just in case. Theresa must have MPs to spare.

Maybe May v Crabb.

That might be a provocation too far.

Have they learned nothing from Labour? Try to mess around and you my get a nasty surprise.

If they decide not to offer Leadsom to the membership, that will indicate that they have, in fact, learned their lesson well.

If Theresa May cannot beat Leadsom, then maybe Cameron needs to do a Farage and un-resign.

Cameron does seem head and shoulders above all of the candidates.

Which is why so many of us are shaking their heads at how he committed political suicide over the referendum.

Perhaps he wasn't very good at his job.

When Cameron got nothing of significance over immigration, he should have delayed the referendum, and gone back to Brussels for more, telling his EU partners - I was wrong, I am going to lose this.

A decent politician who made vast strategic and tactical blunders, who will only be remembered for Brexit. History will not be kind.

Agreed - that he didn't do this shows us that it never occurred to him that he might lose the referendum.

murali_s said:

SeanT said:

HurstLlama said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tissue_Price said:

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Parliamentary Party decide to offer the members the choice of May vs Gove, just in case. Theresa must have MPs to spare.

Maybe May v Crabb.

That might be a provocation too far.

Have they learned nothing from Labour? Try to mess around and you my get a nasty surprise.

If they decide not to offer Leadsom to the membership, that will indicate that they have, in fact, learned their lesson well.

If Theresa May cannot beat Leadsom, then maybe Cameron needs to do a Farage and un-resign.

Cameron does seem head and shoulders above all of the candidates.

Which is why so many of us are shaking their heads at how he committed political suicide over the referendum.

Perhaps he wasn't very good at his job.

When Cameron got nothing of significance over immigration, he should have delayed the referendum, and gone back to Brussels for more, telling his EU partners - I was wrong, I am going to lose this.

A decent politician who made vast strategic and tactical blunders, who will only be remembered for Brexit. History will not be kind.

As a Labour supporter, have to say that Cameron is far, far better than Blair.

Blair's chickens will come home to roost on Wednesday. It will be interesting day...

They came home to roost in the referendum as well since it was his government that failed to put transitional controls on immigration for the Eastern European nations.

TudorRose said:

John_M said:

AlastairMeeks said:

As a thought experiment, would some of our EEA Leavers care to comment on whether they would still be happy with the way things were going if Andrea Leadsom becomes the next Prime Minister?

At this point, I'm with Carney. A plan is better than no plan. A plan that had been run past our major trading partners and European allies, however informally, would be better still.

Won't that give away our bargaining position? This is my concern with politicians saying that EU citizens resident in the UK can all stay - at some point the government may need to use them as a point of negotiation.

Using people as pawns is a price I'm not willing to pay. If we're going down that road, then let's stay in the EU. I'm all for Realpolitik, but no.

DearPB said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

DearPB said:

MikeL said:

MaxPB said:

Tissue_Price said:

david_herdson said:

Tissue_Price said:

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Parliamentary Party decide to offer the members the choice of May vs Gove, just in case. Theresa must have MPs to spare.

That would be the sensible tactical move but it's a delicate game. She'd need to boost Gove in the first round to avoid (1) it looking obvious as to what's going on, and (2) losing votes from round-to-round, which would make it look as if opinion was moving away from her.

That's what spreadsheets are for.

Assuming 330 vote (might not be true)

Rnd 1

TM 145 (-30 tactical)
MG 65 (+30 tactical)
AL 55
SC 45
LF 20

Fox out, he backs May

Rnd 2

TM 150 (-35 tactical)
MG 71 (+35 tactical)
AL 63
SC 46

Crabb out, he backs May too

Rnd 3

TM 185 (-40 tactical, NB a comfortable majority)
MG 75 (+40 tactical)
AL 70

Surely easier to back Crabb into round 3 to ensure that the die hards don't all umite behind Leadsom.

But most Crabb supporters will back May.

Crabb dropping out gives them far more votes to play with.

If R3 is May, Crabb and Leadsom, most of Gove will have transferred to Leadsom. To then get Crabb into the Final requires May's total to fall very substantially - so she would no longer be the clear winner. Indeed it may be almost impossible if Leadsom can get close to 110 - which she may very well do with all of Gove's transfers.

Clark beat IDS amongst the MPs in 2001 so winning the MP vote by a big margin doesn't necessarily matter. It's a new contest when it's the final 2.

Though there may be value in having more than 50% in the final MP ballot - no-one ever has before.

That must mean many MPS abstain.

No; they vote for the candidate that comes third and gets knocked out. In 2001:

Kenneth Clarke 59 35.5
Iain Duncan Smith 54 32.5
Michael Portillo 53 32

Ah yes. But it is remarkable how tight the recent races have been.

John_M said:

TudorRose said:

John_M said:

AlastairMeeks said:

As a thought experiment, would some of our EEA Leavers care to comment on whether they would still be happy with the way things were going if Andrea Leadsom becomes the next Prime Minister?

At this point, I'm with Carney. A plan is better than no plan. A plan that had been run past our major trading partners and European allies, however informally, would be better still.

Won't that give away our bargaining position? This is my concern with politicians saying that EU citizens resident in the UK can all stay - at some point the government may need to use them as a point of negotiation.

Using people as pawns is a price I'm not willing to pay. If we're going down that road, then let's stay in the EU. I'm all for Realpolitik, but no.

But free movement of people is the EU's negotiating position - how is that not using people as pawns?

MaxPB said:

murali_s said:

SeanT said:

HurstLlama said:

Sandpit said:

logical_song said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Tissue_Price said:

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Parliamentary Party decide to offer the members the choice of May vs Gove, just in case. Theresa must have MPs to spare.

Maybe May v Crabb.

That might be a provocation too far.

Have they learned nothing from Labour? Try to mess around and you my get a nasty surprise.

If they decide not to offer Leadsom to the membership, that will indicate that they have, in fact, learned their lesson well.

If Theresa May cannot beat Leadsom, then maybe Cameron needs to do a Farage and un-resign.

Cameron does seem head and shoulders above all of the candidates.

Which is why so many of us are shaking their heads at how he committed political suicide over the referendum.

Perhaps he wasn't very good at his job.

When Cameron got nothing of significance over immigration, he should have delayed the referendum, and gone back to Brussels for more, telling his EU partners - I was wrong, I am going to lose this.

A decent politician who made vast strategic and tactical blunders, who will only be remembered for Brexit. History will not be kind.

As a Labour supporter, have to say that Cameron is far, far better than Blair.

Blair's chickens will come home to roost on Wednesday. It will be interesting day...

They came home to roost in the referendum as well since it was his government that failed to put transitional controls on immigration for the Eastern European nations.

Yes I am sympathetic to this view. Did France/Germany put any controls (just curious to know)?

TheWhiteRabbit said:

DearPB said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

DearPB said:

MikeL said:

MaxPB said:

Tissue_Price said:

david_herdson said:

Tissue_Price said:

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Parliamentary Party decide to offer the members the choice of May vs Gove, just in case. Theresa must have MPs to spare.

That would be the sensible tactical move but it's a delicate game. She'd need to boost Gove in the first round to avoid (1) it looking obvious as to what's going on, and (2) losing votes from round-to-round, which would make it look as if opinion was moving away from her.

That's what spreadsheets are for.

Assuming 330 vote (might not be true)

Rnd 1

TM 145 (-30 tactical)
MG 65 (+30 tactical)
AL 55
SC 45
LF 20

Fox out, he backs May

Rnd 2

TM 150 (-35 tactical)
MG 71 (+35 tactical)
AL 63
SC 46

Crabb out, he backs May too

Rnd 3

TM 185 (-40 tactical, NB a comfortable majority)
MG 75 (+40 tactical)
AL 70

Surely easier to back Crabb into round 3 to ensure that the die hards don't all umite behind Leadsom.

But most Crabb supporters will back May.

Crabb dropping out gives them far more votes to play with.

If R3 is May, Crabb and Leadsom, most of Gove will have transferred to Leadsom. To then get Crabb into the Final requires May's total to fall very substantially - so she would no longer be the clear winner. Indeed it may be almost impossible if Leadsom can get close to 110 - which she may very well do with all of Gove's transfers.

Clark beat IDS amongst the MPs in 2001 so winning the MP vote by a big margin doesn't necessarily matter. It's a new contest when it's the final 2.

Though there may be value in having more than 50% in the final MP ballot - no-one ever has before.

That must mean many MPS abstain.

No; they vote for the candidate that comes third and gets knocked out. In 2001:

Kenneth Clarke 59 35.5
Iain Duncan Smith 54 32.5
Michael Portillo 53 32

Ah yes. But it is remarkable how tight the recent races have been.

In coming third Fox got 51 MPs in 2005

TudorRose said:

John_M said:

AlastairMeeks said:

As a thought experiment, would some of our EEA Leavers care to comment on whether they would still be happy with the way things were going if Andrea Leadsom becomes the next Prime Minister?

At this point, I'm with Carney. A plan is better than no plan. A plan that had been run past our major trading partners and European allies, however informally, would be better still.

Won't that give away our bargaining position? This is my concern with politicians saying that EU citizens resident in the UK can all stay - at some point the government may need to use them as a point of negotiation.

Charming

Paristonda said:

Alain Juppe says he will scrap the bilateral treaty regarding the Calais border. He kind of has to, as it's extremely unpopular in northern France, and pretty unpopular in the rest of France too.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-freedom-of-movement-eu-referendum-uk-france-border-french-presidential-election-alain-juppe-a7118511.html

What would be a reason for France to continue to honour this treaty?

What do the terms of the treaty say about ending it?

TudorRose said:

John_M said:

TudorRose said:

John_M said:

AlastairMeeks said:

As a thought experiment, would some of our EEA Leavers care to comment on whether they would still be happy with the way things were going if Andrea Leadsom becomes the next Prime Minister?

At this point, I'm with Carney. A plan is better than no plan. A plan that had been run past our major trading partners and European allies, however informally, would be better still.

Won't that give away our bargaining position? This is my concern with politicians saying that EU citizens resident in the UK can all stay - at some point the government may need to use them as a point of negotiation.

Using people as pawns is a price I'm not willing to pay. If we're going down that road, then let's stay in the EU. I'm all for Realpolitik, but no.

But free movement of people is the EU's negotiating position - how is that not using people as pawns?

People have come here in good faith. Many are settled and contributing to this country's wellbeing. Now we're saying, essentially, "Mebbe you can stay. Mebbe you can't. Let's see". I think that's pretty cruel, and far harsher than the odd bit of verbal abuse that people have shrieked about.

Talking about future flows is, to me, quantitatively different. I'm sure people who would like to come to this country will be uncertain as to whether they're welcome or not, what rights they'll have and so on. That's unfortunate, but not a tragedy.

It's similar to the differentiation I made during the Leave campaign. Highlighting immigration - OK. Using Turkey - not OK. One was a real issue, the other bogus.

'Do as you would be done by' is a great motto. Apply it to this situation? Existing migrants should have residency rights. If, and only if, any European country started rattling sabres over our citizens would I want to revisit that.

not_on_fire said:

david_herdson said:

not_on_fire said:

RobD said:

not_on_fire said:

David_Evershed said:

Guido pointing out that the Zoopla on line estate agent is one of the companies behind the attempt to frustrate Brexit by seeking any triggering of Article 50 has to be voted on by MPs - and presumably opposed by the Remainers.

Zoopla against the people and democracy. Not a great business idea.

Anti-democratic? Surely it's Taking Back Control for our sovereign Parliament.

The only reason they are doing this is in the hopes that MP would vote against article 50 being invoked. That is pretty anti-democratic since there was just a vote on whether we should leave or not.

Only if you believe an advisory referendum trumps our 800 year old, democratically elected parliament

It should. What's the point of a referendum otherwise?

What's the point of representative democracy if we overrule it with referendums?

This one has an easy answer. The referendum was a Conservative Party manifesto promise and consequently is binding as they won the election on it. A second referendum would not be binding unless it was also promised by a winning party in an election. So if the Liberal Democrats won a majority at the next election they could quite justifiably take us back in without a referendum.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Paristonda said:

Alain Juppe says he will scrap the bilateral treaty regarding the Calais border. He kind of has to, as it's extremely unpopular in northern France, and pretty unpopular in the rest of France too.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-freedom-of-movement-eu-referendum-uk-france-border-french-presidential-election-alain-juppe-a7118511.html

What would be a reason for France to continue to honour this treaty?

What do the terms of the treaty say about ending it?

Two years notice.

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Is implementing Article 50 immediately really the end of the world? Our EU partners have unanimously said they're not going to negotiate with us until after Article 50 is invoked and we should get on with it, so unless they're liars the new PM is going to have to invoke it sooner rather than later anyway.

No it's insane. Once you invoke it you are locked out of all EU decisions, lose all your leverage, and you just have to hurriedly plead your case, because a two year deadline is imposed, after which you're out, entirely, and into the WTO.

If you think things are uncertain now, it will be ten times worse after A50 is triggered.

Also, during that two years (if we trigger now) there are French and German elections, which could change things entirely, so we might start negotiating with Hollande and end up negotiating with Sarkozy, ditto in Berlin.

This is a recipe for disaster, even if all sides have the best will in the world (which they don't).

It's what you voted for.

JosiasJessop said:

david_herdson said:

JosiasJessop said:

david_herdson said:

JosiasJessop said:

anotherDave said:

PlatoSaid said:

Shame Suzanne Evans is suspended, very good on Sky now.

She's never won an election as a UKIP candidate.

That's an odd metric to use for a party that was led by Farage, who was rejected eight times by electorates under FPTP (7 for Westminster, one for Euros), and only got elected in the Euros under closed lists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage#Electoral_performance

If the 2014 Euros had been conducted on FPTP, chances are that UKIP would have won considerably more than they actually ended up with. Even Farage might have managed to be one of them.

But it wasn't, and we can't know.

The point stands that Farage's poor electoral record is something his supporters forget, even whilst they lambast UKIPpers like Evans for having a less poor one.

No, indeed. But he did lead UKIP to win the elections outright; the first party other than Labour and the Conservatives to have won a UK-wide poll since 1910.

Actually, in many ways i agree with the thrust of your main point, despite the details. Some people from some parties advised UKIP that their base strategy was concentrating on winning council seats and building from the base up. That was always fundamentally misguided. UKIP, as a protest party, simply needed to provide the right pressure in the right places to achieve their aim. With just one MP and a few hundred councillors (neither of which were critical in the final analysis), the party achieved its objective. Winning seats is only one route to power and although Farage was as poor as most in his party in that respect, it didn't matter. he still got his goal.

I agree with that.

It still remains to be seen whether he's got his goal: I'm not sure he's in favour of the EFTA / EEA endgames?

True. There's also the matter of the ECHR, which I would have thought would provide UKIP with a continued raison d'etre.

MaxPB said:

MikeL said:

MaxPB said:

Tissue_Price said:

david_herdson said:

Tissue_Price said:

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Parliamentary Party decide to offer the members the choice of May vs Gove, just in case. Theresa must have MPs to spare.

That would be the sensible tactical move but it's a delicate game. She'd need to boost Gove in the first round to avoid (1) it looking obvious as to what's going on, and (2) losing votes from round-to-round, which would make it look as if opinion was moving away from her.

That's what spreadsheets are for.

Assuming 330 vote (might not be true)

Rnd 1

TM 145 (-30 tactical)
MG 65 (+30 tactical)
AL 55
SC 45
LF 20

Fox out, he backs May

Rnd 2

TM 150 (-35 tactical)
MG 71 (+35 tactical)
AL 63
SC 46

Crabb out, he backs May too

Rnd 3

TM 185 (-40 tactical, NB a comfortable majority)
MG 75 (+40 tactical)
AL 70

Surely easier to back Crabb into round 3 to ensure that the die hards don't all umite behind Leadsom.

But most Crabb supporters will back May.

Crabb dropping out gives them far more votes to play with.

If R3 is May, Crabb and Leadsom, most of Gove will have transferred to Leadsom. To then get Crabb into the Final requires May's total to fall very substantially - so she would no longer be the clear winner. Indeed it may be almost impossible if Leadsom can get close to 110 - which she may very well do with all of Gove's transfers.

No, I'm saying you want round 1 as:

May 136 (TV -30)
Gove 65 (TV +10)
Crabb 55 (TV +20)
Leadsom 45
Fox 32 - eliminated

Round 2:

May 136 (TV -30)
Gove 75
Crabb 66 (TV +30)
Leadsom 56 - eliminated

Round 3

May vs Gove goes to the members. Gove sees how hated he is and backs out.

That's fine - but it relies on Gove genuinely having more support than Leadsom (ie without any tacticals).

It doesn't appear that that is the case.

Luckyguy1983 said:

JosiasJessop said:

david_herdson said:

JosiasJessop said:

david_herdson said:

JosiasJessop said:

anotherDave said:

PlatoSaid said:

Shame Suzanne Evans is suspended, very good on Sky now.

She's never won an election as a UKIP candidate.

That's an odd metric to use for a party that was led by Farage, who was rejected eight times by electorates under FPTP (7 for Westminster, one for Euros), and only got elected in the Euros under closed lists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage#Electoral_performance

If the 2014 Euros had been conducted on FPTP, chances are that UKIP would have won considerably more than they actually ended up with. Even Farage might have managed to be one of them.

But it wasn't, and we can't know.

The point stands that Farage's poor electoral record is something his supporters forget, even whilst they lambast UKIPpers like Evans for having a less poor one.

No, indeed. But he did lead UKIP to win the elections outright; the first party other than Labour and the Conservatives to have won a UK-wide poll since 1910.

Actually, in many ways i agree with the thrust of your main point, despite the details. Some people from some parties advised UKIP that their base strategy was concentrating on winning council seats and building from the base up. That was always fundamentally misguided. UKIP, as a protest party, simply needed to provide the right pressure in the right places to achieve their aim. With just one MP and a few hundred councillors (neither of which were critical in the final analysis), the party achieved its objective. Winning seats is only one route to power and although Farage was as poor as most in his party in that respect, it didn't matter. he still got his goal.

I agree with that.

It still remains to be seen whether he's got his goal: I'm not sure he's in favour of the EFTA / EEA endgames?

I doubt he is, but I'm sure he more then prefers those to being in the EU.

I wouldn't be so sure, except in the fact it allows him to grumble and campaign.

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

SeanT said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Is implementing Article 50 immediately really the end of the world? Our EU partners have unanimously said they're not going to negotiate with us until after Article 50 is invoked and we should get on with it, so unless they're liars the new PM is going to have to invoke it sooner rather than later anyway.

No it's insane. Once you invoke it you are locked out of all EU decisions, lose all your leverage, and you just have to hurriedly plead your case, because a two year deadline is imposed, after which you're out, entirely, and into the WTO.

If you think things are uncertain now, it will be ten times worse after A50 is triggered.

Also, during that two years (if we trigger now) there are French and German elections, which could change things entirely, so we might start negotiating with Hollande and end up negotiating with Sarkozy, ditto in Berlin.

This is a recipe for disaster, even if all sides have the best will in the world (which they don't).

It's what you voted for.

People voted for the risk things could go poorly because the plan for afterwards was unclear. They did not vote to declare immediately. The question was remain or leave, no details on either.

They voted for a large uncertainty over a much smaller uncertainty.