politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay caves in to the Brexit Taliban over Chequers plan

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

1st Division - 27 maj for the Gov't/

Not a full house in the chamber, clearly

I think 27 is pretty good for the gov't - not too many Tory Remainers voting with Labour

Gives a baseline, clause 36 (Or was it 37) seems to be the one the Tory remainers might well die on a hill for.

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1018941541765779462

If only someone had allowed the publishing of some kind of report to such effect in, ooooh, let's say August 2016?

How many times has the House voted against staying in the customs union will be a good pub quiz question in the future.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Pulpstar said:

1st Division - 27 maj for the Gov't/

Not a full house in the chamber, clearly

I think 27 is pretty good for the gov't - not too many Tory Remainers voting with Labour

Gives a baseline, clause 36 (Or was it 37) seems to be the one the Tory remainers might well die on a hill for.

If the Gov't wins against Lab, SNP amendments - does it care if it loses on the ERG, being forced to adopt the position it would have anyway?

I was thinking the same myself. The one the Gov't might well not want to lose is the Irish border one. The reciprocity might well do the Gov't a favour to lose.

ralphmalph said:

How many times has the House voted against staying in the customs union will be a good pub quiz question in the future.

I think that’s 4 now.

Mortimer said:

ralphmalph said:

How many times has the House voted against staying in the customs union will be a good pub quiz question in the future.

I think that’s 4 now.

Those remainers are not thick, oh no siree really smart they are.

Theuniondivvie said:

Foxy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Russian pro-gun activist linked to NRA charged with spying in US for Moscow

Maria Butina, 29, arrested on Sunday and appeared before a magistrate in Washington on Monday, according to the DoJ.

A Washington-based pro-gun activist affiliated with the National Rifle Association (NRA) has been charged with spying in the US for Russia.

Maria Butina was charged with conspiracy to act as an agent of the Russian federation within the US without prior notification to the attorney general.

Butina, 29, was arrested on Sunday and appeared before a magistrate in Washington on Monday, according to the US justice department.

She is known as a protege of Alexander Torshin, a Russian former state banker, who met Donald Trump Jr for dinner at the NRA’s 2016 convention. Torshin was placed under sanction by the US in April this year.

A Justice Department press release said Butina had been “developing relationships with US persons and infiltrating organizations having influence in American politics, for the purpose of advancing the interests of the Russian federation.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/16/maria-butina-charged-spying-russia-us-doj

Where's Eugene McCarthy when his country needs him?

Much as the USA would benefit from a poetry writing, progressive, anti war Democrat, I fear Gene M. would struggle to be heard in these dark days.

Joe McCarthy otoh...

Either would be good, but you are right I did have in mind Joe McCarthy and his House Unamerican Activities Committee.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

ydoethur said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

David_Evershed said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sky confirming government looking to bring recess forward to Thursday

May trying to stop any more laws being passed to reverse Chequers by shutting down parliament early?

No more votes on the matter after tonight; it's about time for plotting

n.b. The Spanish sent a young general called Franco to the Canary Islands to keep him out of trouble...

And they didn't even have Twitter in those days...apart from the canaries, I suppose.

the canaries of those islands bark, of course. but it was worth the etymological inaccouracy for the pun

I am sure the inaccuracy will dog me.

SeanT said:

Off topic, but has ANY major UK TV news outlet covered the enormous riots in France following the World Cup win?

A flavour on my twitter feed:

twitter.com/NBbreaking/status/1018624699360784384

twitter.com/NBbreaking/status/1018622625558466561

twitter.com/NBbreaking/status/1018621535437950976

Google it up and some of the videos are terrifying.

This is different to the rowdy exuberance I saw (in St Tropez), following France's World Cup win in 1998. Then it was genuine good spirits, if slightly unnerving.

This week people in France DIED and there was a breakdown of civil order in several city centres. Riots were nationwide.

Doesn't it happen every summer in France...its their national summer sport.

"No Conservatives voted with Labour in the first division, on the customs union. (See 9.16pm.)" - Guardian

Mortimer said:

FF43 said:

Sean_F said:

FF43 said:

Sean_F said:

FF43 said:

The immediate issue is getting a Withdrawal Agreement in place so there is a somewhat orderly Brexit. This in turn depends on the UK signing a NI backstop for customs, which today's amendments formally exclude. So we will hit full-scale crisis this autumn. Either the EU backs down on the backstop (unlikely), or we will have a chaotic Brexit, or we cave into EU demands in the most humiliating circumstances, or Brexit will be delayed indefinitely.

I suspect Mrs

Replacing May by someone competent won't work. It isn't an issue of competence. The problem is Brexit itself.

Since no government will accept an internal customs border, and since this is a deal-breaker for the EU, would it not be best for both sides to acknowledge that there cannot be a deal, and plan accordingly.

Even I think the NI backstop is a reach. But the UK government isn't serious about customs arrangements and the Irish border specifically,. Which is why the backstop looms ever larger. The context of course is that government doesn't have the numbers, it has a powerful "Taliban" faction to appease and it has to respect a democratic but profoundly stupid referendum decision. None of this is of any concern to the EU.

It seems to me that for EU negotiators to use the threat of renewed violence in Northern Ireland as a way of trying to extract concessions from the government is irresponsible in the extreme. Terrorism is not something you can confine to one locality.

The EU is not using the threat of renewed violence as a negotiating tactic.and it is rather more irresponsible of our side to imply it is.. The Irish border is a genuinely tricky issue that the UK government thinks it can make go away by downplaying the implications. The EU is running with the issue because it is the key concern of Ireland, a continuing member state whose interests the EU represents. The moment the UK comes up with a solution satisfactory to the Irish the EU will sign off. The UK would be advised to engage the Irish but is not doing that at all.

On the practicalities a customs border on the Irish Sea makes more sense than on the land border. Most people in Northern Ireland agree. But I do think that decision is for the UK to make.

Given 80% of NI trade is intra UK, this isn’t a sensible solution.

Brexit itself isn't sensible. The Irish Sea is an existing physical barrier where lorries get stopped and checked already and where there is relatively little casual cross border taste. Unlike the land border. Putting checks on either border has strong negative symbolism, but Brexit forces us to choose.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Pulpstar said:

Mortimer said:

ralphmalph said:

How many times has the House voted against staying in the customs union will be a good pub quiz question in the future.

I think that’s 4 now.

This one was a vote for "A", not the customs union though. Which makes it stronger than previous bills for a hard brexit.

What about a a customs partnership....?

The amendment would have required the government to adopt a position, that will now be left open. Clearly it does suggest that there is no majority for a customs union in the House (all things being equal). A customs partnership gets flack from both sides, much more difficult to read.

Roger said:

IanB2 said:

BREAKING: Southgate’s achievements with England have been recognised by TfL with Southgate tube station being temporarily rebranded as ‘Gareth Southgate’ for 48 hours from Monday.

Benjamin Mendy won A Premier League Winners Medal A Caraboo Cup Winners Medal A World Cup Winners Medal and The Legion of Honour and he only played in seven games all season. If they named an Airport after him I wouldn't be at all surprised.

very good

Clause 36, this one will be where the Gov't is defeated if they're going to be.

FF43 said:

Mortimer said:

FF43 said:

Sean_F said:

FF43 said:

Sean_F said:

FF43 said:

The immediate issue is getting a Withdrawal Agreement in place so there is a somewhat orderly Brexit. This in turn depends on the UK signing a NI backstop for customs, which today's amendments formally exclude. So we will hit full-scale crisis this autumn. Either the EU backs down on the backstop (unlikely), or we will have a chaotic Brexit, or we cave into EU demands in the most humiliating circumstances, or Brexit will be delayed indefinitely.

Since no government will accept an internal customs border, and since this is a deal-breaker for the EU, would it not be best for both sides to acknowledge that there cannot be a deal, and plan accordingly.

Even I think the NI backstop is a reach. But the UK government isn't serious about customs arrangements and the Irish border specifically,. Which is why the backstop looms ever larger. The context of course is that government doesn't have the numbers, it has a powerful "Taliban" faction to appease and it has to respect a democratic but profoundly stupid referendum decision. None of this is of any concern to the EU.

It seems to me that for EU negotiators to use the threat of renewed violence in Northern Ireland as a way of trying to extract concessions from the government is irresponsible in the extreme. Terrorism is not something you can confine to one locality.

The EU is not using the threat of renewed violence as a negotiating tactic.and it is rather more irresponsible of our side to imply it is.. The Irish border is a genuinely tricky issue that the UK government thinks it can make go away by downplaying the implications. The EU is running with the issue because it is the key concern of Ireland, a continuing member state whose interests the EU represents. The moment the UK comes up with a solution satisfactory to the Irish the EU will sign off. The UK would be advised to engage the Irish but is not doing that at all.

On the practicalities a customs border on the Irish Sea makes more sense than on the land border. Most people in Northern Ireland agree. But I do think that decision is for the UK to make.

Given 80% of NI trade is intra UK, this isn’t a sensible solution.

Brexit itself isn't sensible. The Irish Sea is an existing physical barrier where lorries get stopped and checked already and where there is relatively little casual cross border taste. Unlike the land border. Putting checks on either border has strong negative symbolism, but Brexit forces us to choose.

If you have any respect for democracy, it is not only sensible but necessary.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pulpstar said:

280 majority LOL

SNP motion I assume

Does 36 votes mean they couldn't even get Plaid onboard ?

grabcocque said:

Tory remainers are such toothless wee fearties when push comes to shove.

No wonder the Mogglodytes are shitting all over them.

We'll know that in 15 minutes.

The government deserves to lose the next election to a Corbyn landslide,having led us to a high risk hardline Brexit.

Pulpstar said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Pulpstar said:

280 majority LOL

SNP motion I assume

Does 36 votes mean they couldn't even get Plaid onboard ?

Who !!!!!

Mortimer said:

FF43 said:

Mortimer said:

FF43 said:

Sean_F said:

FF43 said:

Sean_F said:

FF43 said:

The immediate issue is getting a Withdrawal Agreement in place so there is a somewhat orderly Brexit. This in turn depends on the UK signing a NI backstop for customs, which today's amendments formally exclude. So we will hit full-scale crisis this autumn. Either the EU backs down on the backstop (unlikely), or we will have a chaotic Brexit, or we cave into EU demands in the most humiliating circumstances, or Brexit will be delayed indefinitely.

Since no government will accept an internal customs border, and since this is a deal-breaker for the EU, would it not be best for both sides to acknowledge that there cannot be a deal, and plan accordingly.

Even I think

It seems to me that for EU negotiators to use the threat of renewed violence in Northern Ireland as a way of trying to extract concessions from the government is irresponsible in the extreme. Terrorism is not something you can confine to one locality.

The EU is not using the threat of renewed violence as a negotiating tactic.and it is rather more irresponsible of our side to imply it is.. The Irish border is a genuinely tricky issue that the UK government thinks it can make go away by downplaying the implications. The EU is running with the issue because it is the key concern of Ireland, a continuing member state whose interests the EU represents. The moment the UK comes up with a solution satisfactory to the Irish the EU will sign off. The UK would be advised to engage the Irish but is not doing that at all.

On the practicalities a customs border on the Irish Sea makes more sense than on the land border. Most people in Northern Ireland agree. But I do think that decision is for the UK to make.

Given 80% of NI trade is intra UK, this isn’t a sensible solution.

Brexit itself isn't sensible. The Irish Sea is an existing physical barrier where lorries get stopped and checked already and where there is relatively little casual cross border taste. Unlike the land border. Putting checks on either border has strong negative symbolism, but Brexit forces us to choose.

If you have any respect for democracy, it is not only sensible but necessary.

I have plenty of respect for democracy. Democracy is powerful and allows us to do stupid things. We are not and should not be protected from the the consequences of our decisions. Democratic decisions don't get stupider than Brexit. Which is why we don't have any good options. At least I am realistic about that.

chloe said:

The government deserves to lose the next election to a Corbyn landslide,having led us to a high risk hardline Brexit.

A hard Brexit is what he wants

Pulpstar said:

Clause 36, this one will be where the Gov't is defeated if they're going to be.

Who’s amendment is this? ERG or the remainder lot?

Pulpstar said:

tlg86 said:

Pulpstar said:

Clause 36, this one will be where the Gov't is defeated if they're going to be.

Who’s amendment is this? ERG or the remainder lot?

ERG I think

Ta.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

TMay doesn't have a plan
ERG don't have a plan
Tory Remainers don't have a plan
Labour doesn't have a plan
The Lib Dems don't have a plan
If the SNP have a plan I certainly don't know what it is
I#'m starting to doubt the E Commission have a plan, just so far they haven't needed one

Indeed - nailed it

Excuse me. I have a plan. Or at least There is a plan I know of. It’s about time we started paying serious attention to it.

There’s a bright and eloquent leaver called Hannan who for many years has argued for a Brexit that keeps us in the CU.

You could dismiss that in an instant saying EU would never agree to it.

But why wouldn’t they? When you dissect down into the detail of their reasoning, and contrast with their better suggestion...

You could dismiss that in an instant saying ERG would never agree to it.

But why wouldn’t they? When you dissect down into the detail of their reasoning, and contrast with their better suggestion...

After all Hannah’s a staunch and rational as leavers come, and he’s bought into it. Anyone got any detail on how Hannan understands it working?

https://twitter.com/JakubKrupa/status/1018962790017650688

SeanT said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

SeanT said:

Off topic, but has ANY major UK TV news outlet covered the enormous riots in France following the World Cup win?

A flavour on my twitter feed:

twitter.com/NBbreaking/status/1018624699360784384

twitter.com/NBbreaking/status/1018622625558466561

twitter.com/NBbreaking/status/1018621535437950976

Google it up and some of the videos are terrifying.

This is different to the rowdy exuberance I saw (in St Tropez), following France's World Cup win in 1998. Then it was genuine good spirits, if slightly unnerving.

This week people in France DIED and there was a breakdown of civil order in several city centres. Riots were nationwide.

Doesn't it happen every summer in France...its their national summer sport.

They are always burning cars, but this - from what I've seen - was something special. Fatalities, huge scale, 1000s of riot police. Nasty.

France, for all the skill of their excellent football side, is a very troubled and divided nation. In a way the racial and religious make-up of the squad only underlined that.

Though the fatalities were not riot related. One was a fifty year old man who broke his neck jumping into a canal to celebrate, the other was a driver who became over excited at the victory and hit a tree.

But I agree, Frogs are a bit exciteable. not like English people:

https://twitter.com/Muqadaam/status/1005717502792478720?s=19

https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1018963358857465857

LordOfReason said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

TMay doesn't have a plan
ERG don't have a plan
Tory Remainers don't have a plan
Labour doesn't have a plan
The Lib Dems don't have a plan
If the SNP have a plan I certainly don't know what it is
I#'m starting to doubt the E Commission have a plan, just so far they haven't needed one

Indeed - nailed it

Excuse me. I have a plan. Or at least There is a plan I know of. It’s about time we started paying serious attention to it.

There’s a bright and eloquent leaver called Hannan who for many years has argued for a Brexit that keeps us in the CU.

You could dismiss that in an instant saying EU would never agree to it.

But why wouldn’t they? When you dissect down into the detail of their reasoning, and contrast with their better suggestion...

You could dismiss that in an instant saying ERG would never agree to it.

But why wouldn’t they? When you dissect down into the detail of their reasoning, and contrast with their better suggestion...

After all Hannah’s a staunch and rational as leavers come, and he’s bought into it. Anyone got any detail on how Hannan understands it working?

You’ve got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.
https://twitter.com/danieljhannan/status/901566330108817410?s=21

MTimT said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

So the rebels need about 13 on board. We'll see...

Which set of rebels is that. This is getting so confusing

They are remainers voting with Labour against the ERG amendment (which the Gov't backs)

Apparently 11 of them, maybe 12, not 13!

Deleted, I guess this is what the government gave into the ERG over.

tlg86 said:

Did the government lose that vote?

No, it was one of the amendments they announced they’d back today.

Pulpstar said:

A whole bunch passed without division just then - how many of the ERG amendments are now accepted ?

I think there were four amendments, prompting two divisions. So two through on the nod - the Irish sea border and...?

Big_G_NorthWales said:

chloe said:

The government deserves to lose the next election to a Corbyn landslide,having led us to a high risk hardline Brexit.

A hard Brexit is what he wants

Maybe but voters won’t blame Corbyn for the turbulence. It might work out fine but Brexiteers have not convinced me. They said it would all be so easy.

Let's face it, if the gov't wins every vote the whips will think they have paid a reasonable price

607 MPs voting. Even accounting for Tellers, Speaker, Sinn Fein etc that's an awful lot of MPs not taking part in such an important vote...and now they want an early Summer Holiday too? Bonkers.

Pulpstar said:

The Gov't might have hoped they'd lose amendment 36, as it is one Barnier certainly won't agree to.

I actually agree with the government that it is consistent with the white paper. EU to collect ta
rriffs at EU rates and pass this on; however they will not collect at UK rates (if higher). If UK rates are lower or higher the importer would pay or reclaim the difference from HMRC.

Yet another minister resigns:
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1018966133813268481

numbertwelve said:

This goes to show why the Article 50 process (deliberately, perhaps?) is flawed.

Really there should be two years for negotiation followed by a year of legislative implementation. A government could get its negotiations hammered out before putting the legislation on the table to implement the deal. As it is we have a moving feast of Commons votes dictating in some ways the governments negotiating position.

I suspect it’s not designed that way to make it even harder to leave. Of course we could have spent the pre-Article 50 phase trying to persuade the European Parliament to extend the period, but then I suspect there wouldn’t have been consensus. Would be interesting in future to see if the government took soundings though (I’m guessing no).

We could have invoked Article 50 when we knew what we wanted from the negotiations.

Another SNP amendment with a huge majority against coming up.

Lol, SNP denied a chance to have a whopping majority.

Gardenwalker said:

Saltire said:

Yet another minister resigns:
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1018966133813268481

Yebbut, he resigned to be a Soubryette.
Not an ERGer.

And lose his seat more likely. He is my MP and is in a very marginal constituency with a Corbynista candidate for labour

Gardenwalker said:

I see there is an increasing mood among some a Remainers for a no deal Brexit, because there is no other way for the country to understand the real impact of their vote.

I think this is dangerous.

Chaos, once unleashed, never seems to revert to calm. Remember the idea that Corbyn would be a flash in the pan?

It is dangerous but at least we can rejoin in a few years time when the promised land of cheap food and empty hospitals isn’t reached.

geoffw said:

Cyclefree said:

JosiasJessop said:

Goes onto PB
Sees the Brexit loons are trying to wreck the country.
Goes back to reading about asteroid mining.

+1.

Only in my case I'm going back to my garden.

Worry not Candide, all is for the best in this best of possible worlds.

Well my garden is doing great. I can do nothing about the fact that we have a government in charge that makes Noddy look like Einstein.

And now - for some watering. (I have a water butt.)

chloe said:

Gardenwalker said:

I see there is an increasing mood among some a Remainers for a no deal Brexit, because there is no other way for the country to understand the real impact of their vote.

I think this is dangerous.

Chaos, once unleashed, never seems to revert to calm. Remember the idea that Corbyn would be a flash in the pan?

It is dangerous but at least we can rejoin in a few years time when the promised land of cheap food and empty hospitals isn’t reached.

TM seems to be the great survivor. Why she would want to be in this chaos I have no idea

Pulpstar said:

Wonder how close this one will be. Another ERG Amendment I think but not sure what 73 says.

It's on VAT, to keep up out of the VAT area.

I am not sure if the gov't is accepting it. I don't think it is consistent with the white paper, but I have lost track

There being no equivalent to a VAT deal with the US, I do not see the objection personally

Pulpstar said:

Wonder how close this one will be. Another ERG Amendment I think but not sure what 73 says.

It is the VAT one. Can't keep up with what the hell it is exactly though.

Oh May, what is the point of finally taking a stand, recognising you cannot get all sides to agree, only to alter position anyway?

chloe said:

numbertwelve said:

This goes to show why the Article 50 process (deliberately, perhaps?) is flawed.

Really there should be two years for negotiation followed by a year of legislative implementation. A government could get its negotiations hammered out before putting the legislation on the table to implement the deal. As it is we have a moving feast of Commons votes dictating in some ways the governments negotiating position.

I suspect it’s not designed that way to make it even harder to leave. Of course we could have spent the pre-Article 50 phase trying to persuade the European Parliament to extend the period, but then I suspect there wouldn’t have been consensus. Would be interesting in future to see if the government took soundings though (I’m guessing no).

We could have invoked Article 50 when we knew what we wanted from the negotiations.

Well yes, but even then we couldn’t guarantee we’d get what we wanted.

Whichever way you look at it, it’s clear that it wasn’t drafted with practicality in mind. Which given the state of mind of the European Project isn’t exactly a surprise.

Think the government could lose this one

kle4 said:

Oh May, what is the point of finally taking a stand, recognising you cannot get all sides to agree, only to alter position anyway?

Never a truer word spoken.

I thought she had at least tried to lead a week ago at Chequers.

Now she has pissed of nearly everyone .

Time for a new leader to step forward , in the countries interest.

numbertwelve said:

chloe said:

numbertwelve said:

This goes to show why the Article 50 process (deliberately, perhaps?) is flawed.

Really there should be two years for negotiation followed by a year of legislative implementation. A government could get its negotiations hammered out before putting the legislation on the table to implement the deal. As it is we have a moving feast of Commons votes dictating in some ways the governments negotiating position.

I suspect it’s not designed that way to make it even harder to leave. Of course we could have spent the pre-Article 50 phase trying to persuade the European Parliament to extend the period, but then I suspect there wouldn’t have been consensus. Would be interesting in future to see if the government took soundings though (I’m guessing no).

We could have invoked Article 50 when we knew what we wanted from the negotiations.

Well yes, but even then we couldn’t guarantee we’d get what we wanted.

Whichever way you look at it, it’s clear that it wasn’t drafted with practicality in mind. Which given the state of mind of the European Project isn’t exactly a surprise.

Of course, but the EU don’t expect countries to go rogue rather than work to reform from within, with alliances and compromises.