politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Get ready for possibly the Xmas TV event of the year – May v C
Options
Comments
-
So, you concede I'm right then: this deal is nothing like Norway, which has no such right.williamglenn said:
Yes, the UK gains the ability to agree autonomously to full alignment in services and digital, and to implement a mobility framework autonomously that replicates free movement.Casino_Royale said:
No, I've read it. For example, it's explicit in ending free movement, recognising the UK will have regulatory autonomy in services and digital, doesn't mention allude to single market membership or payments for it, and is clear in both sides looking to find a technological solution to future border and customs control. That's very different to Norway.williamglenn said:
I think you're seeing what you want to. It's a political Rorschach test.Casino_Royale said:
If you think it outlines a Norway deal then you either haven't read it or you haven't understood it.williamglenn said:
There's no time to implement a Canada style deal before the transition runs out. It points to a Norway style deal with some clever obfuscation of what it really means.Charles said:
Which is why we will have a Canada style dealwilliamglenn said:
The agreement is ingenious in the sense that she can claim with technical accuracy that we will end free movement, even if free movement never actually ends. The EU have been clear that the four freedoms are still indivisible when it comes to the future relationship.TheWhiteRabbit said:May's responses on the WA have been technically accurate, which is much better than her opponents (on both sides of the house). Sure, her political nous sometimes leaves something to be desired, but still - she should go for it.
There's a delicious irony in your first sentence, which won't be lost on posters on here.
You've basically moved your argument onto: the UK will have all these powers, but will make a policy decision to choose to align itself to all the EU rules anyway.0 -
They are certainly risking BrexitCasino_Royale said:
I'm relaxed about it as the backstop is in neither side's interests, there's a good faith clause in the Withdrawal Agreement to supersede it as soon as possible with independent arbitration, and technological solutions are explicitly referenced in the political declaration.HYUFD said:
That I believe is the 'big concession' Barnier said he was giving the UK on Customs Union membershipRichard_Tyndall said:
I agree it appears to read that way. My hesitation is that it is very clear under the original Treaty of Rome and the 1992 Maastricht Treaty establishing the EU that membership of the Customs Union is only open to members of the EU. This treaty does not appear to amend that so it is unclear what sort of Customs Union we are establishing. Is the effect the same as an EU member or Turkey?HYUFD said:
As far as I can read it we stay in the Customs Union we are already in, not 'a' Customs Union, until the Irish border situation is resolved but GB leaves the EU and Single MarketRichard_Tyndall said:
You do understand that if the Customs arrangements are on the same basis as Turkey's - 'a' customs union rather than 'the' Customs Union it will allow any country with an FTA with the EU to sell into the UK tariff free without us having reciprocal rights? Basically every one of the EU free trade deals will be a one way street in favour of the third countries.HYUFD said:
It is pretty much the basis of the Deal and getting trade deals dictated to us from China and the USA is not what most Leave voters were voting forRichard_Tyndall said:
Staying in the (or rather 'a') customs union but not the single market is a genuinely dumb idea. It puts us in the same boat as Turkey which is pretty disastrous for trade.HYUFD said:
The Dealwilliamglenn said:
There's no time to implement a Canada style deal before the transition runs out. It points to a Norway style deal with some clever obfuscation of what it really means.Charles said:
Which is why we will have a Canada style dealwilliamglenn said:
The .TheWhiteRabbit said:May's responses on the WA have been technically accurate, which is much better than her opponents (on both sides of the house). Sure, her political nous sometimes leaves something to be desired, but still - she should go for it.
I honestly don't know what the ERG are making such a fuss over.0 -
If he does not actually believe a renegotiation would secure substantive changes then he and Labour are being dishonest, how can you be ok with dishonesty? If someone thinks big changes are possible, however unrealistically, that is understandable. But risking everything through dishonesty is not praiseworthy whether the person doing it is Labour, Tory, LD or anything else.Foxy said:
Yes, after a token negotiating attempt Starmer would say that too, and put it to a #Peoplesvote.DavidL said:Foxy said:
They clearly believe that a change of government and A50 extension so that the Deal can be renegotiated by Starmer is in the national interest.DavidL said:
Of course they owe the government nothing. But they owe the country their best judgment of what is in the national interest.AlastairMeeks said:
Leavers don’t get to define the national interest. The EU is not Nazi Germany and leaving the EU does not have to be done on the terms of committed Leavers (indeed, they can’t agree among themselves). Labour owe the government nothing in relation to Brexit.DavidL said:
Tbh I found that a lot less annoying on the TV than I did in the cinema. It’s a superb film and an unbelievable performance.Casino_Royale said:
The stupid tube scene totally ruins it for me.DavidL said:Rewatching The Darkest Hour tonight. Where is the Attlee of our days?
But I couldn’t stop reflecting on the role that Attlee played and the absolutely unequivocal support of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. To see the curs running Labour today so uninterested in the National interest today is so sad.
I am OK with that.
Except that is not an option according to the EU. There are 3 options: no deal, May’s deal and
Remain. I think Starmer wants 3 , whatever the cost.
I am OK with that too0 -
He would find it quite hard I have no doubt, although it is possible something gets through simply out of sheer exhaustion at that point, but I am not much concerned what May might personally feel or who ends up in power.HYUFD said:
The latest Survation poll gives Labour 285 seats to the Tories 288.
It would be a delicious irony if Corbyn forces a VONC which succeeds thanks to the DUP and ends up PM after that result following a general election, behind the Tories but in power having to navigate Brexit himself and holding together the SNP who want permanent single market membership, his own commitment to permanent customs union and Labour Leavers who want out of both and Labour Remainers who want EUref2.
Even if May loses power I expect she would enjoy a rather large dose of schadenfreude at that!0 -
The behavior you describe (arse around and leave your counterparty to make your decisions for you) is neither admirable nor adult.MarqueeMark said:
Which of course is exactly what May should be saying, not her successor.Philip_Thompson said:
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.Benpointer said:
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.Philip_Thompson said:
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
As I said this morning, go to Brussels, score through the Backstop clause, sign it with that excluded, come home. Problem belong Brussels.....
Their decision if we have Hard Brexit.0 -
The people started this. Only the people can end it.0
-
A second vote delivers the mandate.FF43 said:
The government has a mandate for a No Deal Brexit. It has a mandate for whatever Brexit it chooses to deliver. But it doesn't mean No Deal Brexit will be acceptable. In fact the chaos and damage of a No Deal Brexit is almost certainly unacceptable to all but a minority of Leave diehards. Remember Brexit was carried on a tiny margin on the promise that there would be no cost. No Deal is very unlikely to be a tenable line for more than a couple of weeks.Richard_Tyndall said:
The Government clearly does have a mandate for a No Deal Brexit. May was clear before the election that No Deal was better than a Bad Deal (her words not mine) and the original vote was just to leave - as Remainers love to keep reminding us - not what form leaving would take. The only thing she does not have a mandate for is Remaining.williamglenn said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/11/24/why-theresa-mays-brexit-deal-is-terrible-for-the-u-k/
It is an appalling deal. It merely buys time at the cost of a considerably weaker negotiating position for the U.K. But the EU has already said it will not renegotiate it. If this deal fails, then the options are still no-deal Brexit, or no Brexit. The Government has no mandate for either, and nor does either option command a majority in Parliament. All roads seem now to lead to either a General Election, or a second referendum.
Since the referendum I have been trying to work out whether the British will accept vassalage as the only realistic Brexit outcome. In particular would leavers accept abdicating significant decision-making to a foreign body when the justification for Brexit is that it gives us back our control? It appears not. Which means we are now out of road. Something has to give.
Meanwhile it is interesting the ST suggests a plan B along the lines of Norway. That might have been a better place for a sensible PM to have started from.0 -
No, you are being deceived by smoke and mirrors. The deal isn't a deal at all, by its nature. None of the essential trade-offs are conceded by either side, which means the UK is still left with the same stark choice of divergence coming at the cost of a border in the Irish sea, and restrictions on free movement coming at the cost of an economic hit. May's victory is just in getting the EU to play along with the charade to get the WA over the line.Casino_Royale said:
So, you concede I'm right then: this deal is nothing like Norway, which has no such right.williamglenn said:
Yes, the UK gains the ability to agree autonomously to full alignment in services and digital, and to implement a mobility framework autonomously that replicates free movement.Casino_Royale said:
No, I've read it. For example, it's explicit in ending free movement, recognising the UK will have regulatory autonomy in services and digital, doesn't mention allude to single market membership or payments for it, and is clear in both sides looking to find a technological solution to future border and customs control. That's very different to Norway.williamglenn said:
I think you're seeing what you want to. It's a political Rorschach test.Casino_Royale said:
If you think it outlines a Norway deal then you either haven't read it or you haven't understood it.williamglenn said:
There's no time to implement a Canada style deal before the transition runs out. It points to a Norway style deal with some clever obfuscation of what it really means.Charles said:
Which is why we will have a Canada style dealwilliamglenn said:
The agreement is ingenious in the sense that she can claim with technical accuracy that we will end free movement, even if free movement never actually ends. The EU have been clear that the four freedoms are still indivisible when it comes to the future relationship.TheWhiteRabbit said:May's responses on the WA have been technically accurate, which is much better than her opponents (on both sides of the house). Sure, her political nous sometimes leaves something to be desired, but still - she should go for it.
There's a delicious irony in your first sentence, which won't be lost on posters on here.
You've basically moved your argument onto: the UK will have all these powers, but will make a policy decision to choose to align itself to all the EU rules anyway.0 -
Perhaps if the Deal does not get through Parliament May should now suggest the time is right for a referendum in Northern Ireland on reunification. Since this is already set as a requirement in the GFA I am not sure it even needs Parliamentary approval. Certainly it would concentrate unionist minds.0
-
I will say one thing for the Spanish PM, he is rather more telegenic than Rajoy0
-
In your scenario of May resigning in the next month or so I'd expect her successor in place by early January. Frantic negotiations leading to an amended Deal 1.1 agreed by end of January to early February, leaves a frantic 6 weeks for ratification.Benpointer said:
Ok - but how quickly is a successor in place?Philip_Thompson said:
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.Benpointer said:
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.Philip_Thompson said:
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
0 -
I am still clinging on by my fingertips for my £100 bet with Richard N. Though I think I have probably lost it now.IanB2 said:
A second vote delivers the mandate.FF43 said:
The government has a mandate for a No Deal Brexit. It has a mandate for whatever Brexit it chooses to deliver. But it doesn't mean No Deal Brexit will be acceptable. In fact the chaos and damage of a No Deal Brexit is almost certainly unacceptable to all but a minority of Leave diehards. Remember Brexit was carried on a tiny margin on the promise that there would be no cost. No Deal is very unlikely to be a tenable line for more than a couple of weeks.Richard_Tyndall said:
The Government clearly does have a mandate for a No Deal Brexit. May was clear before the election that No Deal was better than a Bad Deal (her words not mine) and the original vote was just to leave - as Remainers love to keep reminding us - not what form leaving would take. The only thing she does not have a mandate for is Remaining.williamglenn said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/11/24/why-theresa-mays-brexit-deal-is-terrible-for-the-u-k/
It is an appalling deal. It merely buys time at the cost of a considerably weaker negotiating position for the U.K. But the EU has already said it will not renegotiate it. If this deal fails, then the options are still no-deal Brexit, or no Brexit. The Government has no mandate for either, and nor does either option command a majority in Parliament. All roads seem now to lead to either a General Election, or a second referendum.
Since the referendum I have been trying to work out whether the British will accept vassalage as the only realistic Brexit outcome. In particular would leavers accept abdicating significant decision-making to a foreign body when the justification for Brexit is that it gives us back our control? It appears not. Which means we are now out of road. Something has to give.
Meanwhile it is interesting the ST suggests a plan B along the lines of Norway. That might have been a better place for a sensible PM to have started from.0 -
In this scenario the government will have already collapsed, we'd have a new government under a new PM.Foxy said:
For over a year the Tories have been trying to claim that, yet the EU is stronger than ever on the subject.Philip_Thompson said:
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.Benpointer said:
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.Philip_Thompson said:
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
It is not the EU that will collapse over No Deal, it is the Tory government and possibly the UK.0 -
There is a strand in Leaver thinking that attributes all evil to the EU, will not deal with it under any circumstances, will viscerally reject any deal that involves the EU, and blame it for that rejection. Such a stance is psychological in origin and will not be ameliorated by argument.Casino_Royale said:I'm relaxed about it as the backstop is in neither side's interests, there's a good faith clause in the Withdrawal Agreement to supersede it as soon as possible with independent arbitration, and technological solutions are explicitly referenced in the political declaration.
I honestly don't know what the ERG are making such a fuss over.
0 -
Thankyee. It seems to be what the EU is expecting, but they are not going to play ball "Whether that penny drops after a ‘no deal’ scenario - which Europe is determined will be messy even if it is ‘managed’"ralphmalph said:
Here you go,geoffw said:
Do you have a link?ralphmalph said:
This is what Peter Foster in the Telegraph has written tonight. May tells them no chance deal goes through with the backstop in it.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/24/eu-will-do-parliament-rejects-theresa-mays-brexit-deal/
May should be prepared to outstare them (i.e. be prepared to go for a managed No Deal), and if she can't face that she should give way to Boris who would.
0 -
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.0 -
What was your £100 bet with Richard N?Richard_Tyndall said:
I am still clinging on by my fingertips for my £100 bet with Richard N. Though I think I have probably lost it now.IanB2 said:
A second vote delivers the mandate.FF43 said:
The government has a mandate for a No Deal Brexit. It has a mandate for whatever Brexit it chooses to deliver. But it doesn't mean No Deal Brexit will be acceptable. In fact the chaos and damage of a No Deal Brexit is almost certainly unacceptable to all but a minority of Leave diehards. Remember Brexit was carried on a tiny margin on the promise that there would be no cost. No Deal is very unlikely to be a tenable line for more than a couple of weeks.Richard_Tyndall said:
The Government clearly does have a mandate for a No Deal Brexit. May was clear before the election that No Deal was better than a Bad Deal (her words not mine) and the original vote was just to leave - as Remainers love to keep reminding us - not what form leaving would take. The only thing she does not have a mandate for is Remaining.williamglenn said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/11/24/why-theresa-mays-brexit-deal-is-terrible-for-the-u-k/
It is an appalling deal. It merely buys time at the cost of a considerably weaker negotiating position for the U.K. But the EU has already said it will not renegotiate it. If this deal fails, then the options are still no-deal Brexit, or no Brexit. The Government has no mandate for either, and nor does either option command a majority in Parliament. All roads seem now to lead to either a General Election, or a second referendum.
Since the referendum I have been trying to work out whether the British will accept vassalage as the only realistic Brexit outcome. In particular would leavers accept abdicating significant decision-making to a foreign body when the justification for Brexit is that it gives us back our control? It appears not. Which means we are now out of road. Something has to give.
Meanwhile it is interesting the ST suggests a plan B along the lines of Norway. That might have been a better place for a sensible PM to have started from.0 -
It does show though that just because Corbyn became PM there is no guarantee he could get his planned Deal for permanent Customs Union only through Parliament eitherkle4 said:
He would find it quite hard I have no doubt, although it is possible something gets through simply out of sheer exhaustion at that point, but I am not much concerned what May might personally feel or who ends up in power.HYUFD said:
The latest Survation poll gives Labour 285 seats to the Tories 288.
It would be a delicious irony if Corbyn forces a VONC which succeeds thanks to the DUP and ends up PM after that result following a general election, behind the Tories but in power having to navigate Brexit himself and holding together the SNP who want permanent single market membership, his own commitment to permanent customs union and Labour Leavers who want out of both and Labour Remainers who want EUref2.
Even if May loses power I expect she would enjoy a rather large dose of schadenfreude at that!0 -
You are really struggling, aren't you?williamglenn said:
No, you are being deceived by smoke and mirrors. The deal isn't a deal at all, by its nature. None of the essential trade-offs are conceded by either side, which means the UK is still left with the same stark choice of divergence coming at the cost of a border in the Irish sea, and restrictions on free movement coming at the cost of an economic hit. May's victory is just in getting the EU to play along with the charade to get the WA over the line.Casino_Royale said:
So,williamglenn said:
Yes, the UK gains the ability to agree autonomously to full alignment in services and digital, and to implement a mobility framework autonomously that replicates free movement.Casino_Royale said:
There's a delicious irony in your first sentence, which won't be lost on posters on here.williamglenn said:
I think you're seeing what you want to. It's a political Rorschach test.Casino_Royale said:
If you think it outlines a Norway deal then you either haven't read it or you haven't understood it.williamglenn said:
There's no time to implement a Canada style deal before the transition runs out. It points to a Norway style deal with some clever obfuscation of what it really means.Charles said:
Which is why we will have a Canada style dealwilliamglenn said:
TheTheWhiteRabbit said:May's responses on the WA have been technically accurate, which is much better than her opponents (on both sides of the house). Sure, her political nous sometimes leaves something to be desired, but still - she should go for it.
The level of alignment that NI needs to retain is clear, and that is the single market rules with the customs backstop necessary to ensure the GFA isn't violated. It almost entirely relates to goods, and taxation of those goods. In all other areas, the UK (internal) single market continues and that applies to services throughout the UK.
The political declaration is very clear that free movement will come to an end, that temporary visas for business and leisure travel will not be required, but anything further above that will be a UK decision. The only real condition is that the UK can't individually discriminate between the member states in applying its immigration rules.
Immigration controls v. economic growth has always been a hotly contested domestic political debate and will continue to be so. The same applies for services regulation and divergence, and striking a balance between the EU and global markets.0 -
Incidentally, Nicolas Roeg is dead.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/nov/24/nicolas-roeg-a-daring-film-maker-of-passionate-and-visceral-brilliance0 -
LOL. On my version of the telegraph front page online there are adverts for Quilter Investment Management. When I first clicked on the page it looked like there was a picture of May with the word 'Quitter' in massive letters over her head.0
-
This is correct. With the exception of the Irish border, the trade offs are left until later. And in the case of the Irish border the trade off is now constrained to no divergence from the EU or leave Northern Ireland on the other side of an Irish Sea regulatory border, neither of which is acceptable to the current government.williamglenn said:
No, you are being deceived by smoke and mirrors. The deal isn't a deal at all, by its nature. None of the essential trade-offs are conceded by either side, which means the UK is still left with the same stark choice of divergence coming at the cost of a border in the Irish sea, and restrictions on free movement coming at the cost of an economic hit. May's victory is just in getting the EU to play along with the charade to get the WA over the line.Casino_Royale said:So, you concede I'm right then: this deal is nothing like Norway, which has no such right.
You've basically moved your argument onto: the UK will have all these powers, but will make a policy decision to choose to align itself to all the EU rules anyway.0 -
That our eventual destination on leaving the EU would be in the EEA via EFTA. (Or was it just EFTA? Richard can decide that one)viewcode said:
What was your £100 bet with Richard N?Richard_Tyndall said:
I am still clinging on by my fingertips for my £100 bet with Richard N. Though I think I have probably lost it now.IanB2 said:
A second vote delivers the mandate.FF43 said:
The government has a mandate for a No Deal Brexit. It has a mandate for whatever Brexit it chooses to deliver. But it doesn't mean No Deal Brexit will be acceptable. In fact the chaos and damage of a No Deal Brexit is almost certainly unacceptable to all but a minority of Leave diehards. Remember Brexit was carried on a tiny margin on the promise that there would be no cost. No Deal is very unlikely to be a tenable line for more than a couple of weeks.Richard_Tyndall said:
The Government clearly does have a mandate for a No Deal Brexit. May was clear before the election that No Deal was better than a Bad Deal (her words not mine) and the original vote was just to leave - as Remainers love to keep reminding us - not what form leaving would take. The only thing she does not have a mandate for is Remaining.williamglenn said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/11/24/why-theresa-mays-brexit-deal-is-terrible-for-the-u-k/
It is an appalling deal. It merely buys time at the cost of a considerably weaker negotiating position for the U.K. But the EU has already said it will not renegotiate it. If this deal fails, then the options are still no-deal Brexit, or no Brexit. The Government has no mandate for either, and nor does either option command a majority in Parliament. All roads seem now to lead to either a General Election, or a second referendum.
Since the referendum I have been trying to work out whether the British will accept vassalage as the only realistic Brexit outcome. In particular would leavers accept abdicating significant decision-making to a foreign body when the justification for Brexit is that it gives us back our control? It appears not. Which means we are now out of road. Something has to give.
Meanwhile it is interesting the ST suggests a plan B along the lines of Norway. That might have been a better place for a sensible PM to have started from.
It was my original pitch for Brexit from the start but it looks as if I will be defeated.0 -
Meanwhile in the EU paradise it appears that the French police are as sympathetic to political protesters as the Spanish police were.0
-
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.0 -
The thing is the reason the EU think we will cave first is not simply to do with who the PM is, it's not simply a May problem. Parliament and the parties themselves, to different degrees, are horribly divided on what we wanted to ask for or even if we wanted to go through with all this after all (another reason so many are cowards for triggering A50 if they were never going to follow through on it). Another leader, say Boris, could take a firmer stance but while that is likely a more popular stance in the PCP than May's (I am excluding loyalists who would probably vote for whatever the leader in place says), they still wouldn't have a majority for it in the Commons, and without a majority for something there would always be the risk Parliament continues to cause trouble for the government trying to enter a stare off with the EU.geoffw said:
Thankyee. It seems to be what the EU is expecting, but they are not going to play ball "Whether that penny drops after a ‘no deal’ scenario - which Europe is determined will be messy even if it is ‘managed’"ralphmalph said:
Here you go,geoffw said:
Do you have a link?ralphmalph said:
This is what Peter Foster in the Telegraph has written tonight. May tells them no chance deal goes through with the backstop in it.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/24/eu-will-do-parliament-rejects-theresa-mays-brexit-deal/
May should be prepared to outstare them (i.e. be prepared to go for a managed No Deal), and if she can't face that she should give way to Boris who would.
So I really think the idea replacing May now would improve matters is highly improbable. It should have been months ago, when the shape of things was emerging and it was clear even May's initial Chequers pitch was not going to be warmly received by the EU heads, that the replacement was needed.0 -
I've been shocked at some of their behaviour, and the utter zealotry. It's the only thing (the only thing) that's made me question some of the people I've been hanging around with.HYUFD said:
They are certainly risking BrexitCasino_Royale said:
I'm relaxed about it as the backstop is in neither side's interests, there's a good faith clause in the Withdrawal Agreement to supersede it as soon as possible with independent arbitration, and technological solutions are explicitly referenced in the political declaration.HYUFD said:
That I believe is the 'big concession' Barnier said he was giving the UK on Customs Union membershipRichard_Tyndall said:
I agreeHYUFD said:
As far as I can read it we stay in the Customs Union we are already in, not 'a' Customs Union, until the Irish border situation is resolved but GB leaves the EU and Single MarketRichard_Tyndall said:
You do understand that if the Customs arrangements are on the same basis as Turkey's - 'a' customs union rather than 'the' Customs Union it will allow any country with an FTA with the EU to sell into the UK tariff free without us having reciprocal rights? Basically every one of the EU free trade deals will be a one way street in favour of the third countries.HYUFD said:
It is pretty much the basis of the Deal and getting trade deals dictated to us from China and the USA is not what most Leave voters were voting forRichard_Tyndall said:
Staying in the (or rather 'a') customs union but not the single market is a genuinely dumb idea. It puts us in the same boat as Turkey which is pretty disastrous for trade.HYUFD said:
The Dealwilliamglenn said:
There's no time to implement a Canada style deal before the transition runs out. It points to a Norway style deal with some clever obfuscation of what it really means.Charles said:
Which is why we will have a Canada style dealwilliamglenn said:
The .TheWhiteRabbit said:May's responses on the WA have been technically accurate, which is much better than her opponents (on both sides of the house). Sure, her political nous sometimes leaves something to be desired, but still - she should go for it.
I honestly don't know what the ERG are making such a fuss over.
Thankfully, the ideologues on the other side (Soubry, Wollaston, Grieve etc. and the zealots like WilliamGlenn) are just as bad.0 -
Hardly "arsing around" to point out that the House of Commons will not approve the "deal" the negotiators have fashioned. Both admirable and adult to point that out - and leave them with a get-out option.....viewcode said:
The behavior you describe (arse around and leave your counterparty to make your decisions for you) is neither admirable nor adult.MarqueeMark said:
Which of course is exactly what May should be saying, not her successor.Philip_Thompson said:
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.Benpointer said:
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.Philip_Thompson said:
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
As I said this morning, go to Brussels, score through the Backstop clause, sign it with that excluded, come home. Problem belong Brussels.....
Their decision if we have Hard Brexit.
Of course, it requires May to be able to deliver the House of Commons if they did go along and can the backstop. I suspect the House would. Everybody would have run out of excuses - and road - by that point.
And May gets to stay on as PM.0 -
Thank you. I agree with you (it was the simplest solution) but I also think it will not eventuate.Richard_Tyndall said:
That our eventual destination on leaving the EU would be in the EEA via EFTA. (Or was it just EFTA? Richard can decide that one)viewcode said:
What was your £100 bet with Richard N?Richard_Tyndall said:
I am still clinging on by my fingertips for my £100 bet with Richard N. Though I think I have probably lost it now.IanB2 said:
A second vote delivers the mandate.FF43 said:
The government has a mandate for a No Deal Brexit. It has a mandate for whatever Brexit it chooses to deliver. But it doesn't mean No Deal Brexit will be acceptable. In fact the chaos and damage of a No Deal Brexit is almost certainly unacceptable to all but a minority of Leave diehards. Remember Brexit was carried on a tiny margin on the promise that there would be no cost. No Deal is very unlikely to be a tenable line for more than a couple of weeks.Richard_Tyndall said:
The Government clearly does have a mandate for a No Deal Brexit. May was clear before the election that No Deal was better than a Bad Deal (her words not mine) and the original vote was just to leave - as Remainers love to keep reminding us - not what form leaving would take. The only thing she does not have a mandate for is Remaining.williamglenn said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/11/24/why-theresa-mays-brexit-deal-is-terrible-for-the-u-k/
It is an appalling deal. It merely buys time at the cost of a considerably weaker negotiating position for the U.K. But the EU has already said it will not renegotiate it. If this deal fails, then the options are still no-deal Brexit, or no Brexit. The Government has no mandate for either, and nor does either option command a majority in Parliament. All roads seem now to lead to either a General Election, or a second referendum.
Since the referendum I have been trying to work out whether the British will accept vassalage as the only realistic Brexit outcome. In particular would leavers accept abdicating significant decision-making to a foreign body when the justification for Brexit is that it gives us back our control? It appears not. Which means we are now out of road. Something has to give.
Meanwhile it is interesting the ST suggests a plan B along the lines of Norway. That might have been a better place for a sensible PM to have started from.
It was my original pitch for Brexit from the start but it looks as if I will be defeated.0 -
Agreed. It sucks, but that also seems like it has the best chance of getting sufficient support in parliament.Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.0 -
I don't think anyone has reported today's by-election result:
Uxbridge - DUP Gain
0 -
You say that as if people never go back on what they've said. May made it absolutely unequivocally clear the UK could never agree to the backstop (we did), would not have an early election (we did) etc, etcHYUFD said:
The EU has made absolutely unequivocally clear it will not agree any deal without a backstop for Northern Ireland. End of storyPhilip_Thompson said:
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.Benpointer said:
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.Philip_Thompson said:
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
Unless you're saying there's something uniquely dishonest about May?0 -
Norway still delegates major decision making to an external body. It seems to work for Norway, although its government is sceptical. The UK is bigger and more ambitious. Maybe it's OK. If we must have Brexit we don't have a lot of choice.IanB2 said:
A second vote delivers the mandate.FF43 said:
The government has a mandate for a No Deal Brexit. It has a mandate for whatever Brexit it chooses to deliver. But it doesn't mean No Deal Brexit will be acceptable. In fact the chaos and damage of a No Deal Brexit is almost certainly unacceptable to all but a minority of Leave diehards. Remember Brexit was carried on a tiny margin on the promise that there would be no cost. No Deal is very unlikely to be a tenable line for more than a couple of weeks.Richard_Tyndall said:
The Government clearly does have a mandate for a No Deal Brexit. May was clear before the election that No Deal was better than a Bad Deal (her words not mine) and the original vote was just to leave - as Remainers love to keep reminding us - not what form leaving would take. The only thing she does not have a mandate for is Remaining.williamglenn said:https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/11/24/why-theresa-mays-brexit-deal-is-terrible-for-the-u-k/
It is an appalling deal. It merely buys time at the cost of a considerably weaker negotiating position for the U.K. But the EU has already said it will not renegotiate it. If this deal fails, then the options are still no-deal Brexit, or no Brexit. The Government has no mandate for either, and nor does either option command a majority in Parliament. All roads seem now to lead to either a General Election, or a second referendum.
Since the referendum I have been trying to work out whether the British will accept vassalage as the only realistic Brexit outcome. In particular would leavers accept abdicating significant decision-making to a foreign body when the justification for Brexit is that it gives us back our control? It appears not. Which means we are now out of road. Something has to give.
Meanwhile it is interesting the ST suggests a plan B along the lines of Norway. That might have been a better place for a sensible PM to have started from.0 -
Watching the news tonight - riots on the streets of Paris leading to refugees fleeing the country in liferafts.
Something like that, anyway.0 -
While I accept that a willingness to accept a compromise can be a bad thing, if it is an unfair compromise, it does seem notable to me that a lot of people really don't know what a negotiation is since they regard any concession to the EU as in itself a bad thing, when concessions would have had to be made to get a deal. Too many? Now that is a separate and much easier argument, but on certain points there are some who clearly go 'The EU seem happy about X, therefore it is unacceptable in principle'.viewcode said:
There is a strand in Leaver thinking that attributes all evil to the EU, will not deal with it under any circumstances, will viscerally reject any deal that involves the EU, and blame it for that rejection. Such a stance is psychological in origin and will not be ameliorated by argument.Casino_Royale said:I'm relaxed about it as the backstop is in neither side's interests, there's a good faith clause in the Withdrawal Agreement to supersede it as soon as possible with independent arbitration, and technological solutions are explicitly referenced in the political declaration.
I honestly don't know what the ERG are making such a fuss over.0 -
People like you and WilliamGlenn will argue Brexit is pointless, meaningless, vassalage until your dying breath, regardless of its political outcome, or the policy decisions the UK makes.FF43 said:
This is correct. With the exception of the Irish border, the trade offs are left until later. And in the case of the Irish border the trade off is now constrained to no divergence from the EU or leave Northern Ireland on the other side of an Irish Sea regulatory border, neither of which is acceptable to the current government.williamglenn said:
No, you are being deceived by smoke and mirrors. The deal isn't a deal at all, by its nature. None of the essential trade-offs are conceded by either side, which means the UK is still left with the same stark choice of divergence coming at the cost of a border in the Irish sea, and restrictions on free movement coming at the cost of an economic hit. May's victory is just in getting the EU to play along with the charade to get the WA over the line.Casino_Royale said:So, you concede I'm right then: this deal is nothing like Norway, which has no such right.
You've basically moved your argument onto: the UK will have all these powers, but will make a policy decision to choose to align itself to all the EU rules anyway.
I could see both of you arguing on here in fifteen years time that every decision the UK Government made - with many years of the new arrangement under its belt - was either informed or influenced by the EU, or would lead to exclusion or punishment by the EU, or the eventual destruction of the UK. Which would never come.
Fair enough, you are both true believers, but don't pretend to be objective in this or taken seriously.0 -
May really should go for it, campaigning on a Goldilocks ticket. It calls Corbyns bluff.kle4 said:
Agreed. It sucks, but that also seems like it has the best chance of getting sufficient support in parliament.Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.
0 -
Hannan: We're being shafted by the EU
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/24/calamitous-cowardly-brexit-deal-now-shafted-eu/
I could be wrong, of course. Remainers might find some way to overturn the referendum result. Or the EU might choose to put politics before economics and cause unnecessary economic disruption on both sides of the Channel. But we have now reached the point where both those outcomes, undesirable as they are, would be less dreadful than accepting these terms0 -
Wouldn't it depend upon the question? It doesn't strike me as likely May would want to try pushing through a question with "Remain" as one of the outcomes (assuming rescinding Article 50 and returning to our old terms with the EU is even possible). Regardless of her level of personal commitment to Brexit, she'd risk being deposed by her own party, and if that failed, splitting her party permanently.williamglenn said:
I doubt Corbyn would get away with whipping MPs to vote against a referendum given the party's position.Benpointer said:
Would she get a vote for a 2nd referendum through the HoC though?Foxy said:0 -
If it wasn't for that one thing, the backstop, would you support the deal, Mark?MarqueeMark said:
Hardly "arsing around" to point out that the House of Commons will not approve the "deal" the negotiators have fashioned. Both admirable and adult to point that out - and leave them with a get-out option.....viewcode said:
The behavior you describe (arse around and leave your counterparty to make your decisions for you) is neither admirable nor adult.MarqueeMark said:
Which of course is exactly what May should be saying, not her successor.Philip_Thompson said:
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.Benpointer said:
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.Philip_Thompson said:
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
As I said this morning, go to Brussels, score through the Backstop clause, sign it with that excluded, come home. Problem belong Brussels.....
Their decision if we have Hard Brexit.
Of course, it requires May to be able to deliver the House of Commons if they did go along and can the backstop. I suspect the House would. Everybody would have run out of excuses - and road - by that point.
And May gets to stay on as PM.0 -
Funny how Brexiteers like to refer to TM successor as 'he' but it does fit the Dads Army imageMarqueeMark said:
Which of course is exactly what May should be saying, not her successor.Philip_Thompson said:
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.Benpointer said:
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.Philip_Thompson said:
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
As I said this morning, go to Brussels, score through the Backstop clause, sign it with that excluded, come home. Problem belong Brussels.....
Their decision if we have Hard Brexit.0 -
Barnier is not May and the EU are not going to give the UK whatever it wants on a plate, they want to ensure Brexit has a price and that price is Northern IrelandPhilip_Thompson said:
You say that as if people never go back on what they've said. May made it absolutely unequivocally clear the UK could never agree to the backstop (we did), would not have an early election (we did) etc, etcHYUFD said:
The EU has made absolutely unequivocally clear it will not agree any deal without a backstop for Northern Ireland. End of storyPhilip_Thompson said:
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.Benpointer said:
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.Philip_Thompson said:
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
Unless you're saying there's something uniquely dishonest about May?0 -
Well.......Philip_Thompson said:
You say that as if people never go back on what they've said. May made it absolutely unequivocally clear the UK could never agree to the backstop (we did), would not have an early election (we did) etc, etcHYUFD said:
The EU has made absolutely unequivocally clear it will not agree any deal without a backstop for Northern Ireland. End of storyPhilip_Thompson said:
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.Benpointer said:
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.Philip_Thompson said:
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
Unless you're saying there's something uniquely dishonest about May?
May is not uniquely dishonest personally. But she is trying to implement a policy that was sold to the electorate is a uniquely dishonest way.0 -
Come to think of it, May should enlist her allies in the DUP to do any further negotiations with Brussels. Nigel Dodds, Sammy Wilson or Jeffrey Donaldson wouldn't blink.kle4 said:
The thing is the reason the EU think we will cave first is not simply to do with who the PM is, it's not simply a May problem. Parliament and the parties themselves, to different degrees, are horribly divided on what we wanted to ask for or even if we wanted to go through with all this after all (another reason so many are cowards for triggering A50 if they were never going to follow through on it). Another leader, say Boris, could take a firmer stance but while that is likely a more popular stance in the PCP than May's (I am excluding loyalists who would probably vote for whatever the leader in place says), they still wouldn't have a majority for it in the Commons, and without a majority for something there would always be the risk Parliament continues to cause trouble for the government trying to enter a stare off with the EU.geoffw said:
Thankyee. It seems to be what the EU is expecting, but they are not going to play ball "Whether that penny drops after a ‘no deal’ scenario - which Europe is determined will be messy even if it is ‘managed’"ralphmalph said:
Here you go,geoffw said:
Do you have a link?ralphmalph said:
This is what Peter Foster in the Telegraph has written tonight. May tells them no chance deal goes through with the backstop in it.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/24/eu-will-do-parliament-rejects-theresa-mays-brexit-deal/
May should be prepared to outstare them (i.e. be prepared to go for a managed No Deal), and if she can't face that she should give way to Boris who would.
So I really think the idea replacing May now would improve matters is highly improbable. It should have been months ago, when the shape of things was emerging and it was clear even May's initial Chequers pitch was not going to be warmly received by the EU heads, that the replacement was needed.
0 -
So the next round of talks will be 'You have been lying to us and everyone else about not budging on point X. Now let's deal'.Philip_Thompson said:
You say that as if people never go back on what they've said.HYUFD said:
The EU has made absolutely unequivocally clear it will not agree any deal without a backstop for Northern Ireland. End of storyPhilip_Thompson said:
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.Benpointer said:
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.Philip_Thompson said:
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
One, do we really think May has not tried this given the issue has been such a headache and, if the deal passes, will bring down her government? Surely not, so presumably we just need to try harder. So two, why exactly will the EU suddenly become amendable after we say this? Just as we may well no deal despite many thinking it will be bad because of political reasons, so too might the EU, against its own interests, be unwilling to move on specific points. Three, why should they give us time to formulate this view when that just aids us? Four, How do we formulate that view given the governing party is riven with splits and so won't have a consensus which then has a parliamentary majority?0 -
I think this is the only way out of the whole kerfuffle one way or the other. The only real question is how to frame the question. One question, three answers, AV system, or two separate questions along the rough lines of:Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.
1. The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. On the deal the UK government has negotiated to leave do you
Accept
Reject
the deal?
2. If the deal is rejected, do you think we should
Leave With No Deal
Remain
I think that would be a way of respecting the original leave vote and the deal but at the same time give the option of rejecting both if that is what the people think, without automatically making Remain the default go to position.0 -
I would. It has its flaws but everything does. Cut out the backstop and the deal would be acceptable.Casino_Royale said:
If it wasn't for that one thing, the backstop, would you support the deal, Mark?MarqueeMark said:
Hardly "arsing around" to point out that the House of Commons will not approve the "deal" the negotiators have fashioned. Both admirable and adult to point that out - and leave them with a get-out option.....viewcode said:
The behavior you describe (arse around and leave your counterparty to make your decisions for you) is neither admirable nor adult.MarqueeMark said:
Which of course is exactly what May should be saying, not her successor.Philip_Thompson said:
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.Benpointer said:
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.Philip_Thompson said:
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
As I said this morning, go to Brussels, score through the Backstop clause, sign it with that excluded, come home. Problem belong Brussels.....
Their decision if we have Hard Brexit.
Of course, it requires May to be able to deliver the House of Commons if they did go along and can the backstop. I suspect the House would. Everybody would have run out of excuses - and road - by that point.
And May gets to stay on as PM.0 -
What in my comment here is not objective?Casino_Royale said:
People like you and WilliamGlenn will argue Brexit is pointless, meaningless, vassalage until your dying breath, regardless of its political outcome, or the policy decisions the UK makes.FF43 said:
This is correct. With the exception of the Irish border, the trade offs are left until later. And in the case of the Irish border the trade off is now constrained to no divergence from the EU or leave Northern Ireland on the other side of an Irish Sea regulatory border, neither of which is acceptable to the current government.williamglenn said:
No, you are being deceived by smoke and mirrors. The deal isn't a deal at all, by its nature. None of the essential trade-offs are conceded by either side, which means the UK is still left with the same stark choice of divergence coming at the cost of a border in the Irish sea, and restrictions on free movement coming at the cost of an economic hit. May's victory is just in getting the EU to play along with the charade to get the WA over the line.Casino_Royale said:So, you concede I'm right then: this deal is nothing like Norway, which has no such right.
You've basically moved your argument onto: the UK will have all these powers, but will make a policy decision to choose to align itself to all the EU rules anyway.
I could see both of you arguing on here in fifteen years time that every decision the UK Government made - with many years of the new arrangement under its belt - was either informed or influenced by the EU, or would lead to exclusion or punishment by the EU, or the eventual destruction of the UK. Which would never come.
Fair enough, you are both true believers, but don't pretend to be objective in this or taken seriously.0 -
Boris said as much at the DUP conference. The backstop is the issueCasino_Royale said:
If it wasn't for that one thing, the backstop, would you support the deal, Mark?MarqueeMark said:
Hardly "arsing around" to point out that the House of Commons will not approve the "deal" the negotiators have fashioned. Both admirable and adult to point that out - and leave them with a get-out option.....viewcode said:
The behavior you describe (arse around and leave your counterparty to make your decisions for you) is neither admirable nor adult.MarqueeMark said:
Which of course is exactly what May should be saying, not her successor.Philip_Thompson said:
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.Benpointer said:
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.Philip_Thompson said:
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
As I said this morning, go to Brussels, score through the Backstop clause, sign it with that excluded, come home. Problem belong Brussels.....
Their decision if we have Hard Brexit.
Of course, it requires May to be able to deliver the House of Commons if they did go along and can the backstop. I suspect the House would. Everybody would have run out of excuses - and road - by that point.
And May gets to stay on as PM.
If as expected the deal falls TM needs to go to Brussels and challenge the backstop or move to the Norway model which would pass with SNP and labour support. That is her escape clause0 -
On first glance that seems like a reasonable question. Tricky for Labour's balancing act given they want a GE (though again I think that a needless demand, since I see no way this parliament will last 3.5 more years) to renegotiate, ostensibly, but given most of their members and MPs want to remain I doubt that is a priority.solarflare said:
I think this is the only way out of the whole kerfuffle one way or the other. The only real question is how to frame the question. One question, three answers, AV system, or two separate questions along the rough lines of:Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.
1. The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. On the deal the UK government has negotiated to leave do you
Accept
Reject
the deal?
2. If the deal is rejected, do you think we should
Leave With No Deal
Remain
I think that would be a way of respecting the original leave vote and the deal but at the same time give the option of rejecting both if that is what the people think, without automatically making Remain the default go to position.0 -
dittoPhilip_Thompson said:
I would. It has its flaws but everything does. Cut out the backstop and the deal would be acceptable.Casino_Royale said:
If it wasn't for that one thing, the backstop, would you support the deal, Mark?MarqueeMark said:
Hardly "arsing around" to point out that the House of Commons will not approve the "deal" the negotiators have fashioned. Both admirable and adult to point that out - and leave them with a get-out option.....viewcode said:
The behavior you describe (arse around and leave your counterparty to make your decisions for you) is neither admirable nor adult.MarqueeMark said:
Which of course is exactly what May should be saying, not her successor.Philip_Thompson said:
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.Benpointer said:
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.Philip_Thompson said:
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
As I said this morning, go to Brussels, score through the Backstop clause, sign it with that excluded, come home. Problem belong Brussels.....
Their decision if we have Hard Brexit.
Of course, it requires May to be able to deliver the House of Commons if they did go along and can the backstop. I suspect the House would. Everybody would have run out of excuses - and road - by that point.
And May gets to stay on as PM.
0 -
Certainly not as quickly. But it's the parliamentary maths and party factions undermining an easy majority which is behind our weak position, negotiating skill is only a part of it I think.geoffw said:
Come to think of it, May should enlist her allies in the DUP to do any further negotiations with Brussels. Nigel Dodds, Sammy Wilson or Jeffrey Donaldson wouldn't blink.kle4 said:
The thing is the reason the EU think we will cave first is not simply to do with who the PM is, it's not simply a May problem. Parliament and the parties themselves, to different degrees, are horribly divided on what we wanted to ask for or even if we wanted to go through with all this after all (another reason so many are cowards for triggering A50 if they were never going to follow through on it). Another leader, say Boris, could take a firmer stance but while that is likely a more popular stance in the PCP than May's (I am excluding loyalists who would probably vote for whatever the leader in place says), they still wouldn't have a majority for it in the Commons, and without a majority for something there would always be the risk Parliament continues to cause trouble for the government trying to enter a stare off with the EU.geoffw said:
Thankyee. It seems to be what the EU is expecting, but they are not going to play ball "Whether that penny drops after a ‘no deal’ scenario - which Europe is determined will be messy even if it is ‘managed’"ralphmalph said:
Here you go,geoffw said:
Do you have a link?ralphmalph said:
This is what Peter Foster in the Telegraph has written tonight. May tells them no chance deal goes through with the backstop in it.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/11/24/eu-will-do-parliament-rejects-theresa-mays-brexit-deal/
May should be prepared to outstare them (i.e. be prepared to go for a managed No Deal), and if she can't face that she should give way to Boris who would.
So I really think the idea replacing May now would improve matters is highly improbable. It should have been months ago, when the shape of things was emerging and it was clear even May's initial Chequers pitch was not going to be warmly received by the EU heads, that the replacement was needed.0 -
He'd have lost the Lisbon referendum, then the very next thing the anti-EU side would have been saying would have been that every time the British get to vote on the EU they vote against it, and it's time for a vote on the actual thing. The Tories would have wanted to ride that wave and we could just as well ended up in the same place, but no Article 50 so every member state has a veto.Philip_Thompson said:
The referendum was inevitable. If only Brown had honoured the manifesto and called it over Lisbon instead of on our membership.Benpointer said:
If only, if only...Philip_Thompson said:The irony is that if Theresa May had been prepared to debate Corbyn last year she could have won a healthy majority, she may not have panicked into agreeing the EU's scheduling on day one (neutering 'the fight of the summer') or panicked into agreeing the backstop. The whole negotiation may have turned out differently.
If only Cameron hadn't called such a ridiculous referendum, eh?
0 -
I’d make it simplersolarflare said:
I think this is the only way out of the whole kerfuffle one way or the other. The only real question is how to frame the question. One question, three answers, AV system, or two separate questions along the rough lines of:Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.
1. The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. On the deal the UK government has negotiated to leave do you
Accept
Reject
the deal?
2. If the deal is rejected, do you think we should
Leave With No Deal
Remain
I think that would be a way of respecting the original leave vote and the deal but at the same time give the option of rejecting both if that is what the people think, without automatically making Remain the default go to position.
Should the UK
1) Leave the EU, accepting the terms of the deal
2) Leave the EU, without accepting the terms of the deal
3) Remain in the EU
0 -
Er, where do I refer to the successor as male???Big_G_NorthWales said:
Funny how Brexiteers like to refer to TM successor as 'he' but it does fit the Dads Army imageMarqueeMark said:
Which of course is exactly what May should be saying, not her successor.Philip_Thompson said:
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.Benpointer said:
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.Philip_Thompson said:
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
As I said this morning, go to Brussels, score through the Backstop clause, sign it with that excluded, come home. Problem belong Brussels.....
Their decision if we have Hard Brexit.0 -
This all makes sense but will parliament vote for it? I assume the ERG/DUP would oppose and presumably other Tories would join them, and can Corbyn support a referendum to choose between three things, all of which he's against?solarflare said:
I think this is the only way out of the whole kerfuffle one way or the other. The only real question is how to frame the question. One question, three answers, AV system, or two separate questions along the rough lines of:Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.
1. The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. On the deal the UK government has negotiated to leave do you
Accept
Reject
the deal?
2. If the deal is rejected, do you think we should
Leave With No Deal
Remain
I think that would be a way of respecting the original leave vote and the deal but at the same time give the option of rejecting both if that is what the people think, without automatically making Remain the default go to position.0 -
I suppose the difficulty is she has to at least try to get her deal passed before she shifts tack and says, fuck it, I'll ask the people directly then, and given other Tory rebels are smarter than the ERG lot it seems quite possible if she does not resign when her deal falls she will face a vote of no confidence at that point (whereas she might have won if the ERG succeeded and been safe) and she will probably lose it (given half the Cabinet seemed to publicly or in leak indicate they don't support her deal, not really, I doubt she would win at that point). So I don't know that she gets the opportunity to go for it.Jonathan said:
May really should go for it, campaigning on a Goldilocks ticket. It calls Corbyns bluff.kle4 said:
Agreed. It sucks, but that also seems like it has the best chance of getting sufficient support in parliament.Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.
And if she is not there I'm not sure the Tories will propose it either. As long as the main Tory rebels are saying they want renegotiation, their position would seem to argue more for GE than referendum to resolve this. After all, Labour are also promising to renegotiate. So a GE on who do you want to renegotiate - the Tories who failed after 2 years, or give Corbyn a go why not could he do any worse?0 -
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that 'he' wants a deal..........MarqueeMark said:
Er, where do I refer to the successor as male???Big_G_NorthWales said:
Funny how Brexiteers like to refer to TM successor as 'he' but it does fit the Dads Army imageMarqueeMark said:
Which of course is exactly what May should be saying, not her successor.Philip_Thompson said:
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.Benpointer said:
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.Philip_Thompson said:
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
As I said this morning, go to Brussels, score through the Backstop clause, sign it with that excluded, come home. Problem belong Brussels.....
Their decision if we have Hard Brexit.0 -
Yes, I would. The fundamental problem with the backstop is that it gives the EU the inbuilt ability to dick around in the next stage of the negotiation - until we cave in. It was always crass to have conceded it. Once we are out, the negotiations thereafter should be as equals, not with us having our hands tied behind our backs.Casino_Royale said:
If it wasn't for that one thing, the backstop, would you support the deal, Mark?MarqueeMark said:
Hardly "arsing around" to point out that the House of Commons will not approve the "deal" the negotiators have fashioned. Both admirable and adult to point that out - and leave them with a get-out option.....viewcode said:
The behavior you describe (arse around and leave your counterparty to make your decisions for you) is neither admirable nor adult.MarqueeMark said:
Which of course is exactly what May should be saying, not her successor.Philip_Thompson said:
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.Benpointer said:
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.Philip_Thompson said:
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
As I said this morning, go to Brussels, score through the Backstop clause, sign it with that excluded, come home. Problem belong Brussels.....
Their decision if we have Hard Brexit.
Of course, it requires May to be able to deliver the House of Commons if they did go along and can the backstop. I suspect the House would. Everybody would have run out of excuses - and road - by that point.
And May gets to stay on as PM.
That apart, the deal was always going to be unpalatable. It's the backstop that smears shit over everything.0 -
Well, like I say, fundamentally I think you're right and the rest is just the detail of how to set up the question on a footing supporters of all three outcomes can go for.Jonathan said:
I’d make it simplersolarflare said:
I think this is the only way out of the whole kerfuffle one way or the other. The only real question is how to frame the question. One question, three answers, AV system, or two separate questions along the rough lines of:Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.
1. The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. On the deal the UK government has negotiated to leave do you
Accept
Reject
the deal?
2. If the deal is rejected, do you think we should
Leave With No Deal
Remain
I think that would be a way of respecting the original leave vote and the deal but at the same time give the option of rejecting both if that is what the people think, without automatically making Remain the default go to position.
Should the UK
1) Leave the EU, accepting the terms of the deal
2) Leave the EU, without accepting the terms of the deal
3) Remain in the EU0 -
Philip Hammond 'will quit the Cabinet and take five ministers with him if Theresa May tries for a No Deal Brexit'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6425393/Philip-Hammond-quit-Cabinet-five-ministers-Theresa-tries-No-Deal.html0 -
What's not to like?williamglenn said:Philip Hammond 'will quit the Cabinet and take five ministers with him if Theresa May tries for a No Deal Brexit'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6425393/Philip-Hammond-quit-Cabinet-five-ministers-Theresa-tries-No-Deal.html
0 -
I think on Corbyn he could. Labour want to remain, that is clear as day. Their voters want it, their MPs want it, he will not stand against the tide. Officially he wants to renegotiate a new deal, which makes accepting a referendum a little tricky particularly as the parties will be under pressure to fall behind one of the options, but since no party will unify behind the deal after rejecting it in parliament, they can defend taking officially no stance. His members therefore get the opportunity to remain if they want, and it isn't his fault if the deal does get approved.edmundintokyo said:
This all makes sense but will parliament vote for it? I assume the ERG/DUP would oppose and presumably other Tories would join them, and can Corbyn support a referendum to choose between three things, all of which he's against?solarflare said:
I think this is the only way out of the whole kerfuffle one way or the other. The only real question is how to frame the question. One question, three answers, AV system, or two separate questions along the rough lines of:Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.
1. The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. On the deal the UK government has negotiated to leave do you
Accept
Reject
the deal?
2. If the deal is rejected, do you think we should
Leave With No Deal
Remain
I think that would be a way of respecting the original leave vote and the deal but at the same time give the option of rejecting both if that is what the people think, without automatically making Remain the default go to position.
The ERG and DUP really should not oppose such a question, since they act like they believe no deal would win. But they may well do. But I can conceive of enough other Tories, either for deal supporting or remain supporting reasons, backing it.0 -
Thanks.MarqueeMark said:
Yes, I would. The fundamental problem with the backstop is that it gives the EU the inbuilt ability to dick around in the next stage of the negotiation - until we cave in. It was always crass to have conceded it. Once we are out, the negotiations thereafter should be as equals, not with us having our hands tied behind our backs.Casino_Royale said:
If it wasn't for that one thing, the backstop, would you support the deal, Mark?MarqueeMark said:
Hardly "arsing around" to point out that the House of Commons will not approve the "deal" the negotiators have fashioned. Both admirable and adult to point that out - and leave them with a get-out option.....viewcode said:
The behavior you describe (arse around and leave your counterparty to make your decisions for you) is neither admirable nor adult.MarqueeMark said:
Which of course is exactly what May should be saying, not her successor.Philip_Thompson said:
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.Benpointer said:
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.Philip_Thompson said:
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
As I said this morning, go to Brussels, score through the Backstop clause, sign it with that excluded, come home. Problem belong Brussels.....
Their decision if we have Hard Brexit.
Of course, it requires May to be able to deliver the House of Commons if they did go along and can the backstop. I suspect the House would. Everybody would have run out of excuses - and road - by that point.
And May gets to stay on as PM.
That apart, the deal was always going to be unpalatable. It's the backstop that smears shit over everything.0 -
No idea if I'm honest but I assume if there was to be a second referendum parliament would vote for that in broad terms only on that first and then the technical detail of what the actual question(s) would be would come secondary to that, but I'm not quite savvy enough to know exactly how it would all pan out.edmundintokyo said:This all makes sense but will parliament vote for it? I assume the ERG/DUP would oppose and presumably other Tories would join them, and can Corbyn support a referendum to choose between three things, all of which he's against?
0 -
There's no need, he can stay in and just publicly state he will work from within government to change it like the gutless five.williamglenn said:Philip Hammond 'will quit the Cabinet and take five ministers with him if Theresa May tries for a No Deal Brexit'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6425393/Philip-Hammond-quit-Cabinet-five-ministers-Theresa-tries-No-Deal.html0 -
The words.FF43 said:
What in my comment here is not objective?Casino_Royale said:
People like you and WilliamGlenn will argue Brexit is pointless, meaningless, vassalage until your dying breath, regardless of its political outcome, or the policy decisions the UK makes.FF43 said:
This is correct. With the exception of the Irish border, the trade offs are left until later. And in the case of the Irish border the trade off is now constrained to no divergence from the EU or leave Northern Ireland on the other side of an Irish Sea regulatory border, neither of which is acceptable to the current government.williamglenn said:
No, you are being deceived by smoke and mirrors. The deal isn't a deal at all, by its nature. None of the essential trade-offs are conceded by either side, which means the UK is still left with the same stark choice of divergence coming at the cost of a border in the Irish sea, and restrictions on free movement coming at the cost of an economic hit. May's victory is just in getting the EU to play along with the charade to get the WA over the line.Casino_Royale said:So, you concede I'm right then: this deal is nothing like Norway, which has no such right.
You've basically moved your argument onto: the UK will have all these powers, but will make a policy decision to choose to align itself to all the EU rules anyway.
I could see both of you arguing on here in fifteen years time that every decision the UK Government made - with many years of the new arrangement under its belt - was either informed or influenced by the EU, or would lead to exclusion or punishment by the EU, or the eventual destruction of the UK. Which would never come.
Fair enough, you are both true believers, but don't pretend to be objective in this or taken seriously.0 -
She's not going to, so why the threat?williamglenn said:Philip Hammond 'will quit the Cabinet and take five ministers with him if Theresa May tries for a No Deal Brexit'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6425393/Philip-Hammond-quit-Cabinet-five-ministers-Theresa-tries-No-Deal.html0 -
Interesting.Philip_Thompson said:
I would. It has its flaws but everything does. Cut out the backstop and the deal would be acceptable.Casino_Royale said:
If it wasn't for that one thing, the backstop, would you support the deal, Mark?MarqueeMark said:
Hardly "arsing around" to point out that the House of Commons will not approve the "deal" the negotiators have fashioned. Both admirable and adult to point that out - and leave them with a get-out option.....viewcode said:
The behavior you describe (arse around and leave your counterparty to make your decisions for you) is neither admirable nor adult.MarqueeMark said:
Which of course is exactly what May should be saying, not her successor.Philip_Thompson said:
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.Benpointer said:
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.Philip_Thompson said:
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
As I said this morning, go to Brussels, score through the Backstop clause, sign it with that excluded, come home. Problem belong Brussels.....
Their decision if we have Hard Brexit.
Of course, it requires May to be able to deliver the House of Commons if they did go along and can the backstop. I suspect the House would. Everybody would have run out of excuses - and road - by that point.
And May gets to stay on as PM.
That suggests if May can qualify this further, with the EU, a large chunk of the current backbench opposition to the deal melts away.0 -
One Hammond ally predicted that the Chancellor would want no part of any no-deal exit because he believes it would be so catastrophic.
And why would that be?
Who was it that stymied preparations for No Deal early on in this process?0 -
The problem with the 3 option AV referendum is that Remain could win on transfers despite a majority voting for Brexit.Jonathan said:
I’d make it simplersolarflare said:
I think this is the only way out of the whole kerfuffle one way or the other. The only real question is how to frame the question. One question, three answers, AV system, or two separate questions along the rough lines of:Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.
1. The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. On the deal the UK government has negotiated to leave do you
Accept
Reject
the deal?
2. If the deal is rejected, do you think we should
Leave With No Deal
Remain
I think that would be a way of respecting the original leave vote and the deal but at the same time give the option of rejecting both if that is what the people think, without automatically making Remain the default go to position.
Should the UK
1) Leave the EU, accepting the terms of the deal
2) Leave the EU, without accepting the terms of the deal
3) Remain in the EU
I guess some would see that as a feature rather than a bug.0 -
How would that question respect the original vote? The original vote was to leave, not to remain, so the only question that would truly respect the original vote is between deal or no deal.solarflare said:
I think this is the only way out of the whole kerfuffle one way or the other. The only real question is how to frame the question. One question, three answers, AV system, or two separate questions along the rough lines of:Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.
1. The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. On the deal the UK government has negotiated to leave do you
Accept
Reject
the deal?
2. If the deal is rejected, do you think we should
Leave With No Deal
Remain
I think that would be a way of respecting the original leave vote and the deal but at the same time give the option of rejecting both if that is what the people think, without automatically making Remain the default go to position.
0 -
You could say the opposite too, the problem with the first referendum and a FPTP follow-up is that Leave could win despite a majority of voters preferring Remain to the version of Leave that wins.SandyRentool said:
The problem with the 3 option AV referendum is that Remain could win on transfers despite a majority voting for Brexit.Jonathan said:
I’d make it simplersolarflare said:
I think this is the only way out of the whole kerfuffle one way or the other. The only real question is how to frame the question. One question, three answers, AV system, or two separate questions along the rough lines of:Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.
1. The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. On the deal the UK government has negotiated to leave do you
Accept
Reject
the deal?
2. If the deal is rejected, do you think we should
Leave With No Deal
Remain
I think that would be a way of respecting the original leave vote and the deal but at the same time give the option of rejecting both if that is what the people think, without automatically making Remain the default go to position.
Should the UK
1) Leave the EU, accepting the terms of the deal
2) Leave the EU, without accepting the terms of the deal
3) Remain in the EU
I guess some would see that as a feature rather than a bug.0 -
I'm not sure what alternative there is. Even if it is preferred I don't see how you get a referendum without Remain being on there, no deal obviously has to be as well. You could perhaps argue no need for the deal if parliament has already rejected it (and I think it would lose heavily, since almost all non-Tory MPs will have voted against it and a sizable portion of Tories, so how many people will rally behind it when it is already not popular?), but there is a big difference between no deal and deal, so it doesn't seem right to me.SandyRentool said:
The problem with the 3 option AV referendum is that Remain could win on transfers despite a majority voting for Brexit.Jonathan said:
I’d make it simplersolarflare said:
I think this is the only way out of the whole kerfuffle one way or the other. The only real question is how to frame the question. One question, three answers, AV system, or two separate questions along the rough lines of:Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.
1. The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. On the deal the UK government has negotiated to leave do you
Accept
Reject
the deal?
2. If the deal is rejected, do you think we should
Leave With No Deal
Remain
I think that would be a way of respecting the original leave vote and the deal but at the same time give the option of rejecting both if that is what the people think, without automatically making Remain the default go to position.
Should the UK
1) Leave the EU, accepting the terms of the deal
2) Leave the EU, without accepting the terms of the deal
3) Remain in the EU
I guess some would see that as a feature rather than a bug.0 -
Surely the Goldilocks deal is in pole position.SandyRentool said:
The problem with the 3 option AV referendum is that Remain could win on transfers despite a majority voting for Brexit.Jonathan said:
I’d make it simplersolarflare said:
I think this is the only way out of the whole kerfuffle one way or the other. The only real question is how to frame the question. One question, three answers, AV system, or two separate questions along the rough lines of:Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.
1. The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. On the deal the UK government has negotiated to leave do you
Accept
Reject
the deal?
2. If the deal is rejected, do you think we should
Leave With No Deal
Remain
I think that would be a way of respecting the original leave vote and the deal but at the same time give the option of rejecting both if that is what the people think, without automatically making Remain the default go to position.
Should the UK
1) Leave the EU, accepting the terms of the deal
2) Leave the EU, without accepting the terms of the deal
3) Remain in the EU
I guess some would see that as a feature rather than a bug.
The more I think about it, the more Mays position only makes sense in the reluctant 2nd ref scenario. Potentially very clever.
0 -
It respects it inasmuch as it defaults the question toward leaving in the first question, and only if that one fails is Remain opened up as a possibility, but I think logically you are not wrong. But Parliament might not vote for any second referendum, and they definitely won't if Remain is not an option.TudorRose said:
How would that question respect the original vote? The original vote was to leave, not to remain, so the only question that would truly respect the original vote is between deal or no deal.solarflare said:
I think this is the only way out of the whole kerfuffle one way or the other. The only real question is how to frame the question. One question, three answers, AV system, or two separate questions along the rough lines of:Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.
1. The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. On the deal the UK government has negotiated to leave do you
Accept
Reject
the deal?
2. If the deal is rejected, do you think we should
Leave With No Deal
Remain
I think that would be a way of respecting the original leave vote and the deal but at the same time give the option of rejecting both if that is what the people think, without automatically making Remain the default go to position.
This, incidentally, is one of the weaknesses of the second referendum campaign, in that it is transparently not about asking for confirmation, it is about confirmation expecting people to make the right choice this time, since it is always, always framed around the idea people have changed their minds and won't want to remain. Diane Abbott seems to be the only person worried that might not be the case.0 -
'Mr Hammond leads a new ‘gang of five’ Cabinet ministers opposed to a hard Brexit, including Work and Pensions Secretary Amber Rudd, Cabinet Office Minister David Lidington, Business Secretary Greg Clark and Justice Secretary David Gauke.williamglenn said:Philip Hammond 'will quit the Cabinet and take five ministers with him if Theresa May tries for a No Deal Brexit'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6425393/Philip-Hammond-quit-Cabinet-five-ministers-Theresa-tries-No-Deal.html
The Mail on Sunday understands all five have been placed on ‘resignation watch’ by No 10 if Mrs May countenances no deal.'0 -
Those are the right questions but I think you need 2 rounds.Jonathan said:
I’d make it simplersolarflare said:
I think this is the only way out of the whole kerfuffle one way or the other. The only real question is how to frame the question. One question, three answers, AV system, or two separate questions along the rough lines of:Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.
1. The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. On the deal the UK government has negotiated to leave do you
Accept
Reject
the deal?
2. If the deal is rejected, do you think we should
Leave With No Deal
Remain
I think that would be a way of respecting the original leave vote and the deal but at the same time give the option of rejecting both if that is what the people think, without automatically making Remain the default go to position.
Should the UK
1) Leave the EU, accepting the terms of the deal
2) Leave the EU, without accepting the terms of the deal
3) Remain in the EU
If you did those with FPTP you could easily get Remain winning despite a Leave majority, which Leave supporters would justifiably say was a gerrymander.
If you did them with AV then you might have the same but a Remain victory after transfers, which we election nerds know is a fair result but people would demagogue by affecting not to understand transfers or to think they didn't count for as much or something. (We filled huge threads with variations on this theme before he AV referendum.)
Two rounds is much cleaner. (Which Leave, take it or not.) Leavers might bitch they were being robbed because their option had to win twice while Remain got a bye, but that's pretty weak, especially in hindsight once the thing is done, and they already have a stronger argument that the previous referendum should settle it and they shouldn't have to fight again in the first place.0 -
Only six in the Cabinet who are sufficiently opposed to No Deal to walk out? Interesting.....williamglenn said:Philip Hammond 'will quit the Cabinet and take five ministers with him if Theresa May tries for a No Deal Brexit'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6425393/Philip-Hammond-quit-Cabinet-five-ministers-Theresa-tries-No-Deal.html0 -
More Cabinet Ministers than have walked out so far over Chequers and May's DealMarqueeMark said:
Only six in the Cabinet who are sufficiently opposed to No Deal to walk out? Interesting.....williamglenn said:Philip Hammond 'will quit the Cabinet and take five ministers with him if Theresa May tries for a No Deal Brexit'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6425393/Philip-Hammond-quit-Cabinet-five-ministers-Theresa-tries-No-Deal.html
0 -
That sounds like a good reason for him to quit Cabinet if we do down that route then.geoffw said:One Hammond ally predicted that the Chancellor would want no part of any no-deal exit because he believes it would be so catastrophic.
And why would that be?
Who was it that stymied preparations for No Deal early on in this process?
I don't believe this to actually be the case, since I don't believe our politicians are so machiavellian, but I have some sympathy with the idea that Corbyn had been pinning his hopes on May getting a deal which squeaked through thanks to Labour rebels, so he got to Leave, could punish his rebels, and avoid annoying remainers in his ranks while saying he would have left better than the Tories managed. And that May was pinning her hopes on not getting it through parliament so she could bounce us into remain through a referendum.Jonathan said:
Surely the Goldilocks deal is in pole position.
The more I think about it, the more Mays position only makes sense in the reluctant 2nd ref scenario. Potentially very clever.
Like I say I don't believe that to actually be true though.0 -
We know parties and parliament can’t solve this. It has to be put back to the people.0
-
OK, I'll accept your point and qualify my original statement by saying that it respects the original vote *in the sense* that it has leave as the default position.TudorRose said:
How would that question respect the original vote? The original vote was to leave, not to remain, so the only question that would truly respect the original vote is between deal or no deal.solarflare said:
I think this is the only way out of the whole kerfuffle one way or the other. The only real question is how to frame the question. One question, three answers, AV system, or two separate questions along the rough lines of:Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.
1. The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. On the deal the UK government has negotiated to leave do you
Accept
Reject
the deal?
2. If the deal is rejected, do you think we should
Leave With No Deal
Remain
I think that would be a way of respecting the original leave vote and the deal but at the same time give the option of rejecting both if that is what the people think, without automatically making Remain the default go to position.
If May's deal is the bona fide middle way through and most folk just want it all done with, then the second question with Remain doesn't even come into play. It essentially means Remain has to win two further referenda - firstly in rejecting the leave deal and secondly in saying that remaining is preferred to leaving without a deal.
And I think the only way a referendum will happen is if all three options are on the paper in some form.
But yes, maybe it will come to just Deal or No Deal.0 -
I don't think TMay would want to do this, as it invites Remain supporters to back No Deal, which is her worst outcome.solarflare said:
OK, I'll accept your point and qualify my original statement by saying that it respects the original vote *in the sense* that it has leave as the default position.TudorRose said:
How would that question respect the original vote? The original vote was to leave, not to remain, so the only question that would truly respect the original vote is between deal or no deal.solarflare said:
I think this is the only way out of the whole kerfuffle one way or the other. The only real question is how to frame the question. One question, three answers, AV system, or two separate questions along the rough lines of:Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.
1. The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. On the deal the UK government has negotiated to leave do you
Accept
Reject
the deal?
2. If the deal is rejected, do you think we should
Leave With No Deal
Remain
I think that would be a way of respecting the original leave vote and the deal but at the same time give the option of rejecting both if that is what the people think, without automatically making Remain the default go to position.
If May's deal is the bona fide middle way through and most folk just want it all done with, then the second question with Remain doesn't even come into play. It essentially means Remain has to win two further referenda - firstly in rejecting the leave deal and secondly in saying that remaining is preferred to leaving without a deal.0 -
Only six maybe but over 500 mps would agree. And there is the problem for no dealMarqueeMark said:
Only six in the Cabinet who are sufficiently opposed to No Deal to walk out? Interesting.....williamglenn said:Philip Hammond 'will quit the Cabinet and take five ministers with him if Theresa May tries for a No Deal Brexit'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6425393/Philip-Hammond-quit-Cabinet-five-ministers-Theresa-tries-No-Deal.html
Those who call for no deal better come up with a detailed managed plan or fail. Boris did say today to withhold half the 39 billion until the end of transistion and to appoint a no brexit cabinet member.
That lacks any detail, how the EU would respond, and why the EU would bend to our demands. Boris was good today but still living in a fantasy land including the Ireland Scotland land bridge0 -
No it's not. "No deal is better than a bad deal."edmundintokyo said:
I don't think TMay would want to do this, as it invites Remain supporters to back No Deal, which is her worst outcome.solarflare said:
OK, I'll accept your point and qualify my original statement by saying that it respects the original vote *in the sense* that it has leave as the default position.TudorRose said:
How would that question respect the original vote? The original vote was to leave, not to remain, so the only question that would truly respect the original vote is between deal or no deal.solarflare said:
I think this is the only way out of the whole kerfuffle one way or the other. The only real question is how to frame the question. One question, three answers, AV system, or two separate questions along the rough lines of:Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.
1. The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. On the deal the UK government has negotiated to leave do you
Accept
Reject
the deal?
2. If the deal is rejected, do you think we should
Leave With No Deal
Remain
I think that would be a way of respecting the original leave vote and the deal but at the same time give the option of rejecting both if that is what the people think, without automatically making Remain the default go to position.
If May's deal is the bona fide middle way through and most folk just want it all done with, then the second question with Remain doesn't even come into play. It essentially means Remain has to win two further referenda - firstly in rejecting the leave deal and secondly in saying that remaining is preferred to leaving without a deal.
And I think the only way a referendum will happen is if all three options are on the paper in some form.
But yes, maybe it will come to just Deal or No Deal.
0 -
That would be my reading of it too. Hopefully Varadkar and Barnier are reading it that way too and they may realise they've bitten off more than they can chew.Casino_Royale said:
Interesting.Philip_Thompson said:
I would. It has its flaws but everything does. Cut out the backstop and the deal would be acceptable.Casino_Royale said:
If it wasn't for that one thing, the backstop, would you support the deal, Mark?MarqueeMark said:
Hardly "arsing around" to point out that the House of Commons will not approve the "deal" the negotiators have fashioned. Both admirable and adult to point that out - and leave them with a get-out option.....viewcode said:
The behavior you describe (arse around and leave your counterparty to make your decisions for you) is neither admirable nor adult.MarqueeMark said:
Which of course is exactly what May should be saying, not her successor.Philip_Thompson said:
I think her successor will go to Europe and say that he wants a deal but simply can't get the backstop through Parliament. Strip out the backstop and we have a deal. I think Europe will ultimately agree to that, with probably some face-saving alternative put in its place but nothing like the current backstop.Benpointer said:
If she does resign in the next month of so, what do you see happeneng next? Genuine question.Philip_Thompson said:
She should have done that months ago. But its what needs to be done.geoffw said:
I was wondering about that too. How could she not resign? But somehow I think she wouldn't. Perhaps she would tell Brussels the deal is dead unless Brussels backs off the backstop. That would concentrate minds in Dublin and Brussels.Mortimer said:Does anyone think May resigns following a MV loss. I’m beginning to wonder if it’s the scenario everyone is missing....
As I said this morning, go to Brussels, score through the Backstop clause, sign it with that excluded, come home. Problem belong Brussels.....
Their decision if we have Hard Brexit.
Of course, it requires May to be able to deliver the House of Commons if they did go along and can the backstop. I suspect the House would. Everybody would have run out of excuses - and road - by that point.
And May gets to stay on as PM.
That suggests if May can qualify this further, with the EU, a large chunk of the current backbench opposition to the deal melts away.0 -
Not necessarily, Ashcroft's poll yesterday had LD voters, overwhelmingly Remain, backing Deal over No Deal by 53% to 11%edmundintokyo said:
I don't think TMay would want to do this, as it invites Remain supporters to back No Deal, which is her worst outcome.solarflare said:
OK, I'll accept your point and qualify my original statement by saying that it respects the original vote *in the sense* that it has leave as the default position.TudorRose said:
How would that question resolarflare said:
I think this is the only way out of the whole kerfuffle one way or the other. The only real question is how to frame the question. One question, three answers, AV system, or two separate questions along the rough lines of:Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.
1. The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. On the deal the UK government has negotiated to leave do you
Accept
Reject
the deal?
2. If the deal is rejected, do you think we should
Leave With No Deal
Remain
I think that would be a wa go to position.
If May's deal is the bona fide middle way through and most folk just want it all done with, then the second question with Remain doesn't even come into play. It essentially means Remain has to win two further referenda - firstly in rejecting the leave deal and secondly in saying that remaining is preferred to leaving without a deal.
And I think the only way a referendum will happen is if all three options are on the paper in some form.
But yes, maybe it will come to just Deal or No Deal.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-Brexit-deal-survey-Full-tables-Nov-2018.pdf0 -
I do hope that once this is all over Blair decides to leave Britain for good. He has been a blight on our politics and our country for far too long.williamglenn said:0 -
He's been a blight on more than just the UK.Richard_Tyndall said:
I do hope that once this is all over Blair decides to leave Britain for good. He has been a blight on our politics and our country for far too long.williamglenn said:0 -
Why do you connect 'this' with Blair?Richard_Tyndall said:
I do hope that once this is all over Blair decides to leave Britain for good. He has been a blight on our politics and our country for far too long.williamglenn said:0 -
1) She (officially) does not think this is a bad dealgeoffw said:
No it's not. "No deal is better than a bad deal."edmundintokyo said:
I don't think TMay would want to do this, as it invites Remain supporters to back No Deal, which is her worst outcome.solarflare said:
OK, I'll accept your point and qualify my original statement by saying that it respects the original vote *in the sense* that it has leave as the default position.TudorRose said:
How would that question respect the original vote? The original vote was to leave, not to remain, so the only question that would truly respect the original vote is between deal or no deal.solarflare said:
I think this is the only way out of the whole kerfuffle one way or the other. The only real question is how to frame the question. One question, three answers, AV system, or two separate questions along the rough lines of:Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.
1. The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. On the deal the UK government has negotiated to leave do you
Accept
Reject
the deal?
2. If the deal is rejected, do you think we should
Leave With No Deal
Remain
I think that would be a way of respecting the original leave vote and the deal but at the same time give the option of rejecting both if that is what the people think, without automatically making Remain the default go to position.
If May's deal is th leaving without a deal.
And I think the only way a referendum will happen is if all three options are on the paper in some form.
But yes, maybe it will come to just Deal or No Deal.
2) Yes, she probably never believed that phrase, though others do.0 -
And it is not at all certain today the people would. Only needs Boris to paint a picture of Junckers and the rest raising a glass to UK capitulating to the EU to see tens of thousands recoiling at the thoughtJonathan said:We know parties and parliament can’t solve this. It has to be put back to the people.
0 -
Right but on @solarflare's scheme that's not the question they'd have to answer. The question they'd have to answer would be "although you prefer Deal to No Deal, are you prepared to risk No Deal to get a shot at Remain?"HYUFD said:
Not necessarily, Ashcroft's poll yesterday had LD voters, overwhelmingly Remain, backing Deal over No Deal by 53% to 11%
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-Brexit-deal-survey-Full-tables-Nov-2018.pdf0 -
It's a risk. But it is a near certainty our MPs won't agree something.Big_G_NorthWales said:
And it is not at all certain today the people would. Only needs Boris to paint a picture of Junckers and the rest raising a glass to UK capitulating to the EU to see tens of thousands recoiling at the thoughtJonathan said:We know parties and parliament can’t solve this. It has to be put back to the people.
0 -
It's logic, not religion (belief).kle4 said:
1) She (officially) does not think this is a bad dealgeoffw said:
No it's not. "No deal is better than a bad deal."edmundintokyo said:
I don't think TMay would want to do this, as it invites Remain supporters to back No Deal, which is her worst outcome.solarflare said:
OK, I'll accept your point and qualify my original statement by saying that it respects the original vote *in the sense* that it has leave as the default position.TudorRose said:
How would that question respect the original vote? The original vote was to leave, not to remain, so the only question that would truly respect the original vote is between deal or no deal.solarflare said:
I think this is the only way out of the whole kerfuffle one way or the other. The only real question is how to frame the question. One question, three answers, AV system, or two separate questions along the rough lines of:Jonathan said:
The GE option is a dud. It muddies the waters unnecessarily. A GE makes it a party issue. If we have learned anything about Brexit, it is that the parties cannot handle it.kle4 said:
But can they? If it is a GE they might be very unhelpful and return numbers that maintain or even make worse (somehow) the present problems. If it is a referendum they are limited by what options parliament will let go before them, and then whether parliament reacts to that referendum.Jonathan said:The people started this. Only the people can end it.
It's our least worst option right now as clearly the present parliament will not pass anything, but the people could still very much let everyone down.
A referendum with the three possible futures is what we need. Hard, Deal or Remain.
1. The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. On the deal the UK government has negotiated to leave do you
Accept
Reject
the deal?
2. If the deal is rejected, do you think we should
Leave With No Deal
Remain
I think that would be a way of respecting the original leave vote and the deal but at the same time give the option of rejecting both if that is what the people think, without automatically making Remain the default go to position.
If May's deal is th leaving without a deal.
And I think the only way a referendum will happen is if all three options are on the paper in some form.
But yes, maybe it will come to just Deal or No Deal.
2) Yes, she probably never believed that phrase, though others do.
0 -
If May puts her plan to the people, her best odds would be if it were a piece of brinkmanship with the alternative being No Deal with no time to renegotiate, since the majority of Remainers would feel bounced into "Deal". But while some Leavers might also be content with that form of referendum, she surely couldn't get enough votes for it in Parliament. Clearly no help will be forthcoming from opposition parties, or her own Eurowets. I think it would get more votes than the WA itself, but not enough.edmundintokyo said:
I don't think TMay would want to do this, as it invites Remain supporters to back No Deal, which is her worst outcome.solarflare said:
OK, I'll accept your point and qualify my original statement by saying that it respects the original vote *in the sense* that it has leave as the default position.
If May's deal is the bona fide middle way through and most folk just want it all done with, then the second question with Remain doesn't even come into play. It essentially means Remain has to win two further referenda - firstly in rejecting the leave deal and secondly in saying that remaining is preferred to leaving without a deal.
This is what I've been scratching my head about all day - not only is it difficult to see how any course of action can muster a parliamentary majority, but even a referendum requires some form of agreement on the structure, and it's hard for me to see who would compromise on what. Discussing how the referendum should be conducted is almost irrelevant - what matters is who would push a particular version through Parliament and how many MPs would find that format acceptable.0 -
0
This discussion has been closed.