politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Even if Labour secures an early election it is hard to see how
Comments
-
I hope so! Do not like the sound of him at all. He sounds like a total and utter No Dealer.OldKingCole said:Is that an advance on Mr Sick Squid?
0 -
Both the 17 million and the 16 million?philiph said:We obsess about the ways in which Parliament can control / influence the end point of Brexit, be that revocation, delay, renegotiation, deal or crash out.
We do not spend anything like enough time in assessing the power of the EU (as a body or individual states) to control and guide the end result.
While our politicians run around like headless chickens (possibly an insult to headless chickens) preening themselves with their absent beaks, strutting their stuff with heartfelt statements of core beliefs that usually play well to the constituency they wish to appeal to, in the real world the power they have is subject to the agreement of the EU beyond the simple choices of agreeing the deal and crashing out.
There is no political position to bring us together, there is no referendum to heal the mess. Parliament should make a choice. That is what they are there for.
We voted in 2015, knowing a referendum was on offer.
We voted in 2016 in a referendum.
We voted in 2017 with some details of Brexit plans.
Non of those votes resulted in massive overwhelming majorities. It is the job of parliament to conclude Brexit in the way it feels is best for the country, and if they so wish in a way that reflects the peoples views.0 -
No Deal Brexit means chaos.MarqueeMark said:
No Deal Brexit Means Brexit.Stark_Dawning said:The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
0 -
No, it'll cost more than that!kinabalu said:
I hope so! Do not like the sound of him at all. He sounds like a total and utter No Dealer.OldKingCole said:Is that an advance on Mr Sick Squid?
0 -
FWIW, I disagree.Beverley_C said:
I have come to the conclusion that:Nigelb said:
Precisely because of that.Cyclefree said:
It might well be. But so what? If the choice is Deal or Remain, whatever the answer it is something the EU wants and can easily live with. Why would they allow No Deal when that is what happens anyway if there is no referendum?philiph said:Cyclefree said:Chris said:
An extension of the timetable in the absence of any suggested resolution. Maybe it could happen as an emergency measure to avert No Deal, but apart from that how does it improve things.kinabalu said:Morning all, here comes Mr Damp Squid.
I think the excitement will build and build, reach a crescendo, and then the following:
The deal will pass.
No early general election.
May survives as PM.
Stands down in 2021.
With heartfelt apologies.
An extension: see above re a referendum. What would it be for? And why would the rest of the EU agree?
If the EU extract a price for a theoretical extension, such as determining the choices on offer, will that be portrayed as interfering in the affairs of a nation state? Could it be an action that backfires on the EU?
...
A referendum might be the only way to defeat No Deal - but to do so, it would have to be an option on the ballot.
1. The country is still utterly divided
2. There is no time to organise a referendum
3. Another referendum is the gateway to a series of Never-end'ems
So we have our No-Deal default or Revoke. That is all the choice we have. Subsequent elections will be messy no matter what we choice because of point (1) above.
A referendum with the three options (in whatever order), which are unequivocally all that is on offer, would settle the matter.
The last couple of years have demonstrated equally clearly that what we voted for in the last referendum was a fog of uncertainty. Time to resolve that.
No Deal imposed by Parliamentary spoiler tactics is far worse - and does not represent any kind of choice.
Revoke is not going to happen under the current government - or indeed a Corbyn replacement.
0 -
As an aside Parliament’s inability to act collectively has demonstrated *exactly* why the Executive is responsible for Treaty negotiationsCyclefree said:
It might well be. But so what? If the choice is Deal or Remain, whatever the answer it is something the EU wants and can easily live with. Why would they allow No Deal when that is what happens anyway if there is no referendum?philiph said:Cyclefree said:
The House of Commons has already voted for No Deal when it voted for the EU Withdrawal Act. If it does not vote for the Deal that is what it has already voted for. This point seems to be beyond quite a lot of MPs.Chris said:
Whatever people have said about the deal, when it comes down to it what are the alternatives?kinabalu said:Morning all, here comes Mr Damp Squid.
I think the excitement will build and build, reach a crescendo, and then the following:
The deal will pass.
No early general election.
May survives as PM.
Stands down in 2021.
With heartfelt apologies.
No Deal. Surely even the House of Commons couldn't be so stupid.
Revocation without a referendum. Surely politically impossible.
A referendum. I don't believe the EU will extend for a referendum offering No Deal. Just maybe May will go for a Deal v Remain referendum, but surely that would break the Tory party.
An extension of the timetable in the absence of any suggested resolution. Maybe it could happen as an emergency measure to avert No Deal, but apart from that how does it improve things.
Revocation: the only thing within Britain's sole control. It has one big merit: it preserves the status quo and gives Britain time to decide what to do, something it is badly in need of at present.
A referendum. This needs an extension of Article 50 and therefore the agreement of all 27 other EU countries. They will exact a price for granting such an extension - namely the choices on offer at such a referendum.
An extension: see above re a referendum. What would it be for? And why would the rest of the EU agree?
If the EU extract a price for a theoretical extension, such as determining the choices on offer, will that be portrayed as interfering in the affairs of a nation state? Could it be an action that backfires on the EU?
The reality is that the EU will be interfering in our affairs but that is a consequence not of its malign intent but on Britain's utter failure to order its own affairs. If Parliament cannot decide, literally cannot decide, and has to ask the EU for the time needed to get a referendum together then it can hardly complain (though doubtless the usual suspects will do so) that others take charge.0 -
May’s only guiding principle is to end freedom of movement for UK and EU citizens. She will do whatever is necessary to achieve that.Stark_Dawning said:The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
0 -
That is the analysis of Brenda from Bristol. Until the Referendum I used to think we had a reasonably sohisticated electorate. Now I know otherwise.Barnesian said:
I think that is an unusually superficial analysis. MPs might want an easier life. I suspect the electorate will want an improved life which Corbyn offers.Roger said:Corbyn spells division. After the Brexit fiasco Years the electorate will vote for an easy life. I can't see that being Cobyn .
0 -
Also the tribal nature of our politics lead to an inability to compromise or give idealogical ground on anything. Once you have the mindset of no-retreat, no compromise ever that leads to these kind of situations.SouthamObserver said:
Lack of intellectual curiosity, laziness and confirmation bias.grabcocque said:
There's been a lot of talk in recent years about "low-information voters", but in the last three years, we've seen the real problem has been low-information politicians.Cyclefree said:
And not even amateurs in the best sense.Beverley_C said:
I would not mind professional politicians. This lot appear to be Amateur Night.....Chris said:
Oh well, look on the bright side. Maybe this episode will rid us of professional politicians altogether.Beverley_C said:
They (Westminster) all keep running around in circles and yammering on about renegotiating instead of realising that we are out of time and out of choices.
They are all idiots.
How is it possible for the Brexit Buccaneers to know so little about so many things? These are educated people, many of them in government for a long time, that have access to vast stores of both knowledge and experts on every possible subject, and yet somehow they still contrive to be totally ignorant of pretty much any basic political or economic reality.
How does this happen?
It's matter of winning, not what you win, or how you win. The game is everything.0 -
The electorate seem to be a couple of steps ahead of MPs at the moment. I get the impression voters saw through May's deal faster and more completely than MPs did.MarqueeMark said:
Some might say these same voters are actually very, very canny.
You don't need a vast education to know when somebody's pulling the wool over your eyes. And voters' spidey-senses are tingling that May's botched deal is the very epitome of a fast one.
0 -
It's understandable if you realise that (a) they are probably more stupid than you realise; and/or (b) it is all a matter of faith. It's like clapping your hands and believing in fairies. Believing in Brexit is enough. Boring stuff like tariffs and customs checks and bits of paper and rules of origin don't matter.grabcocque said:
Possibly, but I don't think that explains it fully.Chris said:
Honestly, in many cases, is it not a matter of low intelligence rather than low information?grabcocque said:
There's been a lot of talk in recent years about "low-information voters", but in the last three years, we've seen the real problem has been low-information politicians.Cyclefree said:
And not even amateurs in the best sense.Beverley_C said:
I would not mind professional politicians. This lot appear to be Amateur Night.....Chris said:
Oh well, look on the bright side. Maybe this episode will rid us of professional politicians altogether.Beverley_C said:
They (Westminster) all keep running around in circles and yammering on about renegotiating instead of realising that we are out of time and out of choices.
They are all idiots.
How is it possible for the Brexit Buccaneers to know so little about so many things? These are educated people, many of them in government for a long time, that have access to vast stores of both knowledge and experts on every possible subject, and yet somehow they still contrive to be totally ignorant of pretty much any basic political or economic reality.
How does this happen?
I mean there's people like the honourable member for North West Bullshitshire and the Sage of Mid-Beds, who are clearly just unsalvageably dim.
And then you've got other Brexiteers, who really don't actually seem stupid to me at all, and therefore I have to conclude that their imperviousness to basic reality is deliberate. And that I don't understand.0 -
We have no good options. We need to choose the least sh*t option.SouthamObserver said:
The far left is not capable of compromise, so a minority Labour government would not last very long. I do agree, though, that it would be best for the country if the various Tory parties took some time out of office to work out whether their marriage is saveable.Beverley_C said:
Do they need a majority? A minority Labour govt would perhaps be the best option for the country. It might force a Conservative implosion so they can "clean house", but it would hobble the more extreme Maoists.SouthamObserver said:
There is no route to a Labour majority that does not include winning a minimum of 25 seats in Scotland. As things stand, Labour is on course to lose seats there. The chances of an overall Labour majority at the next GE are vanishingly small as things stand.Cyclefree said:
Matthew Parris said the other day that he thought it very possible that the Tory party - in its current form - would no longer exist in a year's time, that it was in a desperate state.AlastairMeeks said:On topic, Labour may well be hoping for internecine recriminations within the Conservative party on a scale not previously seen. The chances of that look pretty decent to me.
Not only are Tories making a Labour government more likely with their behaviour. They are making a Corbyn-led Labour government with an overall majority likely. They are, however, too stupid or obsessed with Brexit to realise this.0 -
Mr. Dawning, that would certainly be an interesting move, but I'm not sure I can see it happening.
Still, all the options look iffy.0 -
Cyclefree said:
It's understandable if you realise that (a) they are probably more stupid than you realise; and/or (b) it is all a matter of faith. It's like clapping your hands and believing in fairies. Believing in Brexit is enough. Boring stuff like tariffs and customs checks and bits of paper and rules of origin don't matter.grabcocque said:
Possibly, but I don't think that explains it fully.Chris said:
Honestly, in many cases, is it not a matter of low intelligence rather than low information?grabcocque said:
There's been a lot of talk in recent years about "low-information voters", but in the last three years, we've seen the real problem has been low-information politicians.Cyclefree said:
And not even amateurs in the best sense.Beverley_C said:
I would not mind professional politicians. This lot appear to be Amateur Night.....Chris said:
Oh well, look on the bright side. Maybe this episode will rid us of professional politicians altogether.Beverley_C said:
They (Westminster) all keep running around in circles and yammering on about renegotiating instead of realising that we are out of time and out of choices.
They are all idiots.
How is it possible for the Brexit Buccaneers to know so little about so many things? These are educated people, many of them in government for a long time, that have access to vast stores of both knowledge and experts on every possible subject, and yet somehow they still contrive to be totally ignorant of pretty much any basic political or economic reality.
How does this happen?
I mean there's people like the honourable member for North West Bullshitshire and the Sage of Mid-Beds, who are clearly just unsalvageably dim.
And then you've got other Brexiteers, who really don't actually seem stupid to me at all, and therefore I have to conclude that their imperviousness to basic reality is deliberate. And that I don't understand.
It's a vision - that's what visions are like.0 -
On topic: I don't think Labour actually want an election at the moment. They are just pretending to, as a convenient excuse for not having a position on Brexit.0
-
I don't really expect 'Labour' to take a decision (though Corbyn ordering his whips to enforce an abstention comes about as close to a decisive non-decision as you can get). Instead, I think a lot of MPs will take matters into their own hands (as on the Tory side).grabcocque said:
The only thing working against the idea is it that it's a completely, suicidally stupid thing for Labour to do.david_herdson said:One interesting theory that was going round over the weekend was that LAB MPs would abstain when Theresa May’s EU deal finally gets put to the Commons thus ensuring that the UK leaves the EU on March 29th. Those developing the theory hope that this would encourage the DUP to back an early election move.
I have been saying for a while that something like this could well happen. (And of course, the effect would be similar if Lab MPs split three ways, with some backing the deal as well in the aim of avoiding No Deal).
Not, of course, that Labour is opposed to suicidial stupidity when the mood takes.
I do expect a lot of parliamentary game-playing over the next two months but while voting for May's Deal might be difficult, voting against it and hence ushering in by their actions a No Deal outcome could be even worse.0 -
Also, we know the current situation is not working. Time to mix things up a little.Beverley_C said:
We have no good options. We need to choose the least sh*t option.SouthamObserver said:
The far left is not capable of compromise, so a minority Labour government would not last very long. I do agree, though, that it would be best for the country if the various Tory parties took some time out of office to work out whether their marriage is saveable.Beverley_C said:
Do they need a majority? A minority Labour govt would perhaps be the best option for the country. It might force a Conservative implosion so they can "clean house", but it would hobble the more extreme Maoists.SouthamObserver said:
There is no route to a Labour majority that does not include winning a minimum of 25 seats in Scotland. As things stand, Labour is on course to lose seats there. The chances of an overall Labour majority at the next GE are vanishingly small as things stand.Cyclefree said:
Matthew Parris said the other day that he thought it very possible that the Tory party - in its current form - would no longer exist in a year's time, that it was in a desperate state.AlastairMeeks said:On topic, Labour may well be hoping for internecine recriminations within the Conservative party on a scale not previously seen. The chances of that look pretty decent to me.
Not only are Tories making a Labour government more likely with their behaviour. They are making a Corbyn-led Labour government with an overall majority likely. They are, however, too stupid or obsessed with Brexit to realise this.0 -
0
-
Yes, both of them were small majorities. What were they, 4% and 2% in round figures? Hardly massive stonking great big Man City 7 Rotherham 0 emphatic wins.logical_song said:
Both the 17 million and the 16 million?philiph said:We obsess about the ways in which Parliament can control / influence the end point of Brexit, be that revocation, delay, renegotiation, deal or crash out.
We do not spend anything like enough time in assessing the power of the EU (as a body or individual states) to control and guide the end result.
While our politicians run around like headless chickens (possibly an insult to headless chickens) preening themselves with their absent beaks, strutting their stuff with heartfelt statements of core beliefs that usually play well to the constituency they wish to appeal to, in the real world the power they have is subject to the agreement of the EU beyond the simple choices of agreeing the deal and crashing out.
There is no political position to bring us together, there is no referendum to heal the mess. Parliament should make a choice. That is what they are there for.
We voted in 2015, knowing a referendum was on offer.
We voted in 2016 in a referendum.
We voted in 2017 with some details of Brexit plans.
Non of those votes resulted in massive overwhelming majorities. It is the job of parliament to conclude Brexit in the way it feels is best for the country, and if they so wish in a way that reflects the peoples views.0 -
Many politicians are control freaks.SouthamObserver said:
May’s only guiding principle is to end freedom of movement for UK and EU citizens. She will do whatever is necessary to achieve that.Stark_Dawning said:The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
When in power they find they can not change much as much depends on people's behaviour, the weather, chance and so on. The idea of taking back some control from the EU appeals to them.0 -
But Richard, they have a policy on Brexit!Richard_Nabavi said:On topic: I don't think Labour actually want an election at the moment. They are just using it as a convenient excuse for not having a position on Brexit.
It's a Jobs First Brexit!0 -
The ironic thing is that while May wants to end FOM almost no-one in the Establishment wants actually to curb immigration -- just to look as if they might.SouthamObserver said:
May’s only guiding principle is to end freedom of movement for UK and EU citizens. She will do whatever is necessary to achieve that.Stark_Dawning said:The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
0 -
As I pointed out earlier, occupants of the moderate centre are adopting the ERG rhetoric on May’s deal. It is not going to pass.DavidL said:Where I would agree with Mike is that Labour are not in a good place in terms of leadership, polling, coherence or unity. Under any normal circumstances he would stand as much chance as the Tories did under William Hague.
Where I disagree with him is that it is at all likely that a goverment that crashes into a GE having lost a VonC can win. The only time I can remember a government falling that way was 1979. Callaghan was reasonably popular as @Corporeal showed us yesterday, Thatcher was every bit as divisive as Corbyn (if vastly more competent), but the government lost a VonC and was out of power for 18 years.
Those Tories who are voting against the deal and the transitional arrangements that it offers are really playing with fire. Their political careers may well be over before anyone is really interested in what they have to say about anything ever again. It's cold out there in opposition. I think that some of them have forgotten that.
As for Fat Pan's contribution on R4 this morning, as a former party Chairman he really should know better. He said the first priority is to put May's "miserable little deal out of its suffering." He hasn't come close to working through the implications of that either for the country or his party.
Emotion overtook reason on the left and right some time back; it seems to be doing so in the centre, too.
As for a VONC, that is likely to come about only if May’s deall is approved by Parliament. That’s not likely to happen - and even if it did, it could only do so with significant Labour support, either direct or via abstention. Those would be peculiarly unfavourable circumstances for the opposition, so I don’t think past precedent much of a guide.
0 -
The snag with the first of these is that if there's a "No" vote the problem is unresolved. And in fact probably the most reasonable option for resolving the problem has been taken off the table.kinabalu said:
If there is to be another Referendum I can see just the 2 possible formulations:Chris said:A referendum. I don't believe the EU will extend for a referendum offering No Deal. Just maybe May will go for a Deal v Remain referendum, but surely that would break the Tory party.
The Government has negotiated a treaty under which the UK will leave the European Union. Should parliament now ratify that treaty? YES / NO
Or,
Should the UK leave the European Union under the treaty negotiated by the government or should the UK remain a member of the European Union? LEAVE / REMAIN
There will not IMO be any of this 2 stage or 3 option preference monkey business.
(Betting PS: The top one settles on Betfair as No 2nd Referendum since it is not IN/OUT)
I don't know what the answer is.0 -
It was an Irish vote, or rather lack of it, which sank Callaghan IIRC.Nigelb said:
As I pointed out earlier, occupants of the moderate centre are adopting the ERG rhetoric on May’s deal. It is not going to pass.DavidL said:Where I would agree with Mike is that Labour are not in a good place in terms of leadership, polling, coherence or unity. Under any normal circumstances he would stand as much chance as the Tories did under William Hague.
Where I disagree with him is that it is at all likely that a goverment that crashes into a GE having lost a VonC can win. The only time I can remember a government falling that way was 1979. Callaghan was reasonably popular as @Corporeal showed us yesterday, Thatcher was every bit as divisive as Corbyn (if vastly more competent), but the government lost a VonC and was out of power for 18 years.
Those Tories who are voting against the deal and the transitional arrangements that it offers are really playing with fire. Their political careers may well be over before anyone is really interested in what they have to say about anything ever again. It's cold out there in opposition. I think that some of them have forgotten that.
As for Fat Pan's contribution on R4 this morning, as a former party Chairman he really should know better. He said the first priority is to put May's "miserable little deal out of its suffering." He hasn't come close to working through the implications of that either for the country or his party.
Emotion overtook reason on the left and right some time back; it seems to be doing so in the centre, too.
As for a VONC, that is likely to come about only if May’s deall is approved by Parliament. That’s not likely to happen - and even if it did, it could only do so with significant Labour support, either direct or via abstention. Those would be peculiarly unfavourable circumstances for the opposition, so I don’t think past precedent much of a guide.0 -
Personally, I now think that revocation is the best option on offer. I know I will be shouted down as a whingeing Remoaner but so be it. I'm not. And I loathe the way people have been put into these categories. And I do worry a great deal about the effect of doing this on our democracy.Beverley_C said:
We have no good options. We need to choose the least sh*t option.SouthamObserver said:
The far left is not capable of compromise, so a minority Labour government would not last very long. I do agree, though, that it would be best for the country if the various Tory parties took some time out of office to work out whether their marriage is saveable.Beverley_C said:
Do they need a majority? A minority Labour govt would perhaps be the best option for the country. It might force a Conservative implosion so they can "clean house", but it would hobble the more extreme Maoists.SouthamObserver said:
There is no route to a Labour majority that does not include winning a minimum of 25 seats in Scotland. As things stand, Labour is on course to lose seats there. The chances of an overall Labour majority at the next GE are vanishingly small as things stand.Cyclefree said:
Matthew Parris said the other day that he thought it very possible that the Tory party - in its current form - would no longer exist in a year's time, that it was in a desperate state.AlastairMeeks said:
Not only are Tories making a Labour government more likely with their behaviour. They are making a Corbyn-led Labour government with an overall majority likely. They are, however, too stupid or obsessed with Brexit to realise this.
But the Brexiteers have been given nearly three years to come up with workable plans and have failed.
And we need the time and space as a country to work out what we really want and how to get there. Preserving the status quo - whatever its other difficulties and I really do not underestimate them - at least gives us that. If the country really wants to leave in future then it can learn the lessons from what has happened over the last few years.
What we really need to think about seriously is not the ins and outs of Brexit but what our European strategy should be - for the world as it is now and for what it is likely to be in future, something we have signally and dismally failed to do in the last few years, despite all the endless talking about the EU.
Edited: the only MP I have seen who has given any indication of understanding that this is what is needed has been Rory Stewart, as you can see in his interview with LBC's James O'Brien.0 -
If a No Deal turned out as badly as some are suggesting (which I don't think it will, because if things headed that way some kind of emergency arrangement would be made for humanitarian reasons), then certainly any MP who had voted against the deal would need round-the-clock protection for the rest of their lives.david_herdson said:
I don't really expect 'Labour' to take a decision (though Corbyn ordering his whips to enforce an abstention comes about as close to a decisive non-decision as you can get). Instead, I think a lot of MPs will take matters into their own hands (as on the Tory side).grabcocque said:
The only thing working against the idea is it that it's a completely, suicidally stupid thing for Labour to do.david_herdson said:One interesting theory that was going round over the weekend was that LAB MPs would abstain when Theresa May’s EU deal finally gets put to the Commons thus ensuring that the UK leaves the EU on March 29th. Those developing the theory hope that this would encourage the DUP to back an early election move.
I have been saying for a while that something like this could well happen. (And of course, the effect would be similar if Lab MPs split three ways, with some backing the deal as well in the aim of avoiding No Deal).
Not, of course, that Labour is opposed to suicidial stupidity when the mood takes.
I do expect a lot of parliamentary game-playing over the next two months but while voting for May's Deal might be difficult, voting against it and hence ushering in by their actions a No Deal outcome could be even worse.0 -
Worryingly Dan Hodges appears to have the right viewpoint for once..
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/10822262846866472960 -
Why would it be ‘monkey business’?kinabalu said:
If there is to be another Referendum I can see just the 2 possible formulations:Chris said:A referendum. I don't believe the EU will extend for a referendum offering No Deal. Just maybe May will go for a Deal v Remain referendum, but surely that would break the Tory party.
The Government has negotiated a treaty under which the UK will leave the European Union. Should parliament now ratify that treaty? YES / NO
Or,
Should the UK leave the European Union under the treaty negotiated by the government or should the UK remain a member of the European Union? LEAVE / REMAIN
There will not IMO be any of this 2 stage or 3 option preference monkey business....
Parliament has three options open to it, none of which it is prepared to decide on. The country should therefore settle that choice.
0 -
The evidence is that there is no majority for any option and May's deal remains the closest to a compromise position on offer.Jonathan said:
There seems to be a wonderful optimism that the deal that will pass despite there still being no real evidence that it will.david_herdson said:One interesting theory that was going round over the weekend was that LAB MPs would abstain when Theresa May’s EU deal finally gets put to the Commons thus ensuring that the UK leaves the EU on March 29th. Those developing the theory hope that this would encourage the DUP to back an early election move.
I have been saying for a while that something like this could well happen. (And of course, the effect would be similar if Lab MPs split three ways, with some backing the deal as well in the aim of avoiding No Deal).
If you offered the options to MPs in a kind of Dutch auction, May's Deal would reach a majority at a point where it was less intolerable to the 320th MP than any other option would be at the same point.0 -
Hmm, not so sure. I'm not a hard left zealot (unless what I'm about to say makes me one) but I do have an appetite for some Corbyn/McDonnell. IMO one of the highest priorities of government should be bearing down on inequality, rather than paying lip service to it and doing the opposite, and I think there is a fair chance that this iteration of Labour would actually do that. Might end in tears but that is ok by me if the right people are crying.Fenster said:I base this on zero science but I just don't see much serious appetite for a Corbyn premiership outside of around 500,000 hard core, anti-capitalist zealots.
0 -
And yet the people do, or at least have greater control over it...DecrepitJohnL said:
The ironic thing is that while May wants to end FOM almost no-one in the Establishment wants actually to curb immigration -- just to look as if they might.SouthamObserver said:
May’s only guiding principle is to end freedom of movement for UK and EU citizens. She will do whatever is necessary to achieve that.Stark_Dawning said:The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
Which is a problem for the establishment, and is why we are where we are.0 -
Labour's policy sounds at least as attractive as the Conservatives'. Maybe these policies should comprise the questions for the new referendum.grabcocque said:
But Richard, they have a policy on Brexit!Richard_Nabavi said:On topic: I don't think Labour actually want an election at the moment. They are just using it as a convenient excuse for not having a position on Brexit.
It's a Jobs First Brexit!
After 29th March, do you want:
a) Jobs First Brexit
b) Brexit Means Brexit
c) No deal is better than a bad deal0 -
He is an ultra Remainer of course - trying to stop Brexit.williamglenn said:0 -
Yep, absolutely.Charles said:As an aside Parliament’s inability to act collectively has demonstrated *exactly* why the Executive is responsible for Treaty negotiations
0 -
A continued and baffling failure of the professional commentariat to massively overestimate Theresa May's political skill has been one of the hallmarks of Brexit commentary.
It should be no surprise that a big chunk of the mindless centrist chatterati still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that May still has a plan, an ace up her sleeve, for getting people behind her.
She doesn't. Her deal is going to be rejected by a massive majority and then all hell is going to break loose.0 -
Civil servants trying to undermine government policy rather than implement it. Quelle surprise.rottenborough said:The inevitable public inquiry into this chaos will be eleven on the popcorn scale:
https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/10819908259224494090 -
That is at least debateable ...Slackbladder said:
And yet the people do, or at least have greater control over it...DecrepitJohnL said:
The ironic thing is that while May wants to end FOM almost no-one in the Establishment wants actually to curb immigration -- just to look as if they might.SouthamObserver said:
May’s only guiding principle is to end freedom of movement for UK and EU citizens. She will do whatever is necessary to achieve that.Stark_Dawning said:The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
Which is a problem for the establishment, and is why we are where we are.
https://twitter.com/samcoatestimes/status/1081681799120592896?s=21
0 -
Labour's lobs first policy on the EU - Jobs in the UK for EU citizens.grabcocque said:
But Richard, they have a policy on Brexit!Richard_Nabavi said:On topic: I don't think Labour actually want an election at the moment. They are just using it as a convenient excuse for not having a position on Brexit.
It's a Jobs First Brexit!0 -
By now I would think it's clear to even the blindest fool that someone has to stop brexit.David_Evershed said:
He is an ultra Remainer of course - trying to stop Brexit.williamglenn said:0 -
Welcome to my worldCyclefree said:
Personally, I now think that revocation is the best option on offer. I know I will be shouted down as a whingeing Remoaner but so be it.Beverley_C said:
We have no good options. We need to choose the least sh*t option.
I agree with all of that, and I also think Revocation is the only sensible answer, but I fear that No-Deal Brexit may be the only way to finally expose the utter failure of the Brexiteers/Leave. The UK needs a phoenix-like rebirth and that means passing through the flames first.Cyclefree said:I'm not. And I loathe the way people have been put into these categories. And I do worry a great deal about the effect of doing this on our democracy.
But the Brexiteers have been given nearly three years to come up with workable plans and have failed.
The "patriotic" useful-idiots of Leave are ensuring the destruction of the UK as an entity. Perhaps after a decade of being the sick man of Europe (again) we can reapply to the EU.0 -
No Deal:Yes, they are that stupid.Chris said:
Whatever people have said about the deal, when it comes down to it what are the alternatives?kinabalu said:Morning all, here comes Mr Damp Squid.
I think the excitement will build and build, reach a crescendo, and then the following:
The deal will pass.
No early general election.
May survives as PM.
Stands down in 2021.
With heartfelt apologies.
No Deal. Surely even the House of Commons couldn't be so stupid.
Revocation without a referendum. Surely politically impossible.
A referendum. I don't believe the EU will extend for a referendum offering No Deal. Just maybe May will go for a Deal v Remain referendum, but surely that would break the Tory party.
An extension of the timetable in the absence of any suggested resolution. Maybe it could happen as an emergency measure to avert No Deal, but apart from that how does it improve things.
Revocation: Barring a national catastrophe on the scale of 911 or Deidre Barlow's rape I agree. Not possible.
Deal vs Remain #peoplesvote: The tory party is already broken so what's the difference.
May's fundamental problem is that she's telling two different sets of lies to two groups (deal or no Brexit, deal or crashout) and both audiences know this.0 -
How are the electorate ever going to learn their actions have consequence if we don't put their damn fool decisions into practice?Roger said:
By now I would think it's clear to even the blindest fool that someone has to stop brexit.David_Evershed said:
He is an ultra Remainer of course - trying to stop Brexit.williamglenn said:
They wanted chaos and economic ruin in exchange for a more explicitly racist UK then that's what we must give them.0 -
What I expect to happen next is the Commons also voting down a second referendum, an application to defer Brexit and possibly revocation. Once it is established that there is no majority for any of them and that a no deal Brexit will happen it just might come back. At the moment May has not persuaded either the remainers or the ERG that they are going to lose. Her deal is, accordingly, relatively friendless.grabcocque said:A continued and baffling failure of the professional commentariat to massively overestimate Theresa May's political skill has been one of the hallmarks of Brexit commentary.
It should be no surprise that a big chunk of the mindless centrist chatterati still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that May still has a plan, an ace up her sleeve, for getting people behind her.
She doesn't. Her deal is going to be rejected by a massive majority and then all hell is going to break loose.0 -
I think we could trade opinion polls on this matter either way until the cows come home on that.SouthamObserver said:
That is at least debateable ...Slackbladder said:
And yet the people do, or at least have greater control over it...DecrepitJohnL said:
The ironic thing is that while May wants to end FOM almost no-one in the Establishment wants actually to curb immigration -- just to look as if they might.SouthamObserver said:
May’s only guiding principle is to end freedom of movement for UK and EU citizens. She will do whatever is necessary to achieve that.Stark_Dawning said:The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
Which is a problem for the establishment, and is why we are where we are.
https://twitter.com/samcoatestimes/status/1081681799120592896?s=210 -
Elon Musk breaks ground on Tesla's Shanghai factory
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/07/tesla-shanghai-factory-ground-breaking.html
Does he ever sleep?0 -
In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.Cyclefree said:
Personally, I now think that revocation is the best option on offer. I know I will be shouted down as a whingeing Remoaner but so be it. I'm not. And I loathe the way people have been put into these categories. And I do worry a great deal about the effect of doing this on our democracy.Beverley_C said:
We have no good options. We need to choose the least sh*t option.SouthamObserver said:
The far left is not capable of compromise, so a minority Labour government would not last very long. I do agree, though, that it would be best for the country if the various Tory parties took some time out of office to work out whether their marriage is saveable.Beverley_C said:
Do they need a majority? A minority Labour govt would perhaps be the best option for the country. It might force a Conservative implosion so they can "clean house", but it would hobble the more extreme Maoists.SouthamObserver said:
There is no route to a Labour majority that does not include winning a minimum of 25 seats in Scotland. As things stand, Labour is on course to lose seats there. The chances of an overall Labour majority at the next GE are vanishingly small as things stand.Cyclefree said:
Matthew Parris said the other day that he thought it very possible that the Tory party - in its current form - would no longer exist in a year's time, that it was in a desperate state.AlastairMeeks said:
Not only are Tories making a Labour government more likely with their behaviour. They are making a Corbyn-led Labour government with an overall majority likely. They are, however, too stupid or obsessed with Brexit to realise this.
But the Brexiteers have been given nearly three years to come up with workable plans and have failed.
And we need the time and space as a country to work out what we really want and how to get there. Preserving the status quo - whatever its other difficulties and I really do not underestimate them - at least gives us that. If the country really wants to leave in future then it can learn the lessons from what has happened over the last few years.
What we really need to think about seriously is not the ins and outs of Brexit but what our European strategy should be - for the world as it is now and for what it is likely to be in future, something we have signally and dismally failed to do in the last few years, despite all the endless talking about the EU.
Edited: the only MP I have seen who has given any indication of understanding that this is what is needed has been Rory Stewart, as you can see in his interview with LBC's James O'Brien.0 -
If I were a Tory (heaven forbid!) I would be strongly pushing for a May's deal v no deal referendum, whether they can get such an option passed is another matter. Clearly there is likely to be considerable downsides to both these options politically and by inviting the people to decide between the two, then the people will have to accept and own a fair share of the responsibility for the route they ultimately decide to take.
Without another referendum, the Tory government will take the lion's share of responsibility for whatever happens post-Brexit and will inevitably be held accountable at the next GE, whenever that may be. It is more difficult for the electorate to hold the Tories almost totally responsible if the majority of the people decided the next step.0 -
Why? Why push for something that would find no support in Parliament, or the European Council or the Electoral Commission?BudG said:If I were a Tory (heaven forbid!) I would be strongly pushing for a May's deal v no deal referendum,
That's the kind of angle you push as displacement activity.0 -
Why?Sean_F said:
In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.Cyclefree said:
Personally, I now think that revocation is the best option on offer. I know I will be shouted down as a whingeing Remoaner but so be it. I'm not. And I loathe the way people have been put into these categories. And I do worry a great deal about the effect of doing this on our democracy.Beverley_C said:
We have no good options. We need to choose the least sh*t option.SouthamObserver said:
The far left is not capable of compromise, so a minority Labour government would not last very long. I do agree, though, that it would be best for the country if the various Tory parties took some time out of office to work out whether their marriage is saveable.Beverley_C said:SouthamObserver said:
There is no route to a Labour majority that does not include winning a minimum of 25 seats in Scotland. As things stand, Labour is on course to lose seats there. The chances of an overall Labour majority at the next GE are vanishingly small as things stand.Cyclefree said:
Matthew Parris said the other day that he thought it very possible that the Tory party - in its current form - would no longer exist in a year's time, that it was in a desperate state.AlastairMeeks said:
Not only are Tories making a Labour government more likely with their behaviour. They are making a Corbyn-led Labour government with an overall majority likely. They are, however, too stupid or obsessed with Brexit to realise this.
But the Brexiteers have been given nearly three years to come up with workable plans and have failed.
And we need the time and space as a country to work out what we really want and how to get there. Preserving the status quo - whatever its other difficulties and I really do not underestimate them - at least gives us that. If the country really wants to leave in future then it can learn the lessons from what has happened over the last few years.
What we really need to think about seriously is not the ins and outs of Brexit but what our European strategy should be - for the world as it is now and for what it is likely to be in future, something we have signally and dismally failed to do in the last few years, despite all the endless talking about the EU.
Edited: the only MP I have seen who has given any indication of understanding that this is what is needed has been Rory Stewart, as you can see in his interview with LBC's James O'Brien.0 -
And a government which wants to revoke it, and a government with sufficient parliamentary support to do so, and a government which could survive doing so.Sean_F said:In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.
A GE leading to a LibDem majority would do the trick!0 -
I still haven't worked out what's so terrible about the WA.DavidL said:
What I expect to happen next is the Commons also voting down a second referendum, an application to defer Brexit and possibly revocation. Once it is established that there is no majority for any of them and that a no deal Brexit will happen it just might come back. At the moment May has not persuaded either the remainers or the ERG that they are going to lose. Her deal is, accordingly, relatively friendless.grabcocque said:A continued and baffling failure of the professional commentariat to massively overestimate Theresa May's political skill has been one of the hallmarks of Brexit commentary.
It should be no surprise that a big chunk of the mindless centrist chatterati still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that May still has a plan, an ace up her sleeve, for getting people behind her.
She doesn't. Her deal is going to be rejected by a massive majority and then all hell is going to break loose.0 -
With Comrade Corbyn on the case, I don't think it can be completely ruled out.Richard_Nabavi said:
And a government which wants to revoke it, and a government with sufficient parliamentary support to do so, and a government which could survive doing so.Sean_F said:In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.
A GE leading to a LibDem majority would do the trick!0 -
It's a measure of the government's lack of thinking that May is still arguing that 'if you vote against the deal, you might get No Brexit', chasing the Eurosceptic vote.david_herdson said:
I don't really expect 'Labour' to take a decision (though Corbyn ordering his whips to enforce an abstention comes about as close to a decisive non-decision as you can get). Instead, I think a lot of MPs will take matters into their own hands (as on the Tory side).grabcocque said:
The only thing working against the idea is it that it's a completely, suicidally stupid thing for Labour to do.david_herdson said:One interesting theory that was going round over the weekend was that LAB MPs would abstain when Theresa May’s EU deal finally gets put to the Commons thus ensuring that the UK leaves the EU on March 29th. Those developing the theory hope that this would encourage the DUP to back an early election move.
I have been saying for a while that something like this could well happen. (And of course, the effect would be similar if Lab MPs split three ways, with some backing the deal as well in the aim of avoiding No Deal).
Not, of course, that Labour is opposed to suicidial stupidity when the mood takes.
I do expect a lot of parliamentary game-playing over the next two months but while voting for May's Deal might be difficult, voting against it and hence ushering in by their actions a No Deal outcome could be even worse.
There is no way that the govt can peel off enough Brexiteers to make the difference. It should be making the opposite argument (not least because the process flow is far more straightforward): if you don't back the deal, you will end up with No Deal. That should be the message that May, Hunt, Barclay and others should be hammering home at every opportunity to Labour MPs and Labour activists, members and voters: "voting against the Deal (which of itself is pretty much Brino), will enable No Deal and put you in the same camp as Farage, Banks, Cash, Bone and co. Is that what you want?"
I can understand the partisan reason for wanting as many Con MPs onside as possible but the numbers simply aren't there so May needs to reach out beyond.0 -
Because any Conservative leader who wants to revoke A50 must break with the majority of their MPs, councillors, party members, and voters.OldKingCole said:
Why?Sean_F said:
In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.Cyclefree said:
Personally, I now think that revocation is the best option on offer. I know I will be shouted down as a whingeing Remoaner but so be it. I'm not. And I loathe the way people have been put into these categories. And I do worry a great deal about the effect of doing this on our democracy.Beverley_C said:
We have no good options. We need to choose the least sh*t option.SouthamObserver said:
The far left is not capable of compromise, so a minority Labour government would not last very long. I do agree, though, that it would be best for the country if the various Tory parties took some time out of office to work out whether their marriage is saveable.Beverley_C said:SouthamObserver said:Cyclefree said:
Matthew Parris said the other day that he thought it very possible that the Tory party - in its current form - would no longer exist in a year's time, that it was in a desperate state.AlastairMeeks said:
Not only are Tories making a Labour government more likely with their behaviour. They are making a Corbyn-led Labour government with an overall majority likely. They are, however, too stupid or obsessed with Brexit to realise this.
But the Brexiteers have been given nearly three years to come up with workable plans and have failed.
And we need the time and space as a country to work out what we really want and how to get there. Preserving the status quo - whatever its other difficulties and I really do not underestimate them - at least gives us that. If the country really wants to leave in future then it can learn the lessons from what has happened over the last few years.
What we really need to think about seriously is not the ins and outs of Brexit but what our European strategy should be - for the world as it is now and for what it is likely to be in future, something we have signally and dismally failed to do in the last few years, despite all the endless talking about the EU.
Edited: the only MP I have seen who has given any indication of understanding that this is what is needed has been Rory Stewart, as you can see in his interview with LBC's James O'Brien.0 -
Sadly Sean, we don't have time to wait for you to catch up with the rest of the class.Sean_F said:
I still haven't worked out what's so terrible about the WA.0 -
It's even worse: Both audiences suspect she secretly agrees with them. Usually in politics this would be great, but in this case it means she has no leverage.Dura_Ace said:
May's fundamental problem is that she's telling two different sets of lies to two groups (deal or no Brexit, deal or crashout) and both audiences know this.0 -
No you do not. All you need is a letter to Brussels and the guts to send itSean_F said:
In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.0 -
Democratic deficit.Sean_F said:
I still haven't worked out what's so terrible about the WA.DavidL said:
What I expect to happen next is the Commons also voting down a second referendum, an application to defer Brexit and possibly revocation. Once it is established that there is no majority for any of them and that a no deal Brexit will happen it just might come back. At the moment May has not persuaded either the remainers or the ERG that they are going to lose. Her deal is, accordingly, relatively friendless.grabcocque said:A continued and baffling failure of the professional commentariat to massively overestimate Theresa May's political skill has been one of the hallmarks of Brexit commentary.
It should be no surprise that a big chunk of the mindless centrist chatterati still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that May still has a plan, an ace up her sleeve, for getting people behind her.
She doesn't. Her deal is going to be rejected by a massive majority and then all hell is going to break loose.0 -
I lived through the last period of Britain being the sick man of Europe. I'd rather not go through it again. More importantly, I don't want my children to have to do so.Beverley_C said:
Welcome to my worldCyclefree said:
Personally, I now think that revocation is the best option on offer. I know I will be shouted down as a whingeing Remoaner but so be it.Beverley_C said:
We have no good options. We need to choose the least sh*t option.
I agree with all of that, and I also think Revocation is the only sensible answer, but I fear that No-Deal Brexit may be the only way to finally expose the utter failure of the Brexiteers/Leave. The UK needs a phoenix-like rebirth and that means passing through the flames first.Cyclefree said:I'm not. And I loathe the way people have been put into these categories. And I do worry a great deal about the effect of doing this on our democracy.
But the Brexiteers have been given nearly three years to come up with workable plans and have failed.
The "patriotic" useful-idiots of Leave are ensuring the destruction of the UK as an entity. Perhaps after a decade of being the sick man of Europe (again) we can reapply to the EU.
And I don't think that one should assume that any such rebirth would be to the same liberal democratic values as before. There are trends in the world, in Europe, which go the other way. A depressed, weakened, miserable Britain could well end up falling prey to some much nastier elements. After all, one of its main parties has happily accepted anti-Semitism as the price for power and the other has embraced describing people in Europe as the enemy as its price for power. So the omens do not look good.0 -
You seem to have confused "reaching out" with "blackmail".david_herdson said:
I can understand the partisan reason for wanting as many Con MPs onside as possible but the numbers simply aren't there so May needs to reach out beyond.0 -
Freedom of Movement is not the same as immigrationDecrepitJohnL said:
The ironic thing is that while May wants to end FOM almost no-one in the Establishment wants actually to curb immigration -- just to look as if they might.SouthamObserver said:
May’s only guiding principle is to end freedom of movement for UK and EU citizens. She will do whatever is necessary to achieve that.Stark_Dawning said:The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
0 -
It's a measure of how desperate things have become that it sounds a rather attractive scenario.grabcocque said:
With Comrade Corbyn on the case, I don't think it can be completely ruled out.Richard_Nabavi said:
And a government which wants to revoke it, and a government with sufficient parliamentary support to do so, and a government which could survive doing so.Sean_F said:In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.
A GE leading to a LibDem majority would do the trick!0 -
Well, you need the Conservative Party's voters and members to make an overnight conversion to being pro-EU. I would not rate the chances of that highly.Beverley_C said:
No you do not. All you need is a letter to Brussels and the guts to send itSean_F said:
In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.
0 -
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1082180642937491456FrancisUrquhart said:Elon Musk breaks ground on Tesla's Shanghai factory
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/07/tesla-shanghai-factory-ground-breaking.html
Does he ever sleep?0 -
Or you need May to essentially betray her party. Which she can now do, since her party made her immune to challenge for a year.Sean_F said:
Well, you need the Conservative Party's voters and members to make an overnight conversion to being pro-EU. I would not rate the chances of that highly.Beverley_C said:
No you do not. All you need is a letter to Brussels and the guts to send itSean_F said:
In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.
0 -
So let's get Ken Clarke in to do it.Sean_F said:
Because any Conservative leader who wants to revoke A50 must break with the majority of their MPs, councillors, party members, and voters.OldKingCole said:
Why?Sean_F said:
In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.Cyclefree said:
Personally, I now think that revocation is the best option on offer. I know I will be shouted down as a whingeing Remoaner but so be it. I'm not. And I loathe the way people have been put into these categories. And I do worry a great deal about the effect of doing this on our democracy.Beverley_C said:
We have no good options. We need to choose the least sh*t option.SouthamObserver said:
The far left is not capable of compromise, so a minority Labour government would not last very long. I do agree, though, that it would be best for the country if the various Tory parties took some time out of office to work out whether their marriage is saveable.Beverley_C said:SouthamObserver said:Cyclefree said:
Matthew Parris said the other day that he thought it very possible that the Tory party - in its current form - would no longer exist in a year's time, that it was in a desperate state.AlastairMeeks said:
Not only are Tories making a Labour government more likely with their behaviour. They are making a Corbyn-led Labour government with an overall majority likely. They are, however, too stupid or obsessed with Brexit to realise this.
But the Brexiteers have been given nearly three years to come up with workable plans and have failed.
And we need the time and space as a country to work out what we really want and how to get there. Preserving the status quo - whatever its other difficulties and I really do not underestimate them - at least gives us that. If the country really wants to leave in future then it can learn the lessons from what has happened over the last few years.
What we really need to think about seriously is not the ins and outs of Brexit but what our European strategy should be - for the world as it is now and for what it is likely to be in future, something we have signally and dismally failed to do in the last few years, despite all the endless talking about the EU.
Edited: the only MP I have seen who has given any indication of understanding that this is what is needed has been Rory Stewart, as you can see in his interview with LBC's James O'Brien.
He's about the only person who has been talking sense in the last few weeks and who sounds like/indeed is a grown up.0 -
Do you think that is sinking in over in Brussels yet?Beverley_C said:
No Deal Brexit means chaos.MarqueeMark said:
No Deal Brexit Means Brexit.Stark_Dawning said:The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
0 -
She'd be out on her ear tomorrow if she proposed a Bill to revoke the 2017 legislation.grabcocque said:
Or you need May to essentially betray her party. Which she can now do, since her party made her immune to challenge for a year.Sean_F said:
Well, you need the Conservative Party's voters and members to make an overnight conversion to being pro-EU. I would not rate the chances of that highly.Beverley_C said:
No you do not. All you need is a letter to Brussels and the guts to send itSean_F said:
In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.0 -
Who's "Labour"? I expect Corbyn does, he's getting on a bit and I'm sure he'd rather roll the dice now than wait until 2022. And most of the MPs are patiently waiting for this whole Corbyn skip fire to burn itself out, and an election now will make it burn faster.Richard_Nabavi said:On topic: I don't think Labour actually want an election at the moment. They are just pretending to, as a convenient excuse for not having a position on Brexit.
0 -
My concerns are the backstop which is an unacceptable intrusion into the domestic integrity of the UK and the obligations for a level playing field which may well require us to continue to apply EU mandated law that we did not approve of. In respect of the latter point I fear that the trade deal we end up with with the EU will favour them because the undertakings already given will mean we have a weak negotiating hand.Sean_F said:
I still haven't worked out what's so terrible about the WA.DavidL said:
What I expect to happen next is the Commons also voting down a second referendum, an application to defer Brexit and possibly revocation. Once it is established that there is no majority for any of them and that a no deal Brexit will happen it just might come back. At the moment May has not persuaded either the remainers or the ERG that they are going to lose. Her deal is, accordingly, relatively friendless.grabcocque said:A continued and baffling failure of the professional commentariat to massively overestimate Theresa May's political skill has been one of the hallmarks of Brexit commentary.
It should be no surprise that a big chunk of the mindless centrist chatterati still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that May still has a plan, an ace up her sleeve, for getting people behind her.
She doesn't. Her deal is going to be rejected by a massive majority and then all hell is going to break loose.
OTOH I am realistic enough to recognise that any FTA with a much larger partner such as the EU is going to favour them to some extent. The concessions that the EU have made which facilitate trade during the transitional period seem to me to be quite significant and would do much to eliminate any dislocation that might otherwise occur on our departure. The money issues need to be fixed and resolved and pretending that they all go away in a "no deal" scenario is just silly. I also fear that the terms of any FTA will be significantly less advantageous to us if we are seen to walk away from responsibilities that we have already acknowledged. For these reasons, although it is a long way from perfect, I back the deal.0 -
Ken Clarke is not going to be any more successful in persuading Conservative to love the EU than Theresa May would be.Cyclefree said:
So let's get Ken Clarke in to do it.Sean_F said:
Because any Conservative leader who wants to revoke A50 must break with the majority of their MPs, councillors, party members, and voters.OldKingCole said:
Why?Sean_F said:
In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.Cyclefree said:
Personally, I now think that revocation is the best option on offer. I know I will be shouted down as a whingeing Remoaner but so be it. I'm not. And I loathe the way people have been put into these categories. And I do worry a great deal about the effect of doing this on our democracy.Beverley_C said:
We have no good options. We need to choose the least sh*t option.SouthamObserver said:
The far left is not capable of compromise, so a minority Labour government would not last very long. I do agree, though, that it would be best for the country if the various Tory parties took some time out of office to work out whether their marriage is saveable.Beverley_C said:SouthamObserver said:Cyclefree said:
Matthew Parris said the other day that he thought it very possible that the Tory party - in its current form - would no longer exist in a year's time, that it was in a desperate state.AlastairMeeks said:
Not only are Tories making a Labour government more likely with their behaviour. They are making a Corbyn-led Labour government with an overall majority likely. They are, however, too stupid or obsessed with Brexit to realise this.
But the Brexiteers have been given nearly three years to come up with workable plans and have failed.
Edited: the only MP I have seen who has given any indication of understanding that this is what is needed has been Rory Stewart, as you can see in his interview with LBC's James O'Brien.
He's about the only person who has been talking sense in the last few weeks and who sounds like/indeed is a grown up.0 -
Or in Dublin?MarqueeMark said:
Do you think that is sinking in over in Brussels yet?Beverley_C said:
No Deal Brexit means chaos.MarqueeMark said:
No Deal Brexit Means Brexit.Stark_Dawning said:The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
0 -
This is May, I think we know by now she'll cling on by her fingernails. Her entire cabinet could resign en masse and still she'll be saying Nothing Has Changed.Sean_F said:
She'd be out on her ear tomorrow if she proposed a Bill to revoke the 2017 legislation.grabcocque said:
Or you need May to essentially betray her party. Which she can now do, since her party made her immune to challenge for a year.Sean_F said:
Well, you need the Conservative Party's voters and members to make an overnight conversion to being pro-EU. I would not rate the chances of that highly.Beverley_C said:
No you do not. All you need is a letter to Brussels and the guts to send itSean_F said:
In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.
If May decides to betray her party, the only way you're getting rid of her is MPs resigning the whip en masse and nailing her in a Parliamentary VONC.0 -
There are concerns. It just seems a good deal better to me than either No Deal or Revocation.DavidL said:
My concerns are the backstop which is an unacceptable intrusion into the domestic integrity of the UK and the obligations for a level playing field which may well require us to continue to apply EU mandated law that we did not approve of. In respect of the latter point I fear that the trade deal we end up with with the EU will favour them because the undertakings already given will mean we have a weak negotiating hand.Sean_F said:
I still haven't worked out what's so terrible about the WA.DavidL said:
What I expect to happen next is the Commons also voting down a second referendum, an application to defer Brexit and possibly revocation. Once it is established that there is no majority for any of them and that a no deal Brexit will happen it just might come back. At the moment May has not persuaded either the remainers or the ERG that they are going to lose. Her deal is, accordingly, relatively friendless.grabcocque said:A continued and baffling failure of the professional commentariat to massively overestimate Theresa May's political skill has been one of the hallmarks of Brexit commentary.
It should be no surprise that a big chunk of the mindless centrist chatterati still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that May still has a plan, an ace up her sleeve, for getting people behind her.
She doesn't. Her deal is going to be rejected by a massive majority and then all hell is going to break loose.
OTOH I am realistic enough to recognise that any FTA with a much larger partner such as the EU is going to favour them to some extent. The concessions that the EU have made which facilitate trade during the transitional period seem to me to be quite significant and would do much to eliminate any dislocation that might otherwise occur on our departure. The money issues need to be fixed and resolved and pretending that they all go away in a "no deal" scenario is just silly. I also fear that the terms of any FTA will be significantly less advantageous to us if we are seen to walk away from responsibilities that we have already acknowledged. For these reasons, although it is a long way from perfect, I back the deal.0 -
Is there a lazier MP in the House than Ken Clarke?Sean_F said:Ken Clarke is not going to be any more successful in persuading Conservative to love the EU than Theresa May would be.
He was my step-father's MP. And effin' useless.0 -
It almost seems pointless to still be discussing the merits of the deal anyway. The deal is absolutely, totally and irrevocably doomed.Sean_F said:though it is a long way from perfect, I back the deal.
0 -
Mr. Sandpit, in case you missed it, I put up a slightly delayed F1 blog earlier today:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2019/01/an-early-look-at-how-2019-f1-titles.html0 -
It doesnt contain unicorns or cake, or unicorn cake. It's a tough reality. I dont think it's a particularly good deal, but it quite clearly satsifies the referendum result. I'm surprised that the backstop agreement, which it seems neither side would wish to happen, could not have been a much more mutually agreable means of ending it, even unilaterally (but say with a notice period). The narrative of perpetual membership through a backstop has taken place and surely could have been agreed.Sean_F said:
I still haven't worked out what's so terrible about the WA.DavidL said:
What I expect to happen next is the Commons also voting down a second referendum, an application to defer Brexit and possibly revocation. Once it is established that there is no majority for any of them and that a no deal Brexit will happen it just might come back. At the moment May has not persuaded either the remainers or the ERG that they are going to lose. Her deal is, accordingly, relatively friendless.grabcocque said:A continued and baffling failure of the professional commentariat to massively overestimate Theresa May's political skill has been one of the hallmarks of Brexit commentary.
It should be no surprise that a big chunk of the mindless centrist chatterati still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that May still has a plan, an ace up her sleeve, for getting people behind her.
She doesn't. Her deal is going to be rejected by a massive majority and then all hell is going to break loose.
The £39 billion settlement sum also, badly handed. A big part of that sum accounts as a further two years of our membership costs and projects that we have participated in (and i assume continue to participate in if continue to fund), the rest are pension costs etc over the next thirty years.
The regular membership fees should have been totally stripped away from any settlement figure.0 -
This all seems more like an argument for remaining that taking the shit deal.DavidL said:
My concerns are the backstop which is an unacceptable intrusion into the domestic integrity of the UK and the obligations for a level playing field which may well require us to continue to apply EU mandated law that we did not approve of. In respect of the latter point I fear that the trade deal we end up with with the EU will favour them because the undertakings already given will mean we have a weak negotiating hand.Sean_F said:
I still haven't worked out what's so terrible about the WA.DavidL said:
What I expect to happen next is the Commons also voting down a second referendum, an application to defer Brexit and possibly revocation. Once it is established that there is no majority for any of them and that a no deal Brexit will happen it just might come back. At the moment May has not persuaded either the remainers or the ERG that they are going to lose. Her deal is, accordingly, relatively friendless.grabcocque said:A continued and baffling failure of the professional commentariat to massively overestimate Theresa May's political skill has been one of the hallmarks of Brexit commentary.
It should be no surprise that a big chunk of the mindless centrist chatterati still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that May still has a plan, an ace up her sleeve, for getting people behind her.
She doesn't. Her deal is going to be rejected by a massive majority and then all hell is going to break loose.
OTOH I am realistic enough to recognise that any FTA with a much larger partner such as the EU is going to favour them to some extent. The concessions that the EU have made which facilitate trade during the transitional period seem to me to be quite significant and would do much to eliminate any dislocation that might otherwise occur on our departure. The money issues need to be fixed and resolved and pretending that they all go away in a "no deal" scenario is just silly. I also fear that the terms of any FTA will be significantly less advantageous to us if we are seen to walk away from responsibilities that we have already acknowledged. For these reasons, although it is a long way from perfect, I back the deal.0 -
But May's deal is slightly less absolutely, totally and irrevocably doomed than all the other options.....grabcocque said:
It almost seems pointless to still be discussing the merits of the deal anyway. The deal is absolutely, totally and irrevocably doomed.Sean_F said:though it is a long way from perfect, I back the deal.
0 -
....bar No Deal.0
-
I am in Dublin now and they are very alive to the dangers, praying that some kind of sense breaks out. A taxi driver said Boris is here for some conference; his name is clearly a dirty word here.Sandpit said:
Or in Dublin?MarqueeMark said:
Do you think that is sinking in over in Brussels yet?Beverley_C said:
No Deal Brexit means chaos.MarqueeMark said:
No Deal Brexit Means Brexit.Stark_Dawning said:The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
0 -
That's why we're going to crash out without a deal, and respect the will of the electorate by accident.MarqueeMark said:
But May's deal is slightly less absolutely, totally and irrevocably doomed than all the other options.....grabcocque said:
It almost seems pointless to still be discussing the merits of the deal anyway. The deal is absolutely, totally and irrevocably doomed.Sean_F said:though it is a long way from perfect, I back the deal.
0 -
Or they change the rules for electing the new ayatollah of the tory party.grabcocque said:
This is May, I think we know by now she'll cling on by her fingernails. Her entire cabinet could resign en masse and still she'll be saying Nothing Has Changed.Sean_F said:
She'd be out on her ear tomorrow if she proposed a Bill to revoke the 2017 legislation.grabcocque said:
Or you need May to essentially betray her party. Which she can now do, since her party made her immune to challenge for a year.Sean_F said:
Well, you need the Conservative Party's voters and members to make an overnight conversion to being pro-EU. I would not rate the chances of that highly.Beverley_C said:
No you do not. All you need is a letter to Brussels and the guts to send itSean_F said:
In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.
If May decides to betray her party, the only way you're getting rid of her is MPs resigning the whip en masse and nailing her in a Parliamentary VONC.0 -
https://twitter.com/roadccdave/status/1064566531173036032grabcocque said:
But Richard, they have a policy on Brexit!Richard_Nabavi said:On topic: I don't think Labour actually want an election at the moment. They are just using it as a convenient excuse for not having a position on Brexit.
It's a Jobs First Brexit!0 -
A serious problem with revoking A50 is that it would almost certainly lead to the formation of Leaver terrorist cells. I'm not joking. Such has been the hyperbole from elements within the media and politics - ramping up what is essentially a change of trading policy to a kind of revolutionary assertion of democratic integrity - that many will feel justified in taking the law into their own hands.0
-
Of course it is. But they will have concluded, quite rightly, that there's no concession they can make which would transform the parliamentary arithmetic. Labour are opposing the deal for the sake of opposing it, and the ERG are so anti-EU that if the EU offered to take out the backstop and instead give us a £1000 per head and first dibs on every virgin in Scandinavia, Rees-Mogg would still claim it was an affront to our sovereignty.Sandpit said:
Or in Dublin?MarqueeMark said:
Do you think that is sinking in over in Brussels yet?Beverley_C said:
No Deal Brexit means chaos.MarqueeMark said:
No Deal Brexit Means Brexit.Stark_Dawning said:The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
0 -
He doesn't need to be. What we need is a pause to work out what we want to do. That is what revocation gives us.Sean_F said:
Ken Clarke is not going to be any more successful in persuading Conservative to love the EU than Theresa May would be.Cyclefree said:
So let's get Ken Clarke in to do it.Sean_F said:
Because any Conservative leader who wants to revoke A50 must break with the majority of their MPs, councillors, party members, and voters.OldKingCole said:
Why?Sean_F said:
In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.Cyclefree said:
Personally, I now think that revocation is the best option on offer. I know I will be shouted down as a whingeing Remoaner but so be it. I'm not. And I loathe the way people have been put into these categories. And I do worry a great deal about the effect of doing this on our democracy.Beverley_C said:
We have no good options. We need to choose the least sh*t option.SouthamObserver said:
The far left is not capable of compromise, so a minority Labour government would not last very long. I do agree, though, that it would be best for the country if the various Tory parties took some time out of office to work out whether their marriage is saveable.Beverley_C said:
But the Brexiteers have been given nearly three years to come up with workable plans and have failed.
Edited: the only MP I have seen who has given any indication of understanding that this is what is needed has been Rory Stewart, as you can see in his interview with LBC's James O'Brien.
He's about the only person who has been talking sense in the last few weeks and who sounds like/indeed is a grown up.
Sometimes before making an irrevocable decision it is sensible to ask yourself: "Do I really want to do this?" It's the equivalent of drafting an email and sleeping on it. Next morning you look at it afresh or talk to a trusted colleague and you realise that it needs to be rewritten or not sent at all. That is where we are now.0 -
I completely agree.Sean_F said:
There are concerns. It just seems a good deal better to me than either No Deal or Revocation.DavidL said:
My concerns are the backstop which is an unacceptable intrusion into the domestic integrity of the UK and the obligations for a level playing field which may well require us to continue to apply EU mandated law that we did not approve of. In respect of the latter point I fear that the trade deal we end up with with the EU will favour them because the undertakings already given will mean we have a weak negotiating hand.Sean_F said:
I still haven't worked out what's so terrible about the WA.DavidL said:
What I expect to happen next is the Commons also voting down a second referendum, an application to defer Brexit and possibly revocation. Once it is established that there is no majority for any of them and that a no deal Brexit will happen it just might come back. At the moment May has not persuaded either the remainers or the ERG that they are going to lose. Her deal is, accordingly, relatively friendless.grabcocque said:A continued and baffling failure of the professional commentariat to massively overestimate Theresa May's political skill has been one of the hallmarks of Brexit commentary.
It should be no surprise that a big chunk of the mindless centrist chatterati still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that May still has a plan, an ace up her sleeve, for getting people behind her.
She doesn't. Her deal is going to be rejected by a massive majority and then all hell is going to break loose.
OTOH I am realistic enough to recognise that any FTA with a much larger partner such as the EU is going to favour them to some extent. The concessions that the EU have made which facilitate trade during the transitional period seem to me to be quite significant and would do much to eliminate any dislocation that might otherwise occur on our departure. The money issues need to be fixed and resolved and pretending that they all go away in a "no deal" scenario is just silly. I also fear that the terms of any FTA will be significantly less advantageous to us if we are seen to walk away from responsibilities that we have already acknowledged. For these reasons, although it is a long way from perfect, I back the deal.0 -
But do they wantIanB2 said:
I am in Dublin now and they are very alive to the dangers, praying that some kind of sense breaks out. A taxi driver said Boris is here for some conference; his name is clearly a dirty word here.Sandpit said:
Or in Dublin?MarqueeMark said:
Do you think that is sinking in over in Brussels yet?Beverley_C said:
No Deal Brexit means chaos.MarqueeMark said:
No Deal Brexit Means Brexit.Stark_Dawning said:The Brexit dream is now in tatters - relying on Ramsgate, of all places, to save the British economy. I can honestly see Theresa revoking. 'As the House won't accept the government's deal, and given the profound damage of No Deal, a responsible government is left with no alternative but to...' Theresa, with her wooden earnestness, is probably one of the few politicians able to pull it off.
a) the Backstop or
b) some kind of sense breaking out?0 -
Any train of logic arrives at remainingDura_Ace said:
This all seems more like an argument for remaining that taking the shit deal.DavidL said:
My concerns are the backstop which is an unacceptable intrusion into the domestic integrity of the UK and the obligations for a level playing field which may well require us to continue to apply EU mandated law that we did not approve of. In respect of the latter point I fear that the trade deal we end up with with the EU will favour them because the undertakings already given will mean we have a weak negotiating hand.Sean_F said:
I still haven't worked out what's so terrible about the WA.DavidL said:
What I expect to happen next is the Commons also voting down a second referendum, an application to defer Brexit and possibly revocation. Once it is established that there is no majority for any of them and that a no deal Brexit will happen it just might come back. At the moment May has not persuaded either the remainers or the ERG that they are going to lose. Her deal is, accordingly, relatively friendless.grabcocque said:A continued and baffling failure of the professional commentariat to massively overestimate Theresa May's political skill has been one of the hallmarks of Brexit commentary.
It should be no surprise that a big chunk of the mindless centrist chatterati still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that May still has a plan, an ace up her sleeve, for getting people behind her.
She doesn't. Her deal is going to be rejected by a massive majority and then all hell is going to break loose.
OTOH I am realistic enough to recognise that any FTA with a much larger partner such as the EU is going to favour them to some extent. The concessions that the EU have made which facilitate trade during the transitional period seem to me to be quite significant and would do much to eliminate any dislocation that might otherwise occur on our departure. The money issues need to be fixed and resolved and pretending that they all go away in a "no deal" scenario is just silly. I also fear that the terms of any FTA will be significantly less advantageous to us if we are seen to walk away from responsibilities that we have already acknowledged. For these reasons, although it is a long way from perfect, I back the deal.0 -
She could get it through the HoC and almost certainly the Lords, too. And she can't be No Confidenced by the party for another 11 months, so whatever the wrath of JRM and Bojo it would be as sounding brass or tinkling cymbal. Or a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing. (In the short term anyway!)Sean_F said:
She'd be out on her ear tomorrow if she proposed a Bill to revoke the 2017 legislation.grabcocque said:
Or you need May to essentially betray her party. Which she can now do, since her party made her immune to challenge for a year.Sean_F said:
Well, you need the Conservative Party's voters and members to make an overnight conversion to being pro-EU. I would not rate the chances of that highly.Beverley_C said:
No you do not. All you need is a letter to Brussels and the guts to send itSean_F said:
In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.0 -
David a no deal Brexit won't happen. It will be May's deal. If it is not that, then it will be a remain vs deal referendum.DavidL said:
What I expect to happen next is the Commons also voting down a second referendum, an application to defer Brexit and possibly revocation. Once it is established that there is no majority for any of them and that a no deal Brexit will happen it just might come back. At the moment May has not persuaded either the remainers or the ERG that they are going to lose. Her deal is, accordingly, relatively friendless.grabcocque said:A continued and baffling failure of the professional commentariat to massively overestimate Theresa May's political skill has been one of the hallmarks of Brexit commentary.
It should be no surprise that a big chunk of the mindless centrist chatterati still believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that May still has a plan, an ace up her sleeve, for getting people behind her.
She doesn't. Her deal is going to be rejected by a massive majority and then all hell is going to break loose.
Despite the morons advocating no deal or, laughingly, "managed no deal" - we will not have no deal.0 -
Mrs May has been given, and in large part given herself, a very difficult hand, but if she gets Parliament to support her deal she will deserve and get a radical reassessment.0
-
That's not an easy thing to do. 1922 has to propose new rules, then it has to be considered by the Party Board, then put out to a constitutional convention, and then when the new rules are agreed by the convention, put it to a vote of the party membership to agree the changes. Last time the Tories changed the rules around leadership elections it took them a couple of years.Dura_Ace said:
Or they change the rules for electing the new ayatollah of the tory party.grabcocque said:
This is May, I think we know by now she'll cling on by her fingernails. Her entire cabinet could resign en masse and still she'll be saying Nothing Has Changed.Sean_F said:
She'd be out on her ear tomorrow if she proposed a Bill to revoke the 2017 legislation.grabcocque said:
Or you need May to essentially betray her party. Which she can now do, since her party made her immune to challenge for a year.Sean_F said:
Well, you need the Conservative Party's voters and members to make an overnight conversion to being pro-EU. I would not rate the chances of that highly.Beverley_C said:
No you do not. All you need is a letter to Brussels and the guts to send itSean_F said:
In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.
If May decides to betray her party, the only way you're getting rid of her is MPs resigning the whip en masse and nailing her in a Parliamentary VONC.0 -
Indeed. When you rule out the impossible you are left with the improbable.MarqueeMark said:
But May's deal is slightly less absolutely, totally and irrevocably doomed than all the other options.....grabcocque said:
It almost seems pointless to still be discussing the merits of the deal anyway. The deal is absolutely, totally and irrevocably doomed.Sean_F said:though it is a long way from perfect, I back the deal.
0 -
Ken Clarke has been trying and failing to do that for 20 years. Had he not been so persistent about it he would undoubtedly have been leader for many of those and very probably PM. Which, although I disagree with him about the EU, would have been a good thing.Sean_F said:
Ken Clarke is not going to be any more successful in persuading Conservative to love the EU than Theresa May would be.Cyclefree said:
So let's get Ken Clarke in to do it.Sean_F said:
Because any Conservative leader who wants to revoke A50 must break with the majority of their MPs, councillors, party members, and voters.OldKingCole said:
Why?Sean_F said:
In order to revoke A50, you need a change of government.Cyclefree said:
Personally, I now think that revocation is the best option on offer. I know I will be shouted down as a whingeing Remoaner but so be it. I'm not. And I loathe the way people have been put into these categories. And I do worry a great deal about the effect of doing this on our democracy.Beverley_C said:
We have no good options. We need to choose the least sh*t option.SouthamObserver said:
The far left is not capable of compromise, so a minority Labour government would not last very long. I do agree, though, that it would be best for the country if the various Tory parties took some time out of office to work out whether their marriage is saveable.Beverley_C said:SouthamObserver said:Cyclefree said:
Matthew Parris said the other day that he thought it very possible that the Tory party - in its current form - would no longer exist in a year's time, that it was in a desperate state.AlastairMeeks said:
Not only are Tories making a Labour government more likely with their behaviour. They are making a Corbyn-led Labour government with an overall majority likely. They are, however, too stupid or obsessed with Brexit to realise this.
But the Brexiteers have been given nearly three years to come up with workable plans and have failed.
Edited: the only MP I have seen who has given any indication of understanding that this is what is needed has been Rory Stewart, as you can see in his interview with LBC's James O'Brien.
He's about the only person who has been talking sense in the last few weeks and who sounds like/indeed is a grown up.0 -
Totally. And I think they will. There's time.philiph said:We obsess about the ways in which Parliament can control / influence the end point of Brexit, be that revocation, delay, renegotiation, deal or crash out.
We do not spend anything like enough time in assessing the power of the EU (as a body or individual states) to control and guide the end result.
While our politicians run around like headless chickens (possibly an insult to headless chickens) preening themselves with their absent beaks, strutting their stuff with heartfelt statements of core beliefs that usually play well to the constituency they wish to appeal to, in the real world the power they have is subject to the agreement of the EU beyond the simple choices of agreeing the deal, revocation and crashing out.
There is no political position to bring us together, there is no referendum to heal the mess. Parliament should make a choice. That is what they are there for.
We voted in 2015, knowing a referendum was on offer.
We voted in 2016 in a referendum.
We voted in 2017 with some details of Brexit plans.
Non of those votes resulted in massive overwhelming majorities. It is the job of parliament to conclude Brexit in the way it feels is best for the country, and if they so wish in a way that reflects the peoples views.
Let us not peak too early with the outrage.
Because if I'm wrong and we end up with the horror of a No Deal crash out or another Referendum we will need all the outrage we can get.0 -
She will get VONCed by the DUP, you mean.geoffw said:Mrs May has been given, and in large part given herself, a very difficult hand, but if she gets Parliament to support her deal she will deserve and get a radical reassessment.
0
