politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Even if Labour secures an early election it is hard to see how

felix said:

Benpointer said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

HYUFD said:

Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.

No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together

You're changing your tune.

No I still back the Deal but No Deal for the Tories is better than revoking Brexit

Any chance some Tory MPs might consider what's best for the country?

A silly point - however misguided most MPs may be on a range of issues I have no doubt they all believe that their views are in the national interest. Even Jeremy Corbyn!

But what's 'in the national interest' though? Some think that liberal democracy and higher standards of living have made us rather soft, and only impoverishment and a return to a more feudal way of ordering things can address this civilizational sickness.

MarqueeMark said:

No Deal being judged better than May's deal is not a dereliction of duty by MPs. The dereliction of duty was by Govt. two or more years ago, refusing to plan effectively for No Deal. The Govt's purpose was to blackmail MPs into not, in all conscience, being able to support No Deal. If No Deal is where we do end up, it will be an epic miscalculation.

I think that 'effective no deal planning' can join 'jobs first brexit' in unicorn corner.

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

The number of people who support No Deal now, and the number of people who would support it two months after it came about, if nothing but short-term micro-deals were put in place to mitigate it, is unlikely to be the same.

It's easy to support No Deal in opposition to something more concrete; it becomes a different matter when No Deal is itself a thing.

Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.

No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together

It would reduce the Tory party to a rump of the mad and the bad. Irrelevance beyond the 1997 William Hague's wildest dreams.

Hague still got 160 odd MPs, if they revoke Brexit the Tories risk matching the 2 MPs the Progressive Conservatives in Canada got in 1993

If they revoked Brexit *and* slung out the ERG then the Tories would become the de facto new centre party and would take votes from Corbyn's Labour.

Too few.

Most people who vote Labour do so because they admire Corbyn, or they are Labour loyalists.

kle4 said:

BudG said:

kle4 said:

Cyclefree said:

rottenborough said:

Slackbladder said:

El_Capitano said:

I think this is spot on unless there's a black swan.

As things stand, there's no way for Labour to go up from here: Corbyn is merrily trashing his appeal to centrist-Remainers and showing no sign of winning over former Tory voters.

But who knows what will happen after March 29th. If the whole of Kent becomes one big Operation Stack, or the newspapers find just one child death in hospital as a result of medicine shortages, all bets are off.

Which means we're in a situation where Labour NEED Brexit to happen to get a majority.

Maybe Magic Grandpa isn't so stupid after all.

Morning all,

There has been plenty of speculation and anonymous quotes from 'sources' to the effect that Jezza's closest aides think a massively messy Brexit, owned by the Tories, and the resulting chaos, is the perfect opportunity for them to win.

Indeed. Neither party are acting in the national interest.

Too busy thinking about leadership plans and elections.

Instances where politicians have acted in the national interest over Party interest are as rare as unicorn shit.

Sadly that's because they would claim, and probably believe, that party interest always aligns with the national interest.

Honestly the most interesting vote 're the deal is Stephen Lloyd's, resigning the party whip to vote for a deal that won't pass no matter what he does, when others previously assumed to be persuadable are coming out against perhaps in part because it's not worth sticking your neck out for a dead deal.

Yes, you get the odd honourable politician who will act in the national interest, usually at great cost to their personal careers, but it is hard to think when a government last collectively put national interest above party interest

BudG said:

kle4 said:

BudG said:

kle4 said:

Cyclefree said:

rottenborough said:

Slackbladder said:

El_Capitano said:

I think this is spot on unless there's a black swan.

As things stand, there's no way for Labour to go up from here: Corbyn is merrily trashing his appeal to centrist-Remainers and showing no sign of winning over former Tory voters.

But who knows what will happen after March 29th. If the whole of Kent becomes one big Operation Stack, or the newspapers find just one child death in hospital as a result of medicine shortages, all bets are off.

Which means we're in a situation where Labour NEED Brexit to happen to get a majority.

Maybe Magic Grandpa isn't so stupid after all.

Morning all,

There has been plenty of speculation and anonymous quotes from 'sources' to the effect that Jezza's closest aides think a massively messy Brexit, owned by the Tories, and the resulting chaos, is the perfect opportunity for them to win.

Indeed. Neither party are acting in the national interest.

Too busy thinking about leadership plans and elections.

Instances where politicians have acted in the national interest over Party interest are as rare as unicorn shit.

Sadly that's because they would claim, and probably believe, that party interest always aligns with the national interest.

Honestly the most interesting vote 're the deal is Stephen Lloyd's, resigning the party whip to vote for a deal that won't pass no matter what he does, when others previously assumed to be persuadable are coming out against perhaps in part because it's not worth sticking your neck out for a dead deal.

Yes, you get the odd honourable politician who will act in the national interest, usually at great cost to their personal careers, but it is hard to think when a government last collectively put national interest above party interest

If ever there was an issue which should prompt Mps, gov or opposition, to rebel no matter the cost you'd think it would be thus one. Nevertheless here we are.

kle4 said:

grabcocque said:

kle4 said:

Sandpit said:

rottenborough said:

Excellent thread on where we are:

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1082190483621842944

They are still thinking that the problem is with the political declaration, rather than with the withdrawal agreement itself.

More likely they know it's not but that's the only bit they might be able to change. Maybe it's enough of a fig leaf to give cover to a few, but enough are clear the problems are the legal text so i doubt it. Particularly since everyone knows it's a fig leaf.

May knows she's not getting any meaningful changes. She knew that full well after she got Salzburged a second time last month. Remember people were talking about a special EUCO summit just for Brexit? What happened to that?

The EU is doing the absolute mininum it can to help her. And why would they lift a finger? Since they don't believe she has a snowball's chance in hell getting it through Parliament, they're not going to risk going out on a limb for her, making a meaningful concession, and then she lose anyway.

They could afford to make a concession but I agree it's not in their interest, particularly when me as half of our parliament is working to remain anyway. The EU will not like no deal, but they've gone as far as they care to to prevent it.

They can't give the concession the rebels want, an "end" to the (then mis-named) 'backstop', presumably on No Deal terms.

Sean_F said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

The number of people who support No Deal now, and the number of people who would support it two months after it came about, if nothing but short-term micro-deals were put in place to mitigate it, is unlikely to be the same.

It's easy to support No Deal in opposition to something more concrete; it becomes a different matter when No Deal is itself a thing.

Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.

No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together

It would reduce the Tory party to a rump of the mad and the bad. Irrelevance beyond the 1997 William Hague's wildest dreams.

Hague still got 160 odd MPs, if they revoke Brexit the Tories risk matching the 2 MPs the Progressive Conservatives in Canada got in 1993

Why - if we go No Deal and it doesn't work I suspect the Remainer Home Counties will be returning 80+ Lib Dem MPs by itself...

There might be a couple in Surrey. But, not in Kent, Essex, Buckinghamshire, or Hertfordshire.

You know a different part of Buckinghamshire to the areas I know - they are very much remainy. Milton Keynes may not be but Chesham and Amersham, Beaconsfield?

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

The number of people who support No Deal now, and the number of people who would support it two months after it came about, if nothing but short-term micro-deals were put in place to mitigate it, is unlikely to be the same.

It's easy to support No Deal in opposition to something more concrete; it becomes a different matter when No Deal is itself a thing.

Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.

No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together

It would reduce the Tory party to a rump of the mad and the bad. Irrelevance beyond the 1997 William Hague's wildest dreams.

Hague still got 160 odd MPs, if they revoke Brexit the Tories risk matching the 2 MPs the Progressive Conservatives in Canada got in 1993

If they revoked Brexit *and* slung out the ERG then the Tories would become the de facto new centre party and would take votes from Corbyn's Labour.

Too few.

Most people who vote Labour do so because they admire Corbyn, or they are Labour loyalists.

Really, round here (the North East) most people vote Labour because their Grandparents did - Thatcher then confirmed the choice with the mines...

Listening to IDS on the BBC it is clear ERG expect that by voting against the deal the EU will buckle and offer TM a deal to ERG's liking

I think TM is correct to hold the votes on Tuesday 15th January to draw out the voting records of all mps not only on the deal but the amendments

I expect TM will then return to the EU and challenge them to negotiate to prevent no deal which neither side want.

Whether the EU will, only time will tell but without the votes on the amendments and the deal everything else is just speculation

I note a group of mps are threatening to effectively close down the government in a no deal situation and the ERG are kicking up a fuss. It is remarkable how the ERG think they will succeed in achieving a no deal outcome when over 500 mps are lined up against them

If I was guessing I would expect TM to return to the EU post 15th January, some modifications to the deal will be agreed, then she brings it back to the HOC on a deal or no deal basis. I do not see her agreeing to extend A50 or a referendum or especially to revoke A50

And, as long as she is PM, she is the only person who can lay legislation before the house to delay or revoke A50 or conduct a referendum

grabcocque said:

A reminder that the last round of WTO trade talks, the Doha round, collapse amongst ignominy and infighting eleven years ago, and reform has been completely stalled ever since.

An organization that's effectively been moribund for over a decade is our great white hope.

Far from being moribund, the WTO has been pretty successful in its goal of reducing tariff barriers worldwide to historically low levels. The outcomes are what matters, not the processes leading to those outcomes.

Benpointer said:

Is there a possibility of an amendment to the MV along the lines of:

"This House approves the WA subject to it also being supported in a referendum of the people"?

Possibly

Benpointer said:

Is there a possibility of an amendment to the MV along the lines of:

"This House approves the WA subject to it also being supported in a referendum of the people"?

It's already been tabled by the Lib Dems on the Friday before May pulled the vote.

Sean_F said:

eek said:

Sean_F said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

It would reduce the Tory party to a rump of the mad and the bad. Irrelevance beyond the 1997 William Hague's wildest dreams.

Hague still got 160 odd MPs, if they revoke Brexit the Tories risk matching the 2 MPs the Progressive Conservatives in Canada got in 1993

Why - if welf...

There might be a couple in Surrey. But, not in Kent, Essex, Buckinghamshire, or Hertfordshire.

You know a different part of Buckinghamshire to the areas I know - they are very much remainy. Milton Keynes may not be but Chesham and Amersham, Beaconsfield?

Both were 50/50 and they have Conservative majorities of 22,000 and 24,000.

eek said:

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

williamglenn said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

The number of people who support No Deal now, and the number of people who would support it two months after it came about, if nothing but short-term micro-deals were put in place to mitigate it, is unlikely to be the same.

It's easy to support No Deal in opposition to something more concrete; it becomes a different matter when No Deal is itself a thing.

Given the mass defections from the Tories to UKIP or a new Farage led party if the Tories revoke Brexit they may not even be second let alone leading the polls.

No Deal is obviously worse than the Deal but still keeps most of the Tory party together

It would reduce the Tory party to a rump of the mad and the bad. Irrelevance beyond the 1997 William Hague's wildest dreams.

Hague still got 160 odd MPs, if they revoke Brexit the Tories risk matching the 2 MPs the Progressive Conservatives in Canada got in 1993

If they revoked Brexit *and* slung out the ERG then the Tories would become the de facto new centre party and would take votes from Corbyn's Labour.

Too few.

Most people who vote Labour do so because they admire Corbyn, or they are Labour loyalists.

Really, round here (the North East) most people vote Labour because their Grandparents did - Thatcher then confirmed the choice with the mines...

They won't switch to a pro-Brexit Conservative Party.

But neither those areas (the NE and Bucks) are ones which ever decide a GE so the fact that voters won't switch in large numbers is irrelevant. It's the swing seats that matter.

geoffw said:

Europe (rather, the EU) has been a running sore for the Conservatives for more than thirty years. Both May's deal and no-deal lance that boil. Any other outcome keeps it there as an irritant.

Sadly, not. The EU (or EEC) has been a dividing line for over sixty years and will continue to be so because:
1. The Conservative tradition includes very strong strands that point to both In and Out;
2. Europe is not going away: it's still just the other side of the Channel / Irish border, and Britain's biggest trading partner;
3. The centre-left don't just advocate rejoining but for many, see it as a defining political identity so the issue isn't going to just retreat to the fringes of national debate.

kle4 said:

We could only wish for such a comparatively steady option.

Well we will see. And quite soon too. Ooooo.

I'll be as disappointed as everybody else if I'm right. What a let down.

But on the other hand here's a thought. Just had it.

If the only negotiated exit from the European Union is unacceptable to the UK, it effectively means that the UK cannot leave the European Union, regardless of the fact that the people of the UK indicated in a referendum that they would like to do so.

Wow. What happened to national sovereignty? Is it another unicorn?

Answer comes there Yes.

Now I am happy with that (I view UK in the EU as both benign and necessary) but I bet I'm in a minority.

Beverley_C said:

Benpointer said:

Any chance some Tory MPs might consider what's best for the country?

Seal of approval?

kinabalu said:

kle4 said:

We could only wish for such a comparatively steady option.

Well we will see. And quite soon too. Ooooo.

I'll be as disappointed as everybody else if I'm right. What a let down.

But on the other hand here's a thought. Just had it.

If the only negotiated exit from the European Union is unacceptable to the UK, it effectively means that the UK cannot leave the European Union, regardless of the fact that the people of the UK indicated in a referendum that they would like to do so.

Wow. What happened to national sovereignty? Is it another unicorn?

Answer comes there Yes.

Now I am happy with that (I view UK in the EU as both benign and necessary) but I bet I'm in a minority.

...of two, at least.

grabcocque said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Listening to IDS on the BBC it is clear ERG expect that by voting against the deal the EU will buckle and offer TM a deal to ERG's liking

Yes, I imagine Juncker and Tusk have a whole skip full of magic unicorns ready to roll.

Surely even IDS isn't that naive. The ERG must be working to another plan here. Presumably they want to usher in a Corbyn government so that the socialist ideal can be discredited once and for all. There's no other explanation.

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/henrynewman/status/1082281611855581188?s=21

It is dreadful but apparently the cps say they are not breaking the law

It was bad enough with the peoples group chanting but this is on a level that is totally unacceptable

Slackbladder said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Is there a possibility of an amendment to the MV along the lines of:

"This House approves the WA subject to it also being supported in a referendum of the people"?

Possibly

But wouldn't another referendum require legislation? So, the entire bill would be then dependent on another bill?

What happens if the ammendment passes, but then the referendum bill doesn't? Seems very murky to me.

Complex to say the least as it would require A50 to be extended and legislation for a referendum that would new 4 months or more

Benpointer said:

Slackbladder said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Is there a possibility of an amendment to the MV along the lines of:

"This House approves the WA subject to it also being supported in a referendum of the people"?

Possibly

But wouldn't another referendum require legislation? So, the entire bill would be then dependent on another bill?

What happens if the ammendment passes, but then the referendum bill doesn't? Seems very murky to me.

Yes well, I am sure the amendment could be worded to include something along the lines of:

1. Seek an A50 extension (Revoke if the EU won't agree an extension)
2. Don't leave until the 2nd referendum has been held

Well that would then effectively be a revoke clause in practice. Given the EU need to agree to extend, they could just block that.

I like this:

https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan/status/1081864776391839744

Technically, there is nothing to stop May doing that. She could reasonably claim that the HoC rejection of her Deal constitutes approval for revocation 'via democratic process' as required by the ECJ.

She should announce ahead of the vote that that is what she will do if she loses - that will concentrate the ERG's (and indeed Labour leadership's|) minds. Sure her position as leader of the Conservative party will become untenable but wtf - at least No Deal is avoided.

rottenborough said:

williamglenn said:

https://twitter.com/henrynewman/status/1082281611855581188?s=21

Can't she do them for slander?

Pointless - it would just give them even more of the publicity they crave.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

That is precisely why "No Deal" is such a pejorative term - it is intended to shape opinion and lead some by the nose to conclude that chaos would ensue because there would be no arrangements covering even the basics. The choice using non perjorative language is between leaving under "May's Deal" and "World Trade Terms (or WTO Terms for short).

Under the latter, there is an obligation on both the UK and EU to act in good faith to reach basic agreements (i.e. deals) to give effect to their international obligations under the WTO.

http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2018/08/20/non-tariff-barriers-the-eu-has-to-play-by-wto-rules/

"The WTO has done good work in recent years to make it illegal for countries to impose new non tariff barriers to impede trade. The EU has built these requirements into its own law codes. People on both sides of the Channel will continue to honour contracts and buy and sell to each other after our exit. To suggest otherwise is silly scaremongering."

'WTO terms' is utterly meaningless as far as Brexit is concerned. Both sides have to observe WTO rules whether they sign an agreement or not.

No Deal describes our position at the end of March, if no decision is made.
It's nothing to do with pejorative opinion shaping; it reflects commercial reality:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/the-dutch-love-to-plan-but-even-they-may-not-be-able-to-avoid-the-chaos-of-a-no-deal-brexit/2019/01/06/4492f7da-020a-11e9-958c-0a601226ff6b_story.html
“Everyone is fully aware that something is going to happen,” said Mark Dijk, the head of external relations at the Port of Rotterdam, whose docks, rail yards and warehouses handle nearly 1 million tons of goods moving to and from Britain every week. The port has been working on Brexit emergency plans for more than a year and is trying to alert businesses that they need to brace for a wave of restrictions.

Britain’s efforts to manage the withdrawal “are so chaotic that it’s hard for people to be sure there won’t be a [no-deal] Brexit,” Dijk said....

...The Dutch government is scrambling to limit the damage, hiring nearly 1,000 more customs agents for the inspections that would become necessary. The agency, whose officials inspect meat, dairy and animals, is scouring Eastern Europe for veterinarians and giving them crash courses in Dutch because they cannot find enough qualified people at home. And a legion of Dutch farmers and flower growers who take orders from British customers are worried that their supply lines could get tangled in bureaucratic knots...

Or are you sufficiently paranoid to think Rotterdam port officials are part of some Remoaner plot ?

Benpointer said:

Slackbladder said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Is there a possibility of an amendment to the MV along the lines of:

"This House approves the WA subject to it also being supported in a referendum of the people"?

Possibly

But wouldn't another referendum require legislation? So, the entire bill would be then dependent on another bill?

What happens if the ammendment passes, but then the referendum bill doesn't? Seems very murky to me.

Yes well, I am sure the amendment could be worded to include something along the lines of:

1. Seek an A50 extension (Revoke if the EU won't agree an extension)
2. Don't leave until the 2nd referendum has been held

If A50 is revoked it has to be done by a Parliamentary mandate and you cannot just serve A50 again to suit UK politics

For a second referendum A50 would have to be extended and the EU have said for the purpose of a referendum they would agree and during the referendum period we would femain. However that then causes great difficulty with the May EU elections as we would have to elect meps

Big_G_NorthWales said:

If I was guessing I would expect TM to return to the EU post 15th January, some modifications to the deal will be agreed, then she brings it back to the HOC on a deal or no deal basis. I do not see her agreeing to extend A50 or a referendum or especially to revoke A50.

And your guess is quite literally as good as mine, or indeed as bad, because they are one and the same.

Lose (but not terminally), kill the remaining unicorn of the 2nd ref, back to Brussels, pick up some cosmetics, put lipstick on the pig, back to market and offer as now the only alternative to what is not an alternative.

It's utterly irresponsible, it's outrageous, it's verging on blackmail !!!

It also makes perfect sense and is the only way we avoid making a complete nincompoop of the 2016 referendum.

Philip_Thompson said:

grabcocque said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Listening to IDS on the BBC it is clear ERG expect that by voting against the deal the EU will buckle and offer TM a deal to ERG's liking

Yes, I imagine Juncker and Tusk have a whole skip full of magic unicorns ready to roll.

There is nothing either magical or unicorns about kicking the Irish border into the long grass ...

Good idea - that way no one will be able to see where it is.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

I like this:

https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan/status/1081864776391839744

Technically, there is nothing to stop May doing that. She could reasonably claim that the HoC rejection of her Deal constitutes approval for revocation 'via democratic process' as required by the ECJ.

She should announce ahead of the vote that that is what she will do if she loses - that will concentrate the ERG's (and indeed Labour leadership's|) minds. Sure her position as leader of the Conservative party will become untenable but wtf - at least No Deal is avoided.

She would be out of office the minute she tried it. The cabinet would demand she goes and, in any respect, it is against everything she has said

I agree with your second point but not the first. All the cabinet could do is resign en masse, they cannot remove her from office (except by supporting a commons VoNC).

grabcocque said:

Of course the very easiest way to resolve the NI backstop is unification of Ireland.

Or for Ireland to become part of the UK....

kle4 said:

You're not a whinging remoaner. Revocation is a reasonable option to take as a means to stop brexit. What it is not is a means to deliver a better brexit at some unspecified future point.

I'd agree with that, too.
The idea of revocation as a means of calling time out while we negotiate better arrangements is delusional.

https://twitter.com/Anna_Soubry/status/1082289717712891905

Slackbladder said:

grabcocque said:

Of course the very easiest way to resolve the NI backstop is unification of Ireland.

Or for Ireland to become part of the UK....

Well we made such a success of it last time.

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

I like this:

https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan/status/1081864776391839744

Technically, there is nothing to stop May doing that. She could reasonably claim that the HoC rejection of her Deal constitutes approval for revocation 'via democratic process' as required by the ECJ.

She should announce ahead of the vote that that is what she will do if she loses - that will concentrate the ERG's (and indeed Labour leadership's|) minds. Sure her position as leader of the Conservative party will become untenable but wtf - at least No Deal is avoided.

She would be out of office the minute she tried it. The cabinet would demand she goes and, in any respect, it is against everything she has said

I agree with your second point but not the first. All the cabinet could do is resign en masse, they cannot remove her from office (except by supporting a commons VoNC).

If a cabinet resign the PM has no choice but resign

grabcocque said:

Apparently the Yaxley-Lennon fans in Parliament Square also shouted they are going to rape Kay Burley and Anna Soubry with a pole with an EU flag on it.

Just another day in the sunlit uplands.

Surely that is a criminal offence? Threatening rape?

Why are the police doing nothing? What if Sky employed its own security and pushed them out of the way?

rottenborough said:

grabcocque said:

Apparently the Yaxley-Lennon fans in Parliament Square also shouted they are going to rape Kay Burley and Anna Soubry with a pole with an EU flag on it.

Just another day in the sunlit uplands.

Surely that is a criminal offence? Threatening rape?

Why are the police doing nothing? What if Sky employed its own security and pushed them out of the way?

I would have a dedicated "protest" zone* and stick Mr Stop Brexit and these Pro Brexit twats together in it. Let them scream and shout at one another in there.

* I think a Portaloo should do the trick.

grabcocque said:

Apparently the Yaxley-Lennon fans in Parliament Square also shouted they are going to rape Kay Burley and Anna Soubry with a pole with an EU flag on it.

Just another day in the sunlit uplands.

I have been down there a couple of times and can confirm that they are indeed a sub-optimal crew. Worse in the flesh than on TV because of the aroma. I don't see why holding extreme right-wing nationalist views should give a pass on personal hygiene.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Benpointer said:

I like this:

https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan/status/1081864776391839744

Technically, there is nothing to stop May doing that. She could reasonably claim that the HoC rejection of her Deal constitutes approval for revocation 'via democratic process' as required by the ECJ.

She should announce ahead of the vote that that is what she will do if she loses - that will concentrate the ERG's (and indeed Labour leadership's|) minds. Sure her position as leader of the Conservative party will become untenable but wtf - at least No Deal is avoided.

She would be out of office the minute she tried it. The cabinet would demand she goes and, in any respect, it is against everything she has said

I agree with your second point but not the first. All the cabinet could do is resign en masse, they cannot remove her from office (except by supporting a commons VoNC).

If a cabinet resign the PM has no choice but resign

I am not sure that's a 'thing' constitutionally.

rottenborough said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Stark_Dawning said:

grabcocque said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Listening to IDS on the BBC it is clear ERG expect that by voting against the deal the EU will buckle and offer TM a deal to ERG's liking

Yes, I imagine Juncker and Tusk have a whole skip full of magic unicorns ready to roll.

Surely even IDS isn't that naive. The ERG must be working to another plan here. Presumably they want to usher in a Corbyn government so that the socialist ideal can be discredited once and for all. There's no other explanation.

They absolutely do not want Corbyn

IDS hasn't a clue what the EU will do. He's just making it up as he goes along like the rest of the ERG.

IDS makes Grayling look less of an outlier...

grabcocque said:

Slackbladder said:

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

grabcocque said:

[snip]
In fact, a no-deal crash out will see the single largest *increase* in both tariff and non-tariff barriers in the entire history of the WTO.

And with just a few weeks' notice for businesses to completely overhaul their operations. 'Insanity' hardly begins to cover it.

Given that "No Deal" was a potential outcome when the Article 50 notice was served, "insanity" hardly begins to cover the Govt. refusing to plan for it for the past two years.....

The government always had a foolproof no deal plan: revocation.

As a stop-gap. Doesn't solve the issue.

Revocation followed by show trials and mass deportations of gammons to Benidorm.

And who is going to be doing the deporting?

grabcocque said:

Slackbladder said:

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

grabcocque said:

[snip]
In fact, a no-deal crash out will see the single largest *increase* in both tariff and non-tariff barriers in the entire history of the WTO.

And with just a few weeks' notice for businesses to completely overhaul their operations. 'Insanity' hardly begins to cover it.

Given that "No Deal" was a potential outcome when the Article 50 notice was served, "insanity" hardly begins to cover the Govt. refusing to plan for it for the past two years.....

The government always had a foolproof no deal plan: revocation.

As a stop-gap. Doesn't solve the issue.

Revocation followed by show trials and mass deportations of gammons to Benidorm.

Not sure Benidorm fits 17 million people.

MarqueeMark said:

grabcocque said:

Slackbladder said:

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

grabcocque said:

[snip]
In fact, a no-deal crash out will see the single largest *increase* in both tariff and non-tariff barriers in the entire history of the WTO.

And with just a few weeks' notice for businesses to completely overhaul their operations. 'Insanity' hardly begins to cover it.

Given that "No Deal" was a potential outcome when the Article 50 notice was served, "insanity" hardly begins to cover the Govt. refusing to plan for it for the past two years.....

The government always had a foolproof no deal plan: revocation.

As a stop-gap. Doesn't solve the issue.

Revocation followed by show trials and mass deportations of gammons to Benidorm.

And who is going to be doing the deporting?

Thomas Cook.

grabcocque said:

MarqueeMark said:

grabcocque said:

Slackbladder said:

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

grabcocque said:

[snip]
In fact, a no-deal crash out will see the single largest *increase* in both tariff and non-tariff barriers in the entire history of the WTO.

And with just a few weeks' notice for businesses to completely overhaul their operations. 'Insanity' hardly begins to cover it.

Given that "No Deal" was a potential outcome when the Article 50 notice was served, "insanity" hardly begins to cover the Govt. refusing to plan for it for the past two years.....

The government always had a foolproof no deal plan: revocation.

As a stop-gap. Doesn't solve the issue.

Revocation followed by show trials and mass deportations of gammons to Benidorm.

And who is going to be doing the deporting?

I guess an army of cloned Lord Adonises.

Spain doesn't have enough vets for all that imported gammon.....