politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Now what?

AlastairMeeks said:

Charles said:

SunnyJim said:

Benpointer said:

I cannot speak for him obviously but I would have thought the LDems could offer to support her deal provided it is sanctioned by a 2nd Ref. Why is that so hard for the government to accept?

I really don't see how a deal that had so few backers in parliament could realistically be put to the country.

Who would campaign for it?

Previous leave voters would in all likelihood boycott in their millions leaving a turnout well down on 2016 and a remain win with no legitimacy.

It would be much better for the remainer majority in parliament to have the courage of their convictions and either go directly to revoke or, alternatively, provide a 3-way referendum under AV with: Revoke, Deal, No Deal.

Deal or no deal is the only legitimate question to ask from a democratic perspective

1. You decided to leave
2. This is the best deal we can negotiate
3. Do you want to accept it or not?

The idea of polling between two options when a third polls twice as well as either is a democratic monstrosity.

And wouldnot get parliamentary support.

As far as I can see, Mays Plan B is to meet with opposition party leaders and to ignore what they say.

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

I've been looking at a Facebook page from a strong Leave area. There are quite a few Leave posts, and many off them seem to blame the EU for all our nation's ills. The idea of 'control from Brussels' in all aspects of life seems to have become ingrained, with the result that 'taking back control' was very powerful indeed.
I'm wondering if, when we leave, and life does get worse, whether people who think like that will become very angry.

That, of course, assumes that Project Fear is at least half-right.

Didn't seem to bother the Irish after 1922 (and I mean that seriously). The mere act of leaving and slapping every politician and Eurocrat square in the kisser really hard will probably be sufficiently cathartic for them.

I think that’s right. Death Cult Leave will take any hit just to leave the EU. The original nominal reason for wanting to do so has long since been forgotten and only the hoped-for emotional satisfaction remains salient.

Watching the Venezuela documentary on BBC2 last night, I was struck by how similar in character Chavez was to Trump. Jezza appeared briefly eulogising Chavez at his funeral. Poor old Maduro looked to be inheriting the mess without the any of the luck.

America looks to be more able to withstand a barmy President now and again. Hopefully if Corbyn gets to the top, we'll be more durable too.

OldKingCole said:

You are the historian, with access to more info. than me, but I seem to recall that after independence the Irish embarked on a short but bloody Civil War of their own.

And before. Don't forget before.

But I was thinking more that poverty, emigration, industrial underdevelopment and the decline of the Irish language all remained features of life under Cosgrave, de Valera and indeed Costello despite everyone being told these were due to previous British government policies.

eek said:

When Ireland left the Irish voted in a whole new Government. When we leave the EU our government will remain the same and the Government will no longer have anyone they can pin the blame onto.

And there does seem to be a lot of untrue stories about the EU going round. There is one going around Redcar that seems to pin every factory closure on the EU paying companies to leave the UK and move to somewhere in Eastern Europe or Malaysia (for Dyson) instead.

Other way around. First they voted in a new government, which declared independence, then that caused a war, then there was a civil war, then Cosgrave had considerable trouble setting up a democratic system, then finally by about 1932 Ireland had a functioning democracy.

As for your second point, when were there not?

FF43 said:

MarqueeMark said:

As I predicted a while back, the papers today going for Corbyn, painting him as the Brexit roadblock.....

He's in some real trouble when this catches hold with the public.

Mrs May seems very keen to lay the blame for the Brexit fiasco on Corbyn. Keener on that than finding a solution.

Quite difficult with ERG loons and Jezza blocking everything.

ydoethur said:

FF43 said:

MarqueeMark said:

As I predicted a while back, the papers today going for Corbyn, painting him as the Brexit roadblock.....

He's in some real trouble when this catches hold with the public.

Mrs May seems very keen to lay the blame for the Brexit fiasco on Corbyn. Keener on that than finding a solution.

Well, in fairness she has a pretty good solution. It's just our MPs are so thick they can't understand it and are holding on to their unattainable Precious instead.

It will not be May's fault when we leave with no deal. It will be the fault of those who voted it down of whom the Jezaster is the most prominent. She should go, for other reasons, but Parliament itself owns this fiasco fairly and squarely.

I disagree with you on that because in my view the Withdrawal Agreement isn't what you think it is. It is an agreement on the terms of leaving with some long term implications. It comes with an obfuscating statement on the future arrangement where neither side has an interest at this time in highlighting the trade offs that will have to be painfully negotiated (accepted) in the years ahead. While I personally think Olly Robbins has done a decent job in difficult circumstances, I also think it legitimate to want things not to degrade significantly in practice from the status quo or to insist that Brexit does mean more control in some meaningful way. The Withdrawal Agreement delivers on neither.

YBarddCwsc said:

eek said:

And there does seem to be a lot of untrue stories about the EU going round. There is one going around Redcar that seems to pin every factory closure on the EU paying companies to leave the UK and move to somewhere in Eastern Europe or Malaysia (for Dyson) instead.

Gosh ... all untrue. You must tell the FT. (Link is behind paywall)

https://www.ft.com/content/74ab02a6-fd85-11df-a049-00144feab49a

Here, is one example from the FT (who give plenty more)

"In the UK, the plan by Twinings, the tea company owned by Associated British Foods, to make nearly 400 workers redundant within the next year has caused outrage as it became apparent that it had been granted subsidies of about €12m through the European regional development fund in Poland, to where it is moving some of the work."

Fake news

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/england-2014-to-2020-european-structural-and-investment-funds

ydoethur said:

OldKingCole said:

I've been looking at a Facebook page from a strong Leave area. There are quite a few Leave posts, and many off them seem to blame the EU for all our nation's ills. The idea of 'control from Brussels' in all aspects of life seems to have become ingrained, with the result that 'taking back control' was very powerful indeed.
I'm wondering if, when we leave, and life does get worse, whether people who think like that will become very angry.

That, of course, assumes that Project Fear is at least half-right.

Didn't seem to bother the Irish after 1922 (and I mean that seriously). The mere act of leaving and slapping every politician and Eurocrat square in the kisser really hard will probably be sufficiently cathartic for them.

I think i agree with you on this, though. I don't aspire to be Ireland post independence however. We should do better than that and up to now we have done.

CD13 said:

Watching the Venezuela documentary on BBC2 last night, I was struck by how similar in character Chavez was to Trump. Jezza appeared briefly eulogising Chavez at his funeral. Poor old Maduro looked to be inheriting the mess without the any of the luck.

America looks to be more able to withstand a barmy President now and again. Hopefully if Corbyn gets to the top, we'll be more durable too.

Our PM has way more power than an American president, who is hemmed in with checks and balances.

dots said:

MarqueeMark said:

As I predicted a while back, the papers today going for Corbyn, painting him as the Brexit roadblock.....

He's in some real trouble when this catches hold with the public.

“Corb the blocker” “corbyn” the wrecker” could gain traction with the public and put pressure on him. But is it actually true, and offers a way out of this crisis, or spin that just perpetuates crisis?

What do you think Mark, do you believe party politics is the cause of this gridlock?

I believe that many politicians have convinced themselves that No Deal is a wretched outcome - for both this country and the EU. It's probably over-done, because of the self-reinforcing spiral of doom that the media has run with. But if it is even half as bad as they think, they should have switched off No Deal's life-support by backing May's Deal. That they haven't tells me their instincts to try and (i) Remain or if not (ii) pin Hard Brexit on the Tories outweigh their desire to Do What Is Right. So yes, personal outrage at the Brexit decison is being given cover by party politics.

The ERG faction have been dumb in not taking what is on offer. But thy are not even one-eighth of our MPs. They are a side-show.

ydoethur said:

FF43 said:

I disagree with you on that because in my view the Withdrawal Agreement isn't what you think it is. It is an agreement on the terms of leaving with some long term implications. It comes with an obfuscating statement on the future arrangement where neither side has an interest at this time in highlighting the trade offs that will have to be painfully negotiated (accepted) in the years ahead. While I personally think Olly Robbins has done a decent job in difficult circumstances, I also think it legitimate to want things not to degrade significantly in practice from the status quo or to insist that Brexit does mean more control in some meaningful way. The Withdrawal Agreement delivers on neither.

How do you know what I think the Withdrawal Agreement is? Do you have telepathic powers?

But to help you, it is a document that lays out in a fair amount of detail albeit not comprehensively how Britain will almost entirely cease to be part of the political and judicial structures of the EU while maintaining the majority of the tangible economic benefits. I never thought the EU would agree that, but they have. If the backstop comes into play, ironically we would keep pretty much all the economic benefits which is something the EU have yet to notice. This is the danger if you have the likes of Barnier and Selmayr - arrogant but not intelligent or well-informed - and Juncker - mostly drunk - on your team. Must have been frustrating for poor Sabine Weyand.

This is why it remains astonishing that it isn't more popular. However, people are running around shrieking about the views of often spectacularly ill-informed commentators, the majority of whom admit to not having read it, rather than coming to a reasoned judgement.

It is not perfect, but it is far better than full Leave and in many crucial ways better than Remain. It turns us from a half-hearted member causing chaos and getting miserably and reluctantly dragged along into a proper associate member, with decent economic access.

So I am frustrated that our MPs can't see this.

Have a good morning.

The Leave MPs were so quick off the mark trashing the agreement that it is almost as if they had already decided to oppose whatever Mrs M came back with and simply gave it a scan to come up with a few justifications.

It’s worrying that people are still pushing the deal. It’s almost as if the biggest defeat in history did not happen. Let it go.

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

FF43 said:

I disagree with you on that because in my view the Withdrawal Agreement isn't what you think it is. It is an agreement on the terms of leaving with some long term implications. It comes with an obfuscating statement on the future arrangement where neither side has an interest at this time in highlighting the trade offs that will have to be painfully negotiated (accepted) in the years ahead. While I personally think Olly Robbins has done a decent job in difficult circumstances, I also think it legitimate to want things not to degrade significantly in practice from the status quo or to insist that Brexit does mean more control in some meaningful way. The Withdrawal Agreement delivers on neither.

How do you know what I think the Withdrawal Agreement is? Do you have telepathic powers?

But to help you, it is a document that lays out in a fair amount of detail albeit not comprehensively how Britain will almost entirely cease to be part of the political and judicial structures of the EU while maintaining the majority of the tangible economic benefits. I never thought the EU would agree that, but they have. If the backstop comes into play, ironically we would keep pretty much all the economic benefits which is something the EU have yet to notice. This is the danger if you have the likes of Barnier and Selmayr - arrogant but not intelligent or well-informed - and Juncker - mostly drunk - on your team. Must have been frustrating for poor Sabine Weyand.

This is why it remains astonishing that it isn't more popular. However, people are running around shrieking about the views of often spectacularly ill-informed commentators, the majority of whom admit to not having read it, rather than coming to a reasoned judgement.

It is not perfect, but it is far better than full Leave and in many crucial ways better than Remain. It turns us from a half-hearted member causing chaos and getting miserably and reluctantly dragged along into a proper associate member, with decent economic access.

So I am frustrated that our MPs can't see this.

Have a good morning.

The Leave MPs were so quick off the mark trashing the agreement that it is almost as if they had already decided to oppose whatever Mrs M came back with and simply gave it a scan to come up with a few justifications.

Ditto Remain MPs.....

"Election Maps UK
‏@ElectionMapsUK

Westminster Voting Intention:

CON: 39 (-2)
LAB: 34 (-1)
LDM: 11 (=)

Via @YouGov, 11-12 Jan,
Changes w/ 6-7 Jan."

I very much agree with those downthread who state that the effects of deal, no deal and remain are all massively overstated. My principal concern with no deal is not any short term disruption, which I think will be absolutely minimal, but our longer term relationship with the EU. We want, in employment terms, to be good leavers not bad leavers. Bad leavers usually lose rights and opportunities that good leavers get to keep.

May's deal only deals with goods. This is quite bizarre for an economy which is 80% services but that is where we are. Once we leave we will need to negotiate service access which is a question of regulatory equivalence. There are work arounds, such as the Dublin plates again referred to down thread but regulatory equivalence for services is the absolute key of the transitional period. I just don't see us getting that if we do not have an agreed deal with the EU.

My further and increasing concern is that this incompetent government has not got the statutory framework in place for either deal or no deal. Given we have had 2 years this is pretty inexcusable. I can see the argument that we want to know what the deal was before the legislation was finalised but it would hardly be the first time we had legislation passed that didn't come into force.

To take a simple example I am going to spend most of today considering whether I can sequestrate an EU national with assets in Scotland on the back of Dutch decrees when he is now allegedly resident elsewhere in the EU. At the moment we have the Brussels regulation and various regulations concerning insolvency which create a largely common rule book. What would be the position if we don't get this done by 30th March? The legislation in place provides that EU law effectively becomes our law on departure but that does not come close to addressing the problem because these laws are not domestic, they have international application. For them to work we not only need to provide that the Brussels regulation applies here but that it continues to apply to us from an EU perspective. Since the mutual enforcement of decrees is built on the idea that we are a MS I am really not sure how that is going to work unless the EU agrees it does which so far they haven't. Hopefully I will have a slightly better idea by 5.00pm!

AndyJS said:

"Election Maps UK
‏@ElectionMapsUK

Westminster Voting Intention:

CON: 39 (-2)
LAB: 34 (-1)
LDM: 11 (=)

Via @YouGov, 11-12 Jan,
Changes w/ 6-7 Jan."

That must deliver some chunky Tory gains off Labour? (Especially as UKIP (what % are they on?) won't have more than a handful of candidates and the Tory vote will get more of their second preferences than Labour....)

MarqueeMark said:

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

FF43 said:

I disagree with you on that because in my view the Withdrawal Agreement isn't what you think it is. It is an agreement on the terms of leaving with some long term implications. It comes with an obfuscating statement on the future arrangement where neither side has an interest at this time in highlighting the trade offs that will have to be painfully negotiated (accepted) in the years ahead. While I personally think Olly Robbins has done a decent job in difficult circumstances, I also think it legitimate to want things not to degrade significantly in practice from the status quo or to insist that Brexit does mean more control in some meaningful way. The Withdrawal Agreement delivers on neither.

How do you know what I think the Withdrawal Agreement is? Do you have telepathic powers?

But to help you, it is a document that lays out in a fair amount of detail albeit not comprehensively how Britain will almost entirely cease to be part of the political and judicial structures of the EU while maintaining the majority of the tangible economic benefits. I never thought the EU would agree that, but they have. If the backstop comes into play, ironically we would keep pretty much all the economic benefits which is something the EU have yet to notice. This is the danger if you have the likes of Barnier and Selmayr - arrogant but not intelligent or well-informed - and Juncker - mostly drunk - on your team. Must have been frustrating for poor Sabine Weyand.

This is why it remains astonishing that it isn't more popular. However, people are running around shrieking about the views of often spectacularly ill-informed commentators, the majority of whom admit to not having read it, rather than coming to a reasoned judgement.

It is not perfect, but it is far better than full Leave and in many crucial ways better than Remain. It turns us from a half-hearted member causing chaos and getting miserably and reluctantly dragged along into a proper associate member, with decent economic access.

So I am frustrated that our MPs can't see this.

Have a good morning.

The Leave MPs were so quick off the mark trashing the agreement that it is almost as if they had already decided to oppose whatever Mrs M came back with and simply gave it a scan to come up with a few justifications.

Ditto Remain MPs.....

If you don't want to leave, then of course. If you want Brexit, it's not so bright.

DavidL said:

I very much agree with those downthread who state that the effects of deal, no deal and remain are all massively overstated. My principal concern with no deal is not any short term disruption, which I think will be absolutely minimal, but our longer term relationship with the EU. We want, in employment terms, to be good leavers not bad leavers. Bad leavers usually lose rights and opportunities that good leavers get to keep.

May's deal only deals with goods. This is quite bizarre for an economy which is 80% services but that is where we are. Once we leave we will need to negotiate service access which is a question of regulatory equivalence. There are work arounds, such as the Dublin plates again referred to down thread but regulatory equivalence for services is the absolute key of the transitional period. I just don't see us getting that if we do not have an agreed deal with the EU.

My further and increasing concern is that this incompetent government has not got the statutory framework in place for either deal or no deal. Given we have had 2 years this is pretty inexcusable. I can see the argument that we want to know what the deal was before the legislation was finalised but it would hardly be the first time we had legislation passed that didn't come into force.

To take a simple example I am going to spend most of today considering whether I can sequestrate an EU national with assets in Scotland on the back of Dutch decrees when he is now allegedly resident elsewhere in the EU. At the moment we have the Brussels regulation and various regulations concerning insolvency which create a largely common rule book. What would be the position if we don't get this done by 30th March? The legislation in place provides that EU law effectively becomes our law on departure but that does not come close to addressing the problem because these laws are not domestic, they have international application. For them to work we not only need to provide that the Brussels regulation applies here but that it continues to apply to us from an EU perspective. Since the mutual enforcement of decrees is built on the idea that we are a MS I am really not sure how that is going to work unless the EU agrees it does which so far they haven't. Hopefully I will have a slightly better idea by 5.00pm!

No Deal is viable if we expect to have no arrangements with the EU on anything at all, ever. Otherwise it isn't. The same issues will come up as at present, but in the context of no transition and very significant economic dislocation. It's grim.

The transition period however is the Brexiteer's bestest bestest friend. It allows the UK to definitively leave the EU and people to think (for a while at least) that nothing has changed.

We all keep attacking our politicians with great justification but also the media deserve as much flak

This morning Sky interviewed Brandon Lewis and effectively said that now the PM has had meetings with other party leaders what has been agreed and what will she be saying on monday.

This is simply pathetic and indicates how synthetic journalists/ presenters are in dealing with this huge issue

MarqueeMark said:

AndyJS said:

"Election Maps UK
‏@ElectionMapsUK

Westminster Voting Intention:

CON: 39 (-2)
LAB: 34 (-1)
LDM: 11 (=)

Via @YouGov, 11-12 Jan,
Changes w/ 6-7 Jan."

That must deliver some chunky Tory gains off Labour? (Especially as UKIP (what % are they on?) won't have more than a handful of candidates and the Tory vote will get more of their second preferences than Labour....)

Mmm. Clearly May should call an election, then. It's nbot as though any other polling institutes were showing anything differen.

https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1085818307331026944

After the worst performance by a government and PM in living memory what is to-day's top story? Corbyn refusing to enter discussions. Who could have guessed?

We've almost certainly got the worst PM most of us can remember but to have the worst leader of the opposition at the same time is surely unique.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1085816103614332930

That's probably helpful to Jezza.

Streeter said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Streeter said:

YBarddCwsc said:

eek said:

And there does seem to be a lot of untrue stories about the EU going round. There is one going around Redcar that seems to pin every factory closure on the EU paying companies to leave the UK and move to somewhere in Eastern Europe or Malaysia (for Dyson) instead.

Gosh ... all untrue. You must tell the FT. (Link is behind paywall)

https://www.ft.com/content/74ab02a6-fd85-11df-a049-00144feab49a

Here, is one example from the FT (who give plenty more)

"In the UK, the plan by Twinings, the tea company owned by Associated British Foods, to make nearly 400 workers redundant within the next year has caused outrage as it became apparent that it had been granted subsidies of about €12m through the European regional development fund in Poland, to where it is moving some of the work."

Fake news

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/england-2014-to-2020-european-structural-and-investment-funds

Report it to the Financial Times then, who give ample examples not just from the UK, but from France & Germany & Scandinavia.

The FT is hardly known for being the Daily UKIP.

I trust them more than a poster with no track record emerging from the Mists.

It’s Government information, not mine.

Thanks for the friendly welcome.

Shows you've immediately become one of the gang!

Welcome.

Jonathan said:

MarqueeMark said:

AndyJS said:

MarqueeMark said:

AndyJS said:

"Election Maps UK
‏@ElectionMapsUK

Westminster Voting Intention:

CON: 39 (-2)
LAB: 34 (-1)
LDM: 11 (=)

Via @YouGov, 11-12 Jan,
Changes w/ 6-7 Jan."

That must deliver some chunky Tory gains off Labour? (Especially as UKIP (what % are they on?) won't have more than a handful of candidates and the Tory vote will get more of their second preferences than Labour....)

ElectoralCalculus gives Con 329, Lab 238, LD 20, SNP 41.

About that General Election you so desperately want, Mr Corbyn.....

Careful. You could have said that last time.

Corbyn is just SO 2017.......

YBarddCwsc said:

Streeter said:

YBarddCwsc said:

Streeter said:

YBarddCwsc said:

eek said:

And there does seem to be a lot of untrue stories about the EU going round. There is one going around Redcar that seems to pin every factory closure on the EU paying companies to leave the UK and move to somewhere in Eastern Europe or Malaysia (for Dyson) instead.

Gosh ... all untrue. You must tell the FT. (Link is behind paywall)

https://www.ft.com/content/74ab02a6-fd85-11df-a049-00144feab49a

Here, is one example from the FT (who give plenty more)

"In the UK, the plan by Twinings, the tea company owned by Associated British Foods, to make nearly 400 workers redundant within the next year has caused outrage as it became apparent that it had been granted subsidies of about €12m through the European regional development fund in Poland, to where it is moving some of the work."

Fake news

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/england-2014-to-2020-european-structural-and-investment-funds

Report it to the Financial Times then, who give ample examples not just from the UK, but from France & Germany & Scandinavia.

The FT is hardly known for being the Daily UKIP.

I trust them more than a poster with no track record emerging from the Mists.

It’s Government information, not mine.

Thanks for the friendly welcome.

The FT provide not just one but over twenty examples. It is not UK specific, the FT provides examples of firms relocating from Germany, France, Scandinavia and the Uk to Eastern Europe and taking advantage of EU structural funds to do so.

The article dates from 2010 and is from a journalist in London and a journalist in Stockholm. It is well-researched,

The FT is strongly Europhile -- it will have no interest in peddling "fake news" (as you put it) that is Eurosceptic.

If you bothered to read the article -- which you haven't -- it explains that "despite specific rules designed to prevent taxpayer subsidies from going to corporations moving plants in search of cheaper labour", nonetheless there are plenty of ways to circumvent the rules.

You are obviously one of these people who believe for everyone to be happy, all that needs to happen is that the EU passes a Happiness Act, and then creates a webpage saying Happiness for All.

Then, when someone points out that there is real unhappiness in the world, you link to the webpage and wail it can't be so, we have the Happiness Act.

There’s no proof that not being in the EU and/or the funds not being provided wouldn’t have led to these companies taking the same decision anyway.

https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1085822286026981376

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1085815281237282817

notme2 said:

tlg86 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1085816103614332930

That's probably helpful to Jezza.

When polling has been done, hasn’t Tony Blair generally been seen fairly favourable by the general public (though not the membership)?

My other half, who is certainly nowhere near as interested in politics as I am, unprompted said this morning that what we need right now is Tony Blair, and went on to say that Gordon Brown and Ed Milliband would have been better.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1085815281237282817

Classic Gove - it was a very good student union speech - but did fail utterly to take into account the government and country's strategic position.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1085815281237282817

Is Gove now de facto Mr Brexit in the Cabinet?

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1085815281237282817

I’d get Greggs to cater any meeting with vegan sausage rolls! Chance to taste the zeitgeist

There is clearly truth in the FT article. Most people who are not in favour of the madness known as Brexit don't pretend the EU system is perfect, far from it. The reality is, that post Brexit this sort of practice will become much more prevalent. "Come to (put in EU member state name) and receive generous assistance, AND have unrestricted access to the single market." Any current UK based business or US subsidiary that has shareholders will be obliged to consider, particularly when the statutory redundancy costs in this country are so low.

Anyone who thinks Brexit Britain will come out best in business battles with a block the size of the EU27 either knows nothing about business, is stupid or a liar, or all three (Boris?).

Dura_Ace said:

dots said:

MarqueeMark said:

As I predicted a while back, the papers today going for Corbyn, painting him as the Brexit roadblock.....

He's in some real trouble when this catches hold with the public.

“Corb the blocker” “corbyn” the wrecker” could gain traction with the public and put pressure on him. But is it actually true, and offers a way out of this crisis, or spin that just perpetuates crisis?

What do you think Mark, do you believe party politics is the cause of this gridlock?

If the government can't get their program through the HoC then it's not the LotO's fault...

I agree... and until last night I thought he was safe sitting back with the popcorn.

But I suspect putting pre-conditions on talks wasn't a very classy look for most casual bystanders - especially when the answer is "durr thickie.. I need the HoC to vote for something else in order to rule out No Deal".

I don't really understand why he doesn't turn up for talks and look like he's helping. JC really has no concept about winning the middle ground (hence the poll figures)

Morris_Dancer said:

It's irrational to oppose May's deal, and oppose no deal, and not have a plausible alternative proposal.

One might like or dislike May's deal, or no deal, but they're plausible outcomes. Being against everything with nothing to propose as an alternative is demented.

It is irrational for an intelligent person like yourself to favour Brexit, but doesn't seem to have stopped you

not_on_fire said:

MarqueeMark said:

Can anyone explain to me why Customs Union is the ditch Labour wants to die in? (Apart, obviously, from having to find SOMETHING to place themselves from May's Deal being acceptable.)

Can anyone explain why No-Deal Brexit is the Tories’ ditch?

No Deal still has leverage against the EU. Much as (most of us) don't really want it, we know they don't either. You don't give that up, just to have Magic Grandpa pop round for tea.

Roger said:

After the worst performance by a government and PM in living memory what is to-day's top story? Corbyn refusing to enter discussions. Who could have guessed?

We've almost certainly got the worst PM most of us can remember but to have the worst leader of the opposition at the same time is surely unique.

nah youre in France where its Macron versus LePen.

Lis les journaux Roger

Why won't Tories accept a Customs Union, if it seems the way out of this impasse and allows a deal to leave the EU to be passed?

Is there any reason why they could not include withdrawal from that Customs Union, in a future GE manifesto and, if elected, enact that without the need for any future referendum on it?

MarqueeMark said:

As I predicted a while back, the papers today going for Corbyn, painting him as the Brexit roadblock.....

He's in some real trouble when this catches hold with the public.

Corbyn's will be in real trouble you say?

I'm sure I've heard that before.

A lot of times.

BudG said:

Why won't Tories accept a Customs Union, if it seems the way out of this impasse and allows a deal to leave the EU to be passed?

Is there any reason why they could not include withdrawal from that Customs Union, in a future GE manifesto and, if elected, enact that without the need for any future referendum on it?

Some will but it takes away a central plank of their stated reason to leave, namely to be able to forge bold and innovative trade deals on our own (obvs no one seems to want to forge a bold and innovative trade deal with the EU but I digress).

OldKingCole said:

I've been looking at a Facebook page from a strong Leave area. There are quite a few Leave posts, and many off them seem to blame the EU for all our nation's ills. The idea of 'control from Brussels' in all aspects of life seems to have become ingrained, with the result that 'taking back control' was very powerful indeed.
I'm wondering if, when we leave, and life does get worse, whether people who think like that will become very angry.

That, of course, assumes that Project Fear is at least half-right.

A lot of them already seem very angry. I think very, very, red faced, seizure inducing angry would be the next stage.

notme2 said:

BudG said:

Why won't Tories accept a Customs Union, if it seems the way out of this impasse and allows a deal to leave the EU to be passed?

Is there any reason why they could not include withdrawal from that Customs Union, in a future GE manifesto and, if elected, enact that without the need for any future referendum on it?

A CU takes away some of the advantages of been an independent state outside of the EU. Of course it comes with its own advantages, but not an independent trade policy.

I understand that, but accepting it now, could be the first part of a two step process, as suggested in my second paragraph, which could see the Tories arrive at their desired outcome as early as the next GE.

Slackbladder said:

BudG said:

Why won't Tories accept a Customs Union, if it seems the way out of this impasse and allows a deal to leave the EU to be passed?

Is there any reason why they could not include withdrawal from that Customs Union, in a future GE manifesto and, if elected, enact that without the need for any future referendum on it?

Because of the unicorn of 'trade deals' with the rest of the world.

The way forward is clear. Be part of the trading bloc which provides so many benefits, but be seperate from the political and economic union.

This has always seemed common sense to me.

The country is split down the middle if you just ask an "In/Out" question. But I suspect there would be clear majorities to be Out of the political structures but In the common market.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/BBCr4today/status/1085822286026981376

Listening to Blair this morning I did think tha May could offer a further referendum between Norway option and Canada option. This would be a People’s vote therefore spiking the argument that people won’t get a say but would respect the vote.

DavidL said:

I very much agree with those downthread who state that the effects of deal, no deal and remain are all massively overstated. My principal concern with no deal is not any short term disruption, which I think will be absolutely minimal, but our longer term relationship with the EU. We want, in employment terms, to be good leavers not bad leavers. Bad leavers usually lose rights and opportunities that good leavers get to keep.

May's deal only deals with goods. This is quite bizarre for an economy which is 80% services but that is where we are. Once we leave we will need to negotiate service access which is a question of regulatory equivalence. There are work arounds, such as the Dublin plates again referred to down thread but regulatory equivalence for services is the absolute key of the transitional period. I just don't see us getting that if we do not have an agreed deal with the EU.

My further and increasing concern is that this incompetent government has not got the statutory framework in place for either deal or no deal. Given we have had 2 years this is pretty inexcusable. I can see the argument that we want to know what the deal was before the legislation was finalised but it would hardly be the first time we had legislation passed that didn't come into force.

To take a simple example I am going to spend most of today considering whether I can sequestrate an EU national with assets in Scotland on the back of Dutch decrees when he is now allegedly resident elsewhere in the EU. At the moment we have the Brussels regulation and various regulations concerning insolvency which create a largely common rule book. What would be the position if we don't get this done by 30th March? The legislation in place provides that EU law effectively becomes our law on departure but that does not come close to addressing the problem because these laws are not domestic, they have international application. For them to work we not only need to provide that the Brussels regulation applies here but that it continues to apply to us from an EU perspective. Since the mutual enforcement of decrees is built on the idea that we are a MS I am really not sure how that is going to work unless the EU agrees it does which so far they haven't. Hopefully I will have a slightly better idea by 5.00pm!

In most companies I have had dealings with the mere fact of you resigning is enough to class you as a bad leaver. Effectively the only ways to be a good leaver is through retirement or redundancy. I suspect the EU will regard the UK in the same way.

IanB2 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1085815281237282817

Classic Gove - it was a very good student union speech - but did fail utterly to take into account the government and country's strategic position.

Hardly.
It was in the context of a confidence debate, in which both sides were slinging crap at each other. Not edifying in the least, but not exactly surprising, either.

Sure, he's essentially defending the indefensible - but equally, Corbyn proponents are in a position of proposing the indefensible.

Talking of which, last night's BBC documentary on Chavez is worth a look:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0byvs08/revolution-in-ruins-the-hugo-chavez-story

BudG said:

Why won't Tories accept a Customs Union, if it seems the way out of this impasse and allows a deal to leave the EU to be passed?

Is there any reason why they could not include withdrawal from that Customs Union, in a future GE manifesto and, if elected, enact that without the need for any future referendum on it?

Danny Finkelstein had an article about group think behaviour and work of psychologists in this area. He argues the Brexiteers have spent so long echoing each other, and demanding more and more purity from each other, that they have lost complete sight of an achievable goal.