politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay’s problem is that the vast majority of voters, including

The Eu should start trolling by offering to remove the backstop in exchange for something even more hateful.

HYUFD said:

3 Labour MPs voted for No Deal, Hoey, Stringer and Hepburn and Independent ex Labour MPs Field and Hopkins.

17 Tories though voted for the Spelman amendment against No Deal

https://twitter.com/isaby/status/1090351153873866752?s=20

Phew! I was getting a bit worried for a moment.

Charles said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Commons in student union mode tonight, voting against bad stuff, but not voting to do anything about it.

I think that's very unfair. Aberystwyth Students' Union did pass one good law, back in 1967.

In 1996 they voted to ban KitKats from being sold in the Union’s shop. That takes some beating.

Powdered milk i assume?

Indeed.

My first introduction to petty student politics.

I always felt sorry for Nestle - it wasn’t their fault the water was contaminated

It was their fault for everything else though.

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

OblitusSumMe said:

Commons in student union mode tonight, voting against bad stuff, but not voting to do anything about it.

I think that's very unfair. Aberystwyth Students' Union did pass one good law, back in 1967.

In 1996 they voted to ban KitKats from being sold in the Union’s shop. That takes some beating.

Powdered milk i assume?

Indeed.

My first introduction to petty student politics.

Though banning kitkats from the Union shop is actually more consequential than voting against no-deal in principle, but not for a mechanism to avoid no-deal.

El_Capitano said:

Charles said:

Anorak said:

El_Capitano said:

Frankly I hope Europe tells “us” to piss off.

I'm up for starting a remainer enclave in Brittany. Any takers? We'll secede from the UK as soon as poss, natch.

Umm Brittany hasn’t been affiliated to Britain for a while now?

Can you blame them?

We should charge royalties on the brand at least...

YBarddCwsc said:

Charles said:

Anorak said:

El_Capitano said:

Frankly I hope Europe tells “us” to piss off.

I'm up for starting a remainer enclave in Brittany. Any takers? We'll secede from the UK as soon as poss, natch.

Umm Brittany hasn’t been affiliated to Britain for a while now?

Brittany is the only example of a successful Welsh colony.

And interestingly ancient historians are beginning to question that hypothesis. Perhaps celts spread up from Iberia by sea.

What does a backstop stop if a backstop stops?

What on Earth happened to Yvette? Two hours ago she was replacing Jezza as LOTO.

Now she's going back to her 70% LEAVE backing constituency in defeat?

Jonathan said:

What does a backstop stop if a backstop stops?

How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?

alex. said:

Just on a point of order. The EU are in unison saying that the Withdrawal agreement cannot be re-opened. Two days ago they were saying that the backstop could only be removed if the UK moved towards accepting a permanent customs union. So which is it?

They never said the backstop could be removed, but Juncker suggested it could be changed back to the EU's original NI-only version before May renegotiated it to be UK-wide.

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Terrible day for Theresa. The humiliation of grovelling to the EU for a second chance in the fully knowledge that it's already doomed will be agonizing. When will Boris start measuring up the Number Ten curtains?

A good day for May actually as Parliament has voted down Grieve's amendment for any alternative Brexit proposals or potentially EU ref2, as well as voting down Cooper's amendment to extend Article 50 while voting for Spelman's amendment rejecting No Deal.

That leaves May's Deal as the only solution still left, if Brady's no backstop amendment is rejected that will prove the best way to avoid No Deal is to back May's Deal as stands

And the Tories split. From here it’s that or No Deal.

They won't split, unless a new centrist party is formed or Brexit is revoked without a referendum, however 17 Tory MPs voted against No Deal but only 3 Labour MPs for No Deal suggesting anything could be on the table if May's Deal continues to be rejected

They have to split - either formally or, more likely, become two parties in one. It’s that or No Deal.

http://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1090355466859876352

Who of those would actually leave the Conservatives? Soubry, Allen, Wollaston, Sandbach maybe. That’s not a split, that’s a couple of defections.

MarqueeMark said:

viewcode said:

MarqueeMark said:

So Brussels - how is that No Deal Brexit looking down your end of the telescope?

I assume they will deal with it in the same way as they have dealt with every other UK proposal since Cameron's renegotiation: bemusement followed by refusal. Are you expecting something different?

Frankly, yes. Past forms says something will happen in the final 48 hours of dealing with the EU. That needs No Deal still to be on the table - tick. Irish panicking - tick. Other heads of EU countries wondering "is it worth dying in a ditch for the backstop?" - tick.

Having to be anxious when travelling on the tube again - tick

williamglenn said:

alex. said:

Just on a point of order. The EU are in unison saying that the Withdrawal agreement cannot be re-opened. Two days ago they were saying that the backstop could only be removed if the UK moved towards accepting a permanent customs union. So which is it?

They never said the backstop could be removed, but Juncker suggested it could be changed back to the EU's original NI-only version before May renegotiated it to be UK-wide.

Because the DUP would love that.

So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.

The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.

The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.

And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.

solarflare said:

The Eu should start trolling by offering to remove the backstop in exchange for something even more hateful.

It won't be trolling. It would be the obvious move for any negotiation.
Have yet to hear a single specific thing we would be willing to trade for the backstops removal.
Has anyone heard a single politician even accept that it would need to be a trade off?

https://twitter.com/AlbertoNardelli/status/1090357864668061696

WHat is Soames/Freeman's game - voting for Cooper but not with Spelman ?!

dixiedean said:

solarflare said:

The Eu should start trolling by offering to remove the backstop in exchange for something even more hateful.

It won't be trolling. It would be the obvious move for any negotiation.
Have yet to hear a single specific thing we would be willing to trade for the backstops removal.
Has anyone heard a single politician even accept that it would need to be a trade off?

Maybe the EU can measure our desire to rid ourselves of the backstop in billions of pounds sterling.

williamglenn said:

viewcode said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Jonathan said:

What does a backstop stop if a backstop stops?

How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?

Merzy totes and dozy dotes and liddle lambs i tivey, a kiddle i tivey too, wouldn't you.

If the words sound queer and funny to your ear.
A little bit jumbled and jivey...

solarflare said:

dixiedean said:

solarflare said:

The Eu should start trolling by offering to remove the backstop in exchange for something even more hateful.

It won't be trolling. It would be the obvious move for any negotiation.
Have yet to hear a single specific thing we would be willing to trade for the backstops removal.
Has anyone heard a single politician even accept that it would need to be a trade off?

Maybe the EU can measure our desire to rid ourselves of the backstop in billions of pounds sterling.

Tbh, if they put a monetary value on it then it's somewhere to start.

Concanvasser said:

You are seeing right in terms of your last para imho.

Mrs May is seen by a sizeable part of the public to have gone above and beyond in trying to get her deal through. It is now the EU that will be seen by many of those people as having rejected that deal not a large part of the parliamentary Conservative party, egged on by an overwhelming part of the membership. She is putting the Conservative party in a position to fight a GE.

A lot will depend on what comes out of the wash in the next few days as I suspect there are a lot of stories to be told about what has happened and why it has happened.

IF we leave and disruption follows, then I presume you and May will go round the country telling everyone it's all the fault of "Europe" and all would have been fine if the WA had been passed - had it not been for over 100 Conservatives plus the DUP it would have been.

Chris_A said:

MarqueeMark said:

viewcode said:

MarqueeMark said:

So Brussels - how is that No Deal Brexit looking down your end of the telescope?

I assume they will deal with it in the same way as they have dealt with every other UK proposal since Cameron's renegotiation: bemusement followed by refusal. Are you expecting something different?

Frankly, yes. Past forms says something will happen in the final 48 hours of dealing with the EU. That needs No Deal still to be on the table - tick. Irish panicking - tick. Other heads of EU countries wondering "is it worth dying in a ditch for the backstop?" - tick.

Having to be anxious when travelling on the tube again - tick

Remind me what the terrorist threat level is again?

https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1090357149698535424

Brave prediction.

stodge said:

Philip_Thompson said:

In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.

Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.

Either way: good.

How are the EU being intransigent? It's not their problem our Prime Minister can't get the deal she agreed to through her own Parliament.

No doubt we're going to be subjected to the usual anti-European vitriol from the usual suspects if we leave without a Deal in 60 or so days.

They're being intransigent in that because they have the upper hand they have more scope, politically, to be flexible, rather than insisting on something which might cause the thing they claim the backstop is needed to prevent. If the outcome is a hard brexit anyway what good was their principled stand to have a backstop to prevent a hard border in Ireland?

That said, they are not obliged to give in further, and even if they do it is not certain we'd get it through, since they could quite reasonably ask for a further concession from us in exchange, but the 'it's not their problem' line is still amazingly dumb - it is their problem if we cannot sort shit out, they have the power to influence it and so potentially avoid getting splash damage.

justin124 said:

If May now gets nothing in terms of changes to the WDA , can we expect Harrington, Rudd et al to resign in two weeks time?

The only story from tonight is that what should have happened tonight will now happen in two or three weeks' time.

Charles said:

Andy_Cooke said:

So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.

The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.

The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.

And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.

The issue is that - as drafted - the EU gets to decide when we can leave the backstop.

The issue is that - as drafted - the backstop doesn't simply protect the Good Friday Agreement on the island of Ireland, but constrains the whole of the UK. That was May's doing.

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kle4 said:

Brom said:

Tusk throwing a wobbly! Tough shit mate, its deal or no deal (although Merkel will tell Tusk exactly what he can and cant do).

They'll no deal. Unfortunate. But they are even more stubborn than we are, even to the point of causing what they claim not to want. Because they could reopen things if they wanted, everyone knows the EU loves last minute fudges. It's a choice not to.Perhaps reasonable, but their reasoning has been pretty weak, especially when they complain about it being agreed. It wasn't agreed by Parliament and they know that.

But at what point will MPs believe the EU? May told them they won't reopen things and they didn't believe it.

Why should we believe it? As you said these fudges always happen at the last minute so why should this time be any different?

If now is not the last minute when is?

Mid Feb, by the look of it.

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

Andy_Cooke said:

So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.

The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.

The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.

And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.

The issue is that - as drafted - the EU gets to decide when we can leave the backstop.

The issue is that - as drafted - the backstop doesn't simply protect the Good Friday Agreement on the island of Ireland, but constrains the whole of the UK. That was May's doing.

It does so to limit the differential between NI and the rest of the UK, which is primarily a Unionist concern because otherwise NI would be more closely aligned with ROI than rUK.

justin124 said:

If May now gets nothing in terms of changes to the WDA , can we expect Harrington, Rudd et al to resign in two weeks time?

The interesting thing is 17 Tory MPs defied the Government and voted to rule out No Deal, more than counterbalancing the 3 Labour MPs who voted for No Deal and giving a rejection of No Deal an 8 vote majority.

If May gets nothing from the EU as is likely and her Deal fails again there lies your potential majority for permanent Customs Union as the likes of Minister Margot James has suggested as an alternative this week or potentially even a successful VONC in the government and a forced general election as a last resort to stop No Deal

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1090351598252027904?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1090351598252027904&ref_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-47030804
Not that I disagree the government is chasing fairytales, but I dislike it when people only call it MPs asserting themselves when it is something in their favour against the government. MPs did assert themselves, in support of the government. Cannot say I think it a viable plan, but it was just as much parliament asserting itself as any other vote.

Parliament voted against No Deal, but has made it far, far more likely.
Is that a correct reading of tonight?
Glad I have the keys to a food bank.

stodge said:

Philip_Thompson said:

In which case the public will rightly blame EU intransigence for there being no deal. Good.

Or the EU sees sense and blinks. Good.

Either way: good.

How are the EU being intransigent? It's not their problem our Prime Minister can't get the deal she agreed to through her own Parliament.

No doubt we're going to be subjected to the usual anti-European vitriol from the usual suspects if we leave without a Deal in 60 or so days.

Of course it is. She should have refused to sign it but they knew full well it wasn't supported and she was saying so until she folded.

If we leave without a deal it will be because the EU have chosen not to compromise.

Charles said:

Andy_Cooke said:

So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.

The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.

The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.

And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.

The issue is that - as drafted - the EU gets to decide when we can leave the backstop.

I believed it was by both of us agreeing, was it not?

Floater said:

Chris_A said:

MarqueeMark said:

viewcode said:

MarqueeMark said:

So Brussels - how is that No Deal Brexit looking down your end of the telescope?

I assume they will deal with it in the same way as they have dealt with every other UK proposal since Cameron's renegotiation: bemusement followed by refusal. Are you expecting something different?

Frankly, yes. Past forms says something will happen in the final 48 hours of dealing with the EU. That needs No Deal still to be on the table - tick. Irish panicking - tick. Other heads of EU countries wondering "is it worth dying in a ditch for the backstop?" - tick.

Having to be anxious when travelling on the tube again - tick

Remind me what the terrorist threat level is again?

Not the highest. We have that to look forward to when the IRA reactivates.

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Terrible day for Theresa. The humiliation of grovelling to the EU for a second chance in the fully knowledge that it's already doomed will be agonizing. When will Boris start measuring up the Number Ten curtains?

A good day for May actually as Parliament has voted down Grieve's amendment for any alternative Brexit proposals or potentially EU ref2, as well as voting down Cooper's amendment to extend Article 50 while voting for Spelman's amendment rejecting No Deal.

That leaves May's Deal as the only solution still left, if Brady's no backstop amendment is rejected that will prove the best way to avoid No Deal is to back May's Deal as stands

And the Tories split. From here it’s that or No Deal.

They won't split, unless a new centrist party is formed or Brexit is revoked without a referendum, however 17 Tory MPs voted against No Deal but only 3 Labour MPs for No Deal suggesting anything could be on the table if May's Deal continues to be rejected

They have to split - either formally or, more likely, become two parties in one. It’s that or No Deal.

They may do all they can to stop No Deal, that does not mean they will split.

However if we do go to No Deal a new En Marche style party led by Unumma, Soubry and Moran is possible

https://twitter.com/jamiesusskind/status/1090151039293104129

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

If May now gets nothing in terms of changes to the WDA , can we expect Harrington, Rudd et al to resign in two weeks time?

The interesting thing is 17 Tory MPs defied the Government and voted to rule out No Deal, more than counterbalancing the 3 Labour MPs who voted for No Deal and giving a rejection of No Deal an 8 vote majority.

If May gets nothing from the EU as is likely and her Deal fails again there lies your potential majority for permanent Customs Union as the likes of Minister Margot James has suggested as an alternative this week or potentially even a successful VONC in the government and a forced general election as a last resort to stop No Deal

I don't think a permanent Customs Union is the alternative arrangement Brady had in mind. However, it is something that the EU ought to agree to and parliament should give a majority to. Jezza needs to tell Tezzie that it is the only way to get a deal.

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

If May now gets nothing in terms of changes to the WDA , can we expect Harrington, Rudd et al to resign in two weeks time?

The interesting thing is 17 Tory MPs defied the Government and voted to rule out No Deal, more than counterbalancing the 3 Labour MPs who voted for No Deal and giving a rejection of No Deal an 8 vote majority.

If May gets nothing from the EU as is likely and her Deal fails again there lies your potential majority for permanent Customs Union as the likes of Minister Margot James has suggested as an alternative this week or potentially even a successful VONC in the government and a forced general election as a last resort to stop No Deal

How does a successful VONC and a forced general election stop No Deal??? You can't pass legislation when MPs are no longer MPs once Parliament is prorogued. And only legislation is going to stop No Deal Brexit.....

As Corbyn backs permanent Customs Union which if he became PM after a general election Juncker has agreed could be the basis of renegotiation of the Deal or else May gets a mandate for her Deal

dixiedean said:

Parliament voted against No Deal, but has made it far, far more likely.
Is that a correct reading of tonight?
Glad I have the keys to a food bank.

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1090353251894116354

https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1090361662933266432

Nigelb said:

Meantime, Ireland seems to be doing OK...
https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/360556/hundreds-of-jobs-for-limerick-as-regeneron-to-pump-200m-into-plant-expansion.html

Meantime?!?!

Arghhhhhhh!

Do tonight's votes fulfill the governments obligations to have another vote following the Meaningful Vote or are they obliged to come back and do this all over again?

Philip_Thompson said:

williamglenn said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

Andy_Cooke said:

So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.

The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.

The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.

And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.

The issue is that - as drafted - the EU gets to decide when we can leave the backstop.

The issue is that - as drafted - the backstop doesn't simply protect the Good Friday Agreement on the island of Ireland, but constrains the whole of the UK. That was May's doing.

It does so to limit the differential between NI and the rest of the UK, which is primarily a Unionist concern because otherwise NI would be more closely aligned with ROI than rUK.

But the unionists voted against it anyway, which suggests their real concern was imposing divergence between NI and Ireland and sabotaging the Good Friday Agreement.

Divergence is not the end of the world. It is what we voted for with Brexit.

Northern Ireland voted against it.

williamglenn said:

Charles said:

Andy_Cooke said:

So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.

The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.

The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.

And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.

The issue is that - as drafted - the EU gets to decide when we can leave the backstop.

The issue is that - as drafted - the backstop doesn't simply protect the Good Friday Agreement on the island of Ireland, but constrains the whole of the UK. That was May's doing.

That is also an issue

I seem to recall it being sold as a triumph at the time 😖

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

If May now gets nothing in terms of changes to the WDA , can we expect Harrington, Rudd et al to resign in two weeks time?

The interesting thing is 17 Tory MPs defied the Government and voted to rule out No Deal, more than counterbalancing the 3 Labour MPs who voted for No Deal and giving a rejection of No Deal an 8 vote majority.

If May gets nothing from the EU as is likely and her Deal fails again there lies your potential majority for permanent Customs Union as the likes of Minister Margot James has suggested as an alternative this week or potentially even a successful VONC in the government and a forced general election as a last resort to stop No Deal

How does a successful VONC and a forced general election stop No Deal??? You can't pass legislation when MPs are no longer MPs once Parliament is prorogued. And only legislation is going to stop No Deal Brexit.....

As Corbyn backs permanent Customs Union which if he became PM after a general election Juncker has agreed could be the basis of renegotiation of the Deal or else May gets a mandate for her Deal

The point was that by the time a General Election happens we'll already have left.

alex. said:

Charles said:

Andy_Cooke said:

So - the backstop exists in case alternative arrangements cannot be made before the end of the transition period. And it will remain valid as long as needed.

The counterproposals are to put in alternative arrangements. Or to time limit the backstop.

The first is absurdity. If you can get alternative arrangements sorted out, the backstop never comes into force. And your contingency in case alternative arrangements failing to materialise can't really be the same alternative arrangements. It's a bit bloody ridiculous.

And a time-limited backstop isn't a backstop. If we say we won't need it beyond a certain date, then why not? What will have changed? We know we wouldn't have alternative arrangements (eg technology to prevent its need), because that would mean the backstop isn't invoked. We know we wouldn't have a customs union sorted out, or the backstop wouldn't have come into force.

The issue is that - as drafted - the EU gets to decide when we can leave the backstop.

Not actually the case. We can choose to stay in the backstop for ever.

Ok the EU have a veto over us leaving

Panic buying starts this weekend?

alex. said:

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

If May now gets nothing in terms of changes to the WDA , can we expect Harrington, Rudd et al to resign in two weeks time?

The interesting thing is 17 Tory MPs defied the Government and voted to rule out No Deal, more than counterbalancing the 3 Labour MPs who voted for No Deal and giving a rejection of No Deal an 8 vote majority.

If May gets nothing from the EU as is likely and her Deal fails again there lies your potential majority for permanent Customs Union as the likes of Minister Margot James has suggested as an alternative this week or potentially even a successful VONC in the government and a forced general election as a last resort to stop No Deal

How does a successful VONC and a forced general election stop No Deal??? You can't pass legislation when MPs are no longer MPs once Parliament is prorogued. And only legislation is going to stop No Deal Brexit.....

As Corbyn backs permanent Customs Union which if he became PM after a general election Juncker has agreed could be the basis of renegotiation of the Deal or else May gets a mandate for her Deal

The point was that by the time a General Election happens we'll already have left.

So what, we can still do a Deal after leaving, post Brexit is only really a problem for EUref2 with a Remain option as the EU could add the Euro, Schengen etc to rejoin

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:

If May now gets nothing in terms of changes to the WDA , can we expect Harrington, Rudd et al to resign in two weeks time?

The interesting thing is 17 Tory MPs defied the Government and voted to rule out No Deal, more than counterbalancing the 3 Labour MPs who voted for No Deal and giving a rejection of No Deal an 8 vote majority.

If May gets nothing from the EU as is likely and her Deal fails again there lies your potential majority for permanent Customs Union as the likes of Minister Margot James has suggested as an alternative this week or potentially even a successful VONC in the government and a forced general election as a last resort to stop No Deal

How does a successful VONC and a forced general election stop No Deal??? You can't pass legislation when MPs are no longer MPs once Parliament is prorogued. And only legislation is going to stop No Deal Brexit.....

As Corbyn backs permanent Customs Union which if he became PM after a general election Juncker has agreed could be the basis of renegotiation of the Deal or else May gets a mandate for her Deal

Your scenario requires you to engineer an election that delivers a polling day before 29th March.

Not for a Deal alone no