Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1090361691878146049

Don't they call it a Central Committee or Politburo? Plain old committee sounds rather dull.

And shouldn't it be a supper party at this time at night?

Laters...

https://twitter.com/timfarron/status/1090358997385953281

and Burnley 2-0 up against ManU!!!!

https://twitter.com/leicesterliz/status/1090363619810992133

MarqueeMark said:

Penalty to Newcastle!

Can this day get any better?

Chris_A said:

Floater said:

Chris_A said:

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.

Go and look at what the highest level actually means .......

I know what the highest level means and the first IRA bomb on a border post will raise it to that level. For that we have only the Tories and a dozen or so Labour incompetents to blame.

The blame would lie with whoever planted the bomb.

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1090364245173325824

Charles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

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

Derivative comments like that are never funny. Reagan’s (?) original was witty - everything else looks kind of... pathetic

It's marvellous the way you pronounce as if your opinions are actually eternal verities. One of the benefits of an expensive education I guess.

The original can't have been that witty if you can't remember the originator. It was in fact Thatch.

viewcode said:

Philip_Thompson said:

viewcode said:

Philip_Thompson said:

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.

That's true. They're not compromising between the deal that it took two years to negotiate and that we actually asked for, and the deal we just made up which sounds really great in our head.

People say it took two years to negotiate the deal like it means anything whatsoever.

A revised deal will be based on this deal and so take most of the groundwork. Furthermore fudges that reach a final compromise generally happen in any negotiation like this in the final moments and not over years.

27 countries and the European Parliament have to sign off on this. If one of them says no we are fucked. We have 59 days.

QMV for the WA, Unanimity for the FTA as I recall.

Though in practice the EU like unity in these matters.

viewcode said:

Philip_Thompson said:

viewcode said:

Philip_Thompson said:

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.

That's true. They're not compromising between the deal that it took two years to negotiate and that we actually asked for, and the deal we just made up which sounds really great in our head.

People say it took two years to negotiate the deal like it means anything whatsoever.

A revised deal will be based on this deal and so take most of the groundwork. Furthermore fudges that reach a final compromise generally happen in any negotiation like this in the final moments and not over years.

27 countries and the European Parliament have to sign off on this. If one of them says no we are fucked. We have 59 days.

1 country is affected by this. 1 country has to agree. The rest aren't going to die in the ditch for reinstating a backstop if the Irish blink.

edmundintokyo said:

viewcode said:

Philip_Thompson said:

viewcode said:

Philip_Thompson said:

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.

That's true. They're not compromising between the deal that it took two years to negotiate and that we actually asked for, and the deal we just made up which sounds really great in our head.

People say it took two years to negotiate the deal like it means anything whatsoever.

A revised deal will be based on this deal and so take most of the groundwork. Furthermore fudges that reach a final compromise generally happen in any negotiation like this in the final moments and not over years.

27 countries and the European Parliament have to sign off on this. If one of them says no we are fucked. We have 59 days.

I don't think that's right, it's QMV so they don't all have to agree. They won't, but technically they could.

Ach, it's been a while. You could be right, apols. Although I am right about the EP...

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1090365164740923392

ManU get a late equaliser. Sorry, OGH.....

2 minutes still to go. Eek.....

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/RepBrendanBoyle/status/1090351323550236675

That's a very stupid way of looking at what is, admittedly, a stupid thing May is attempting. She agreed it. Parliament did not. So she is trying to carry out the wishes of Parliament. It's not her reneging on it, she simply cannot deliver it in the first place.

The Irish American lobby is on Ireland’s side. We’ll be hearing a lot from them in the coming months and years.

Philip_Thompson said:

viewcode said:

Philip_Thompson said:

viewcode said:

Philip_Thompson said:

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.

That's true. They're not compromising between the deal that it took two years to negotiate and that we actually asked for, and the deal we just made up which sounds really great in our head.

People say it took two years to negotiate the deal like it means anything whatsoever.

A revised deal will be based on this deal and so take most of the groundwork. Furthermore fudges that reach a final compromise generally happen in any negotiation like this in the final moments and not over years.

27 countries and the European Parliament have to sign off on this. If one of them says no we are fucked. We have 59 days.

1 country is affected by this. 1 country has to agree. The rest aren't going to die in the ditch for reinstating a backstop if the Irish blink.

Except in blows a hole in the SM, which others will look at very closely.

kle4 said:

SandyRentool said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1090361691878146049

Don't they call it a Central Committee or Politburo? Plain old committee sounds rather dull.

And shouldn't it be a supper party at this time at night?

Laters...

It's a witanagemot.

Coven

Charles said:

Andy_Cooke 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.

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

And if they don’t agree we can’t leave (as someone else pointed out saying they have a veto on us leaving would be s better way to phrase)

So, if they are in bad faith, they can force NI to stay in alignment, at their own cost? But - if they are indeed an evil empire who would force us into unnecessary alignment and agreement, how could we (or anyone who believes that) ever trust any agreement they made, anyway?
If relations between us break down to that extent, then our unilateral abrogation wouldn't have any significant negative effects.

kle4 said:

SandyRentool said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1090361691878146049

Don't they call it a Central Committee or Politburo? Plain old committee sounds rather dull.

And shouldn't it be a supper party at this time at night?

Laters...

It's a witanagemot.

Roast baby all round!

Theuniondivvie said:

Charles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

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

Derivative comments like that are never funny. Reagan’s (?) original was witty - everything else looks kind of... pathetic

It's marvellous the way you pronounce as if your opinions are actually eternal verities. One of the benefits of an expensive education I guess.

The original can't have been that witty if you can't remember the originator. It was in fact Thatch.

I believe it’s sometimes termed de haut en bas....

... takes several generations’ practice.

Charles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Charles said:

Theuniondivvie said:

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

Derivative comments like that are never funny. Reagan’s (?) original was witty - everything else looks kind of... pathetic

It's marvellous the way you pronounce as if your opinions are actually eternal verities. One of the benefits of an expensive education I guess.

The original can't have been that witty if you can't remember the originator. It was in fact Thatch.

I could remember if it was Thatcher or Reagan TBH - where it comes to humour I give Ronnie the benefit of the doubt!

Is that one of Oscar's? Or was it Dorothy?

Chris_A said:

Floater said:

Chris_A said:

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.

Go and look at what the highest level actually means .......

I know what the highest level means and the first IRA bomb on a border post will raise it to that level. For that we have only the Tories and a dozen or so Labour incompetents to blame.

Clearly you don't

Threat level Response
Critical An attack is expected imminently.

Currently the threat level is severe

severe - an attack is highly likely

Honestly - give it a rest

numbertwelve said:

I have some sympathy for the EU position but they are being a bit contradictory by running this line about “oh well the UK needs to tell us what it wants” and as soon as it tells them what it wants they turn around and say “well we’re not going to change anything.”

That, and "we must have the NI backstop to prevent a hard border." If Parliament won't vote for the Withdrawal Agreement because it contains the backstop, and this leads to No Deal, the EU gets a hard border anyway, so the backstop defeats itself. Unless the Irish Government refuses to enforce a hard border, in which case the backstop was unnecessary so why was it there in the first place? Round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel, never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel...

Anyway, that aside I think that the series of votes tonight has made a modicum of progress. The People's Vote campaign and an A50 extension are both, if not in the bin, then flying through the air on the way towards it. The comparative unity on the Tory benches and the support of the DUP takes a GE off the table, at any rate unless or until a deal containing the dreaded backstop is passed by Parliament. So it looks highly likely that this phase of Brexit will be resolved on schedule by March 29th, with one of the following outcomes:

1. The EU refuses to budge; Parliament passes the existing WA because it's the only alternative to No Deal
2. The EU doesn't budge, Parliament can't agree to pass the WA, and we leave by default with No Deal
3. The EU budges at the last minute because it is afraid of No Deal; Parliament passes a revised WA
4. The EU doesn't budge, Parliament can't agree to pass the WA, and it hits the revoke button in a panic to avoid No Deal

(at this stage, I'd tentatively rank those outcomes in descending order of probability, i.e. making option 1 the most likely)

Personally, I just hope that I'm right and that the prospect of Parliamentary can-kicking, because MPs can't or won't find a majority for anything (which, I think, is basically what the Cooper amendment was all about) has come to an end. It always comes back to the same fundamental issue: if a majority of MPs think Brexit so catastrophic that it must be prevented at all costs, then they have a duty to veto it, i.e. to compel the Government to revoke (even unto the point of no confidencing a stubborn Prime Minister and installing a replacement, if necessary.) If they don't think this, then they should get on with it and execute the instruction to Leave - both the substance of, and the timetable for, which they effectively ratified by voting to start the A50 clock in the first place. There is no excuse for endless prevarication.

Floater said:

Chris_A said:

Floater said:

Chris_A said:

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.

Go and look at what the highest level actually means .......

I know what the highest level means and the first IRA bomb on a border post will raise it to that level. For that we have only the Tories and a dozen or so Labour incompetents to blame.

Clearly you don't

Threat level Response
Critical An attack is expected imminently.

Currently the threat level is severe

severe - an attack is highly likely

Honestly - give it a rest

Lets also add in the CURRENT situation for (Northern) Irish terrorism

The threat to Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) from Northern Ireland-related terrorism is moderate.

The threat to Northern Ireland from Northern Ireland-related terrorism is severe.

Foxy said:

kle4 said:

SandyRentool said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1090361691878146049

Don't they call it a Central Committee or Politburo? Plain old committee sounds rather dull.

And shouldn't it be a supper party at this time at night?

Laters...

It's a witanagemot.

Roast baby all round!

Not for me thanks, I'm dieting. But can I have tea brewed from the sweat of the poor?

GIN1138 said:

Hang on they've been defeated? If the government can't bring the same things back after being defeated (Bercow was clear about that) how come backbench MPs can?

The government is bringing the same thing back.

The deal that was defeated last time will be on the order paper in 2 weeks. It will be amendable, again.

Nemtynakht said:

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.

Currently we are in a customs union, and leaving only needs A50 two years notice. How would two years notice be any worse than that?

Precisely.

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

kle4 said:

SandyRentool said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1090361691878146049

Don't they call it a Central Committee or Politburo? Plain old committee sounds rather dull.

And shouldn't it be a supper party at this time at night?

Laters...

It's a witanagemot.

Roast baby all round!

Not for me thanks, I'm dieting. But can I have tea brewed from the sweat of the poor?

Hold on, I'll scrape it off.

Scott_P said:

GIN1138 said:

Hang on they've been defeated? If the government can't bring the same things back after being defeated (Bercow was clear about that) how come backbench MPs can?

The government is bringing the same thing back.

The deal that was defeated last time will be on the order paper in 2 weeks. It will be amendable, again.

Not if the deal is amended, it will be a different deal.

The real story from tonight is that the Tories are buggered - they deliver No Deal or split. And Dennis Skinner is a Tory scab.

GIN1138 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/GuardianHeather/status/1090363998749499393

Hang on they've been defeated? If the government can't bring the same things back after being defeated (Bercow was clear about that) how come backbench MPs can?

I thought the government are planning to bring the WA back again?

https://twitter.com/tombarton/status/1090368197780557824

Couple of thoughts on ownership of any fallout and apparent contradiction in the EU position:

I don’t think people blaming the EU for No Deal is mutually exclusive with awaiting delivery of their free gov.uk unicorn, and blaming TMay if it turns out to be six months living on turnips. A bad Brexit isn’t nailed on, but the electoral direction of travel if we have one is.

And this thing about “tell us what you want”/“we’re not changing anything”. I think that offer was made in the wake of May making Remainy noises like inviting Nicola and Vince for tea the other week. They’re all ears for “we’d actually like something a bit less Brexity, please”. Not so much anything harder.

Philip_Thompson said:

Scott_P said:

GIN1138 said:

Hang on they've been defeated? If the government can't bring the same things back after being defeated (Bercow was clear about that) how come backbench MPs can?

The government is bringing the same thing back.

The deal that was defeated last time will be on the order paper in 2 weeks. It will be amendable, again.

Not if the deal is amended, it will be a different deal.

That's a big if.

edmundintokyo said:

viewcode said:

Ach, it's been a while. You could be right, apols. Although I am right about the EP...

Right, so assuming the British are now going to spend the next 2 months telling themselves the EU will blink while their businesses relocate to Holland, I'm wondering whether there's an EU Parliamentary deadline after which they can't (as opposed to won't).

With all the relocations, will there be some cracking opportunities for expanding and new companies to fill the voids left by the those flocking across the water?

https://twitter.com/tpittpayne/status/1090362197786718210

Black_Rook said:

numbertwelve said:

I have some sympathy for the EU position but they are being a bit contradictory by running this line about “oh well the UK needs to tell us what it wants” and as soon as it tells them what it wants they turn around and say “well we’re not going to change anything.”

That, and "we must have the NI backstop to prevent a hard border." If Parliament won't vote for the Withdrawal Agreement because it contains the backstop, and this leads to No Deal, the EU gets a hard border anyway, so the backstop defeats itself. Unless the Irish Government refuses to enforce a hard border, in which case the backstop was unnecessary so why was it there in the first place? Round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel, never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel...

Anyway, that aside I think that the series of votes tonight has made a modicum of progress. The People's Vote campaign and an A50 extension are both, if not in the bin, then flying through the air on the way towards it. The comparative unity on the Tory benches and the support of the DUP takes a GE off the table, at any rate unless or until a deal containing the dreaded backstop is passed by Parliament. So it looks highly likely that this phase of Brexit will be resolved on schedule by March 29th, with one of the following outcomes:

1. The EU refuses to budge; Parliament passes the existing WA because it's the only alternative to No Deal
2. The EU doesn't budge, Parliament can't agree to pass the WA, and we leave by default with No Deal
3. The EU budges at the last minute because it is afraid of No Deal; Parliament passes a revised WA
4. The EU doesn't budge, Parliament can't agree to pass the WA, and it hits the revoke button in a panic to avoid No Deal

(at this stage, I'd tentatively rank those outcomes in descending order of probability, i.e. making option 1 the most likely)

Personally, I just hope that I'm right and that the prospect of Parliamentary can-kicking, because MPs can't or won't find a majority for anything (which, I think, is basically what the Cooper amendment was all about) has come to an end. It always comes back to the same fundamental issue: if a majority of MPs think Brexit so catastrophic that it must be prevented at all costs, then they have a duty to veto it, i.e. to compel the Government to revoke (even unto the point of no confidencing a stubborn Prime Minister and installing a replacement, if necessary.) If they don't think this, then they should get on with it and execute the instruction to Leave - both the substance of, and the timetable for, which they effectively ratified by voting to start the A50 clock in the first place. There is no excuse for endless prevarication.

Nail hit on head.

Sean_F said:

williamglenn said:

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/RepBrendanBoyle/status/1090351323550236675

That's a very stupid way of looking at what is, admittedly, a stupid thing May is attempting. She agreed it. Parliament did not. So she is trying to carry out the wishes of Parliament. It's not her reneging on it, she simply cannot deliver it in the first place.

She voted against it herself.

The alternative is another 2/1 defeat in the Commons. What would that achieve?

It would have been classier to abstain. The vote on the Brady amendment wasn’t even close.

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tpittpayne/status/1090362197786718210

Well it would help if he actually read the WA...

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1090193363649871872?s=21

TheScreamingEagles said:

Football's going to kill me this season.

Ready for the might of Claude Puel's Blue Army!

How are you doing on the PB FF League?

Foxy said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Football's going to kill me this season.

Ready for the might of Claude Puel's Blue Army!

How are you doing on the PB FF League?

No Virgil tomorrow so I'm expecting Vardy to pummel us and Puel's Blue Army to win.

As for the fantasy football, I'm doing as well as Brexit.

Chris_A said:

viewcode said:

Philip_Thompson said:

viewcode said:

Philip_Thompson said:

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.

That's true. They're not compromising between the deal that it took two years to negotiate and that we actually asked for, and the deal we just made up which sounds really great in our head.

People say it took two years to negotiate the deal like it means anything whatsoever.

A revised deal will be based on this deal and so take most of the groundwork. Furthermore fudges that reach a final compromise generally happen in any negotiation like this in the final moments and not over years.

27 countries and the European Parliament have to sign off on this. If one of them says no we are fucked. We have 59 days.

Plus the European Parliament

The Withdrawal Agreement doesn't need unanimous backing from the 27, only a "super qualified majority". It's extension that requires unanimity.

Black_Rook said:

numbertwelve said:

I have some sympathy for the EU position but they are being a bit contradictory by running this line about “oh well the UK needs to tell us what it wants” and as soon as it tells them what it wants they turn around and say “well we’re not going to change anything.”

That, and "we must have the NI backstop to prevent a hard border." If Parliament won't vote for the Withdrawal Agreement because it contains the backstop, and this leads to No Deal, the EU gets a hard border anyway, so the backstop defeats itself. Unless the Irish Government refuses to enforce a hard border, in which case the backstop was unnecessary so why was it there in the first place? Round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel, never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel...

Anyway, that aside I think that the series of votes tonight has made a modicum of progress. The People's Vote campaign and an A50 extension are both, if not in the bin, then flying through the air on the way towards it. The comparative unity on the Tory benches and the support of the DUP takes a GE off the table, at any rate unless or until a deal containing the dreaded backstop is passed by Parliament. So it looks highly likely that this phase of Brexit will be resolved on schedule by March 29th, with one of the following outcomes:

1. The EU refuses to budge; Parliament passes the existing WA because it's the only alternative to No Deal
2. The EU doesn't budge, Parliament can't agree to pass the WA, and we leave by default with No Deal
3. The EU budges at the last minute because it is afraid of No Deal; Parliament passes a revised WA
4. The EU doesn't budge, Parliament can't agree to pass the WA, and it hits the revoke button in a panic to avoid No Deal

(at this stage, I'd tentatively rank those outcomes in descending order of probability, i.e. making option 1 the most likely)

Personally, I just hope that I'm right and that the prospect of Parliamentary can-kicking, because MPs can't or won't find a majority for anything (which, I think, is basically what the Cooper amendment was all about) has come to an end. It always comes back to the same fundamental issue: if a majority of MPs think Brexit so catastrophic that it must be prevented at all costs, then they have a duty to veto it, i.e. to compel the Government to revoke (even unto the point of no confidencing a stubborn Prime Minister and installing a replacement, if necessary.) If they don't think this, then they should get on with it and execute the instruction to Leave - both the substance of, and the timetable for, which they effectively ratified by voting to start the A50 clock in the first place. There is no excuse for endless prevarication.

Very good post.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/tpittpayne/status/1090362197786718210

Well it would help if he actually read the WA...

Shush. If Corbyn believes that is true, he can talk to May about a deal, which he should be to anyway

In lighter news I totally didn't know this about Jared Kushner's dad and Chris Christie

https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/1090345502011465730?s=19

HYUFD said:

SouthamObserver said:

The real story from tonight is that the Tories are buggered - they deliver No Deal or split. And Dennis Skinner is a Tory scab.

Most Tory voters prefer No Deal to Remain, most Labour voters want EUref2 with a Remain option over Brexit, if we go to No Deal and Corbyn has not backed EUref2 it may be Labour most buggered, with the LDs the main beneficiaries

I fear we'll be all buggered my friend. Except me. I have the keys to a food bank. And will become Lord of my own little Empire. Mwaaaahahahahaha.

ralphmalph said:

SouthamObserver said:

The real story from tonight is that the Tories are buggered - they deliver No Deal or split. And Dennis Skinner is a Tory scab.

The story tonight is that if May gets the brexiteers onside then the Tories are united.

Spoiler - she can’t.

Benpointer said:

GIN1138 said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/GuardianHeather/status/1090363998749499393

Hang on they've been defeated? If the government can't bring the same things back after being defeated (Bercow was clear about that) how come backbench MPs can?

I thought the government are planning to bring the WA back again?

Not an identical WA though? They've got some get some change or Bercow said he wouldn't allow it to come back?