So. It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
May's deal won't pass.
What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.
In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support
TIG won't take her down just now.
They will if hard Brexit looks likely
Her party will
No, most Tories would accept No Deal if necessary and if May accepts it, it is the 17 Tory MPs who rebelled and voted for the Spelman amendment to rule out No Deal who hold the balance of power in the Commons and are most likely to defect to TIG. Soubry, Allen and Wollaston were all in that 17 as are Greening and Grieve and Lee
Most conservative mps will not
Most Tory MPs voted against the Spelman amendment to rule out No Deal, even Javid and Hunt have said they will back No Deal as a last resort to keep their leadership hopes up.
So it will be down to TIG and more Tory MPs defecting to it to stop No Deal, I expect if necessary they will offer May a Deal v Remain referendum as a price of their support, if not they will make the same offer to Labour or agree a permanent Customs Union with the opposition
The cabinet this week had only Liz Truss backing no deal
Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.
Do you think he is sympathetic to her Islamist credentials?
I think that naming her son after a prominent Islamic warlord was not the best political move she could have made if she wanted to come back to the UK.
Do we know that she named her son after that seventh century warlord? The name Jarrah is common enough to have its own Wikipedia page. The Sun published an article based on the speculation that the baby was named after the warlord, but I haven't seen any evidence.
A bit like saying that the parents of anyone named Oliver must hate the Irish.
Suppose she had named her son "Mohammed" - would anyone seriously consider any other Mohammed's than the founder of Islam?
Well, in that Mirror article Michael Mumisa of the Faculty of Asian and Middle-Eastern Studies, Cambridge, said that Jarrah was actually the name of the warlord's grandfather. If that's correct the speculation is nonsense anyway.
I think you can safely stop reading the Mirror. I mean this in the way I'd suggest that stepping back from a bomb was better than not stepping back. You've clearly made some awful choices in life in terms of what you read. The good news is that whatever your new path is, it'll be better.
I certainly felt the Mirror article was better than the one in the Sun. But it's a free country.
Oooh! Nasty! (Well done)
I rather liked buying a paper to read.
Mostly I purchased the Independent. I also bought a lot of copies of the FT. I always enjoyed buying the Times, but never felt I was quite ready. The Telegraph was always there, but didn't seem human. The Guardian didn't seem of this world.
We’d be more sensible agreeing with the Iraqi/Syrian/Kurish authorities to have war crimes trials for all remaining IS members, wherever they come from, much as has been done for the Congo and Bosnia etc. They can be locked up until the conclusion of their trials. And on acquittal or the end of their sentence they can return home.
A public reckoning of the evil that IS is would do something for the many victims and might help deter others from doing something similar.
It's rather simplistic to say Lloyd George and Asquith 'patched up their differences.' They agreed to be members of the same party organisation in 1923, but they spent most of the next four years attacking each other. It would have gone on longer had Asquith not been driven out of politics altogether by illness, an even more than usually cack-handed response to the General Strike and Lloyd George working in concert.
Nor is "the division of the Liberals in 1916 over personality" right is it? Far more to it than personality. The prosecution of the war was failing.
Overwise, enjoyed the header, excellent to have some thoughts on what happens next.
Cut me some slack, guys. It’s a short article not a history book!
So. It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
May's deal won't pass.
What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.
In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support
TIG won't take her down just now.
They will if hard Brexit looks likely
Her party will
No, most Tories would accept No Deal if necessary and if May accepts it, it is the 17 Tory MPs who rebelled and voted for the Spelman amendment to rule out No Deal who hold the balance of power in the Commons and are most likely to defect to TIG. Soubry, Allen and Wollaston were all in that 17 as are Greening and Grieve and Lee
Most conservative mps will not
Most Tory MPs voted against the Spelman amendment to rule out No Deal, even Javid and Hunt have said they will back No Deal as a last resort to keep their leadership hopes up.
So it will be down to TIG and more Tory MPs defecting to it to stop No Deal, I expect if necessary they will offer May a Deal v Remain referendum as a price of their support, if not they will make the same offer to Labour or agree a permanent Customs Union with the opposition
The cabinet this week had only Liz Truss backing no deal
Amazing that even Liz Truss was backing no deal given that we're still in negotiations for a better deal and that former no deal backers have already resigned.
If it became no deal versus revoke rather than no deal versus a better deal then numbers can change rapidly.
So. It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
May's deal won't pass.
What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.
In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support
TIG won't support any vote of no confidence. Either they'd be installing Corbyn as PM, or they'd cause a general election in which they'd vanish.
They could well install Corbyn as PM with the requirement of EUref2 if the alternative is hard Brexit
Which makes their objections to Corbyn ridiculous. "Okay, we think he's an anti-Semite, and an extreme left wing nutcase, but he wants to keep us in the EU, so he's alright after all."
We’d be more sensible agreeing with the Iraqi/Syrian/Kurish authorities to have war crimes trials for all remaining IS members, wherever they come from, much as has been done for the Congo and Bosnia etc. They can be locked up until the conclusion of their trials. And on acquittal or the end of their sentence they can return home.
A public reckoning of the evil that IS is would do something for the many victims and might help deter others from doing something similar.
I thought a trial by the Iraqis could end in execution?
So. It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
May's deal won't pass.
What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.
In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support
TIG won't support any vote of no confidence. Either they'd be installing Corbyn as PM, or they'd cause a general election in which they'd vanish.
They could well install Corbyn as PM with the requirement of EUref2 if the alternative is hard Brexit
Which makes their objections to Corbyn ridiculous. "Okay, we think he's an anti-Semite, and an extreme left wing nutcase, but he wants to keep us in the EU, so he's alright after all."
They're OK with Bercow despite him being [allegedly] a bully.
I think they will. They know if we lose our majority a second referendum becomes inevitable. I have no doubt the EU will agree to an A50 extension to facilitate an election and new government which will take their default no deal option off the table.
As I said, the presence of TIG will force the ERG to compromise, they have taken the option of no deal off the table and I think JRM has realised already given the lack of reaction from him when the Malthouse amendment was shunted into the future relationship despite it being billed as a change to the WA.
I think a lot of people are waiting to see what happens now in the negotiations with Europe.
If there is a legally-binding change as the government keeps hinting at, if the Attorney General is able to change his advice so that this isn't a Hotel California Brexit then I think the ERG will vote for the Deal as they agreed in principle on the 29th January.
If the EU basically slap us in the face, agree nothing and the original deal is put back to us again without any changes then it gets voted down again.
A legally binding change that allows everyone to save face and ratify this deal is in everyone's best interests.
Let's say the EU make no changes and the AG can't change his advice.
The ERG refuse the pass the deal so we head towards no deal. It results in 10-12 Cabinet resignations and 10-15 defections to the Tiggers. We've lost our majority, Theresa can't just plough on with that many resignations and defections. She will have no choice but to step down. A new leader is elected in an MPs coup because we need one, he or she goes to Brussels and says "I need an extension for an election, I've got no majority and no mandate". The EU says "why should we agree?".
With the Tiggers now offering an option to MPs not in favour of No Deal by default the deal is the only game in town for Brexit, if the ERG vote it down then we remain.
It's rather simplistic to say Lloyd George and Asquith 'patched up their differences.' They agreed to be members of the same party organisation in 1923, but they spent most of the next four years attacking each other. It would have gone on longer had Asquith not been driven out of politics altogether by illness, an even more than usually cack-handed response to the General Strike and Lloyd George working in concert.
Nor is "the division of the Liberals in 1916 over personality" right is it? Far more to it than personality. The prosecution of the war was failing.
Overwise, enjoyed the header, excellent to have some thoughts on what happens next.
Cut me some slack, guys. It’s a short article not a history book!
It was a fine article, and my view is that the feud between Lloyd George and Asquith was personal, not ideological.
Where is the Brexit Swingometer needle pointing right now after these past few days? Has it moved away from No Deal and back towards May's Deal; or has it swung even further, towards a Customs Union or even Remain?
Does TSE still think No Deal is the most likely outcome, I wonder?
We’d be more sensible agreeing with the Iraqi/Syrian/Kurish authorities to have war crimes trials for all remaining IS members, wherever they come from, much as has been done for the Congo and Bosnia etc. They can be locked up until the conclusion of their trials. And on acquittal or the end of their sentence they can return home.
A public reckoning of the evil that IS is would do something for the many victims and might help deter others from doing something similar.
I thought a trial by the Iraqis could end in execution?
I think so.
But I was thinking of trials using the ICC. But if the Iraqis want to go ahead and try people let them. It’s their country which IS ruined.
I think they will. They know if we lose our majority a second referendum becomes inevitable. I have no doubt the EU will agree to an A50 extension to facilitate an election and new government which will take their default no deal option off the table.
As I said, the presence of TIG will force the ERG to compromise, they have taken the option of no deal off the table and I think JRM has realised already given the lack of reaction from him when the Malthouse amendment was shunted into the future relationship despite it being billed as a change to the WA.
I think a lot of people are waiting to see what happens now in the negotiations with Europe.
If there is a legally-binding change as the government keeps hinting at, if the Attorney General is able to change his advice so that this isn't a Hotel California Brexit then I think the ERG will vote for the Deal as they agreed in principle on the 29th January.
If the EU basically slap us in the face, agree nothing and the original deal is put back to us again without any changes then it gets voted down again.
A legally binding change that allows everyone to save face and ratify this deal is in everyone's best interests.
Let's say the EU make no changes and the AG can't change his advice.
The ERG refuse the pass the deal so we head towards no deal. It results in 10-12 Cabinet resignations and 10-15 defections to the Tiggers. We've lost our majority, Theresa can't just plough on with that many resignations and defections. She will have no choice but to step down. A new leader is elected in an MPs coup because we need one, he or she goes to Brussels and says "I need an extension for an election, I've got no majority and no mandate". The EU says "why should we agree?".
With the Tiggers now offering an option to MPs not in favour of No Deal by default the deal is the only game in town for Brexit, if the ERG vote it down then we remain.
Maybe. Maybe not.
I think the stakes are too high for enough MPs to change their votes now without the EU agreeing any changes. Hopefully the EU and the AG know that.
Hopefully the AG doesn't just change his advice in order to get a different result. But I don't think he'd do that.
I think they will. They know if we lose our majority a second referendum becomes inevitable. I have no doubt the EU will agree to an A50 extension to facilitate an election and new government which will take their default no deal option off the table.
As I said, the presence of TIG will force the ERG to compromise, they have taken the option of no deal off the table and I think JRM has realised already given the lack of reaction from him when the Malthouse amendment was shunted into the future relationship despite it being billed as a change to the WA.
I think a lot of people are waiting to see what happens now in the negotiations with Europe.
If there is a legally-binding change as the government keeps hinting at, if the Attorney General is able to change his advice so that this isn't a Hotel California Brexit then I think the ERG will vote for the Deal as they agreed in principle on the 29th January.
If the EU basically slap us in the face, agree nothing and the original deal is put back to us again without any changes then it gets voted down again.
A legally binding change that allows everyone to save face and ratify this deal is in everyone's best interests.
Let's say the EU make no changes and the AG can't change his advice.
The ERG refuse the pass the deal so we head towards no deal. It results in 10-12 Cabinet resignations and 10-15 defections to the Tiggers. We've lost our majority, Theresa can't just plough on with that many resignations and defections. She will have no choice but to step down. A new leader is elected in an MPs coup because we need one, he or she goes to Brussels and says "I need an extension for an election, I've got no majority and no mandate". The EU says "why should we agree?".
With the Tiggers now offering an option to MPs not in favour of No Deal by default the deal is the only game in town for Brexit, if the ERG vote it down then we remain.
Maybe. Maybe not.
I think the stakes are too high for enough MPs to change their votes now without the EU agreeing any changes. Hopefully the EU and the AG know that.
Hopefully the AG doesn't just change his advice in order to get a different result. But I don't think he'd do that.
No, there's no maybe about it. We are in a deal or remain situation. If the ERG vote the deal down then they will have lowered the drawbridge for remain. No deal is dead.
Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.
Do you think he is sympathetic to her Islamist credentials?
I think that naming her son after a prominent Islamic warlord was not the best political move she could have made if she wanted to come back to the UK.
Do we know that she named her son after that seventh century warlord? The name Jarrah is common enough to have its own Wikipedia page. The Sun published an article based on the speculation that the baby was named after the warlord, but I haven't seen any evidence.
A bit like saying that the parents of anyone named Oliver must hate the Irish.
Suppose she had named her son "Mohammed" - would anyone seriously consider any other Mohammed's than the founder of Islam?
Well, in that Mirror article Michael Mumisa of the Faculty of Asian and Middle-Eastern Studies, Cambridge, said that Jarrah was actually the name of the warlord's grandfather. If that's correct the speculation is nonsense anyway.
She could have named her son Osama Adolf Saddam Attila. It would have changed the morals of the case not a jot.
Quite a lot of Hungarians really are called Attila, aren't they?
Yes. It’s highly doubtful he was Magyar.
The Hungarians have some great names - Zoltan, Zalan, Zsolt, Csaba.
I think they will. They know if we lose our majority a second referendum becomes inevitable. I have no doubt the EU will agree to an A50 extension to facilitate an election and new government which will take their default no deal option off the table.
As I said, the presence of TIG will force the ERG to compromise, they have taken the option of no deal off the table and I think JRM has realised already given the lack of reaction from him when the Malthouse amendment was shunted into the future relationship despite it being billed as a change to the WA.
I think a lot of people are waiting to see what happens now in the negotiations with Europe.
If there is a legally-binding change as the government keeps hinting at, if the Attorney General is able to change his advice so that this isn't a Hotel California Brexit then I think the ERG will vote for the Deal as they agreed in principle on the 29th January.
If the EU basically slap us in the face, agree nothing and the original deal is put back to us again without any changes then it gets voted down again.
A legally binding change that allows everyone to save face and ratify this deal is in everyone's best interests.
Let's say the EU make no changes and the AG can't change his advice.
The ERG refuse the pass the deal so we head towards no deal. It results in 10-12 Cabinet resignations and 10-15 defections to the Tiggers. We've lost our majority, Theresa can't just plough on with that many resignations and defections. She will have no choice but to step down. A new leader is elected in an MPs coup because we need one, he or she goes to Brussels and says "I need an extension for an election, I've got no majority and no mandate". The EU says "why should we agree?".
With the Tiggers now offering an option to MPs not in favour of No Deal by default the deal is the only game in town for Brexit, if the ERG vote it down then we remain.
No, there's no maybe about it. We are in a deal or remain situation. If the ERG vote the deal down then they will have lowered the drawbridge for remain. No deal is dead.
We shall see.
More likely at this stage if the deal is voted down is a [potentially lengthy] extension being agreed a la Cooper-Boles and in that transition potentially a better deal could be agreed.
I'm not ERG but I'd rather remain for now, take our seats in the European Parliament in July and continue negotiating until a Hotel California Brexit is taken off the table.
And of course no deal remains on the table in any extension.
We’d be more sensible agreeing with the Iraqi/Syrian/Kurish authorities to have war crimes trials for all remaining IS members, wherever they come from, much as has been done for the Congo and Bosnia etc. They can be locked up until the conclusion of their trials. And on acquittal or the end of their sentence they can return home.
A public reckoning of the evil that IS is would do something for the many victims and might help deter others from doing something similar.
I thought a trial by the Iraqis could end in execution?
If you can't do the beheading, don't do the crime.
Jeremy at his best on the ISIS bride today. Cares not a hoot for cheap popularity. Cares only about what he believes to be right. I think this, far more than abolishing tuition fees or nationalizing the trains or whatever, is what lies at the heart of his appeal to the cognoscenti.
Do you think he is sympathetic to her Islamist credentials?
I think that naming her son after a prominent Islamic warlord was not the best political move she could have made if she wanted to come back to the UK.
Do we know that she named her son after that seventh century warlord? The name Jarrah is common enough to have its own Wikipedia page. The Sun published an article based on the speculation that the baby was named after the warlord, but I haven't seen any evidence.
A bit like saying that the parents of anyone named Oliver must hate the Irish.
Suppose she had named her son "Mohammed" - would anyone seriously consider any other Mohammed's than the founder of Islam?
Well, in that Mirror article Michael Mumisa of the Faculty of Asian and Middle-Eastern Studies, Cambridge, said that Jarrah was actually the name of the warlord's grandfather. If that's correct the speculation is nonsense anyway.
She could have named her son Osama Adolf Saddam Attila. It would have changed the morals of the case not a jot.
Quite a lot of Hungarians really are called Attila, aren't they?
Yes. It’s highly doubtful he was Magyar.
The Hungarians have some great names - Zoltan, Zalan, Zsolt, Csaba.
Where is the Brexit Swingometer needle pointing right now after these past few days? Has it moved away from No Deal and back towards May's Deal; or has it swung even further, towards a Customs Union or even Remain?
Does TSE still think No Deal is the most likely outcome, I wonder?
Personally I think the needle is just spinning wildly on its axis without anyone touching it at all; the swingometer is broken beyond repair. The magic 8-ball has exploded and we're down to either the toss of a coin or a ouija board.
So. It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
May's deal won't pass.
What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.
In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support
TIG won't take her down just now.
They will if hard Brexit looks likely
Her party will
No, most Tories would accept No Deal if necessary and if May accepts it, it is the 17 Tory MPs who rebelled and voted for the Spelman amendment to rule out No Deal who hold the balance of power in the Commons and are most likely to defect to TIG. Soubry, Allen and Wollaston were all in that 17 as are Greening and Grieve and Lee
Most conservative mps will not
Sadly most Conservative MPs voted to make May immune to challenge for 12 months. And its too late to get a new government in place before Brexit day too.
No it isn't, you can change government in a day as happens after most general elections.
All it takes is for a new PM to travel up the Mall, kiss hands with the Queen then appoint his new Cabinet later that day
Yes if the PM resigns.
If the PM doesn't resign it is hard to force that on her. If we go to a General Election then its too late.
If she loses a VONC it is forced on her whether she likes it or not if a new PM wins a confidence vote
That's a statement of the bleedin' obvious - of course its not - otherwise it wouldn't be a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech that directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. If the referendum was a trial then it would not be a metaphor. As with all metaphors, it may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two different concepts, or it may not if its a bad one. However saying a something is a bad metaphor because it is applied to an action to which it is not literally applicable demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a metaphor is.
As for fresh evidence, well I must have missed all those trade deals.
Okay so it is a dumb analogy instead. Whichever way you look at it, it is still dumb. As apparently is its author.
Please be gentle with your rapier comebacks, Oscar, I’m new here.
Nah. You jumped in the shark pool.
The idea of you as a shark is ridiculous. I must say your parroting of your bizarre view on what democracy is - not having a *democratic* opportunity to review or revise any decision until it’s fully enacted - is really tiresome now. Work out your issues elsewhere and stop being so bloody boring!
Another moron who doesn't understand that democracy is not just about asking a question but enacting the response as well. Stop being so bloody thick.
A change of direction for the government due to a change of circumstances should always be countenanced, even it upsets a previously settled will: it’s how real people behave, it’s how businesses behave, it’s how governments behave.
It's why u-turns, though usually mocked and derided, are often both necessary and appropriate. I do think they need to be justified, and I think some issues require a very high level of justification, but there's nothing wrong with the principle.
No, there's no maybe about it. We are in a deal or remain situation. If the ERG vote the deal down then they will have lowered the drawbridge for remain. No deal is dead.
We shall see.
More likely at this stage if the deal is voted down is a [potentially lengthy] extension being agreed a la Cooper-Boles and in that transition potentially a better deal could be agreed.
I'm not ERG but I'd rather remain for now, take our seats in the European Parliament in July and continue negotiating until a Hotel California Brexit is taken off the table.
And of course no deal remains on the table in any extension.
Where is the Brexit Swingometer needle pointing right now after these past few days? Has it moved away from No Deal and back towards May's Deal; or has it swung even further, towards a Customs Union or even Remain?
Does TSE still think No Deal is the most likely outcome, I wonder?
No Deal exit is still the most likely outcome, but I do think the chances of revocation have increased.
That's a statement of the bleedin' obvious - of course its not - otherwise it wouldn't be a metaphor. A metaphor is a figure of speech that directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. If the referendum was a trial then it would not be a metaphor. As with all metaphors, it may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two different concepts, or it may not if its a bad one. However saying a something is a bad metaphor because it is applied to an action to which it is not literally applicable demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a metaphor is.
As for fresh evidence, well I must have missed all those trade deals.
Okay so it is a dumb analogy instead. Whichever way you look at it, it is still dumb. As apparently is its author.
Please be gentle with your rapier comebacks, Oscar, I’m new here.
Nah. You jumped in the shark pool.
Except we all know you’re a bit like a big fuzzy bear that gets grumpy sometimes.
No, there's no maybe about it. We are in a deal or remain situation. If the ERG vote the deal down then they will have lowered the drawbridge for remain. No deal is dead.
We shall see.
More likely at this stage if the deal is voted down is a [potentially lengthy] extension being agreed a la Cooper-Boles and in that transition potentially a better deal could be agreed.
I'm not ERG but I'd rather remain for now, take our seats in the European Parliament in July and continue negotiating until a Hotel California Brexit is taken off the table.
And of course no deal remains on the table in any extension.
No, you don't get it. The EU needs to agree an extension they will ask "why should we say yes?" to any request for one. Having seen 10-15 MPs walk already because if no deal, the new PM will have no choice but to agree to whatever terms the EU set for an A50 extension.
So. It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
May's deal won't pass.
What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.
In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support
TIG won't support any vote of no confidence. Either they'd be installing Corbyn as PM, or they'd cause a general election in which they'd vanish.
They could well install Corbyn as PM with the requirement of EUref2 if the alternative is hard Brexit
Which makes their objections to Corbyn ridiculous. "Okay, we think he's an anti-Semite, and an extreme left wing nutcase, but he wants to keep us in the EU, so he's alright after all."
TIG's aim above all is to stop hard Brexit at any cost and at any price, they may not like Corbyn or anti Semitic elements in Labour but it is Brexit they hate above all.
If May turns down EUref2 or refuses to shift to BINO and Labour agrees to the latter inevitably they will shift to Labour
So. It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
May's deal won't pass.
What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.
In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support
TIG won't take her down just now.
They will if hard Brexit looks likely
Her party will
No, most Tories would accept No Deal if necessary and if May accepts it, it is the 17 Tory MPs who rebelled and voted for the Spelman amendment to rule out No Deal who hold the balance of power in the Commons and are most likely to defect to TIG. Soubry, Allen and Wollaston were all in that 17 as are Greening and Grieve and Lee
Most conservative mps will not
Sadly most Conservative MPs voted to make May immune to challenge for 12 months. And its too late to get a new government in place before Brexit day too.
No it isn't, you can change government in a day as happens after most general elections.
All it takes is for a PM to lose a VONC and a new PM to win a VONC and the new PM to travel up the Mall, kiss hands with the Queen then appoint his new Cabinet later that day
No, there is no "new PM" until the kissing hands bit. If there's a VONC, Brenda commissions whoever appears to be most likely to command the confidence of the Commons to attempt to form a new administration. If the FTPA two-week clock runs out before an affirmative vote of confidence in the new administration is held, then there would be a GE called automatically.
Typically the LOTO would be the first in line to be commissioned, but I think strictly speaking it's up to the outgoing PM to advise the sovereign whom she should summon first, and there would be circumstances where a PM might through personal unpopularity lose the confidence of the Commons, but someone else in the PM's party such as its deputy leader might clearly be the person most likely to be able to command confidence. Does the Parliamentary Conservative Party have a deputy leader?
As any thread relating to Brexit grows longer, the probability of someone invoking "but muh democracy" approaches 1.
The horror. The horror. Of people wanting a vote to be respected.
The thing is, it's such a thin argument. Nobody is an an out-and-out democracy fan for its own sake; everybody accepts that democracy has to be very heavily tempered and restricted to make it workable, which is why we don't have GEs twice a month or referendums on whether the death penalty should be reenacted for the child-killer du jour. "Oooh, you have to respect the vote" is a really pissy procedural point. It's also flat wrong because the referendum was advisory, so you can quite consistently consider the result in the most respectful manner imaginable and then reject it.
We're not dumping her anywhere. We're leaving her where she is in Syria. Good riddance to her.
Bangladesh could have stripped her citizenship first but didn't, we beat them to the punch.
It's hard to strip someone of a citizenship, when you don't know they're a citizen
The Government are still trying to strip me of my EU citzenship on March 29th, just saying.
There's no such thing as EU citizenship.
Call it what you like people are losing their freedom of movement rights all so EU migration can be replaced by non EU migration !
The absurdity of Brexit !
Perhaps so, but the 'call it what you like' is an important point because people are complaining about losing citizenship, not just losing 'freedom of movement rights'. If the latter is granted by virtue of British citizenship (because we are members of the EU) and we are now losing it because we will no longer be members, that is perfectly reasonable to lament, but the citizenship someone held, British, remains the same, it's just not as attractive as it was.
Granted I am not a nationality expert, but if you are a citizen of X and that affords you privileges of being in club Y, then of course people will be upset about losing those privileges when you leave, but the X part has not changed and it is not a citizenship issue.
I just had a look at Owen Jones’ twitter feed. He seems to be having a meltdown about the Tiggers.
He's always having a meltdown about something. I have a futile hope that once this era of political turmoil is over, we will hear less from the keyboard warrior army of OJ, Swindon, Adonis et al.
No, there's no maybe about it. We are in a deal or remain situation. If the ERG vote the deal down then they will have lowered the drawbridge for remain. No deal is dead.
We shall see.
More likely at this stage if the deal is voted down is a [potentially lengthy] extension being agreed a la Cooper-Boles and in that transition potentially a better deal could be agreed.
I'm not ERG but I'd rather remain for now, take our seats in the European Parliament in July and continue negotiating until a Hotel California Brexit is taken off the table.
And of course no deal remains on the table in any extension.
The EU will not extend just to talk ad infinitum
The EU have made clear they will only extend for permanent Customs Union or EUref2
No, there's no maybe about it. We are in a deal or remain situation. If the ERG vote the deal down then they will have lowered the drawbridge for remain. No deal is dead.
We shall see.
More likely at this stage if the deal is voted down is a [potentially lengthy] extension being agreed a la Cooper-Boles and in that transition potentially a better deal could be agreed.
I'm not ERG but I'd rather remain for now, take our seats in the European Parliament in July and continue negotiating until a Hotel California Brexit is taken off the table.
And of course no deal remains on the table in any extension.
The EU will not extend just to talk ad infinitum
The EU have made clear they will only extend for permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.
Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:- “If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."
Forget the rights and wrongs of this particular case for a moment.
Doesn't it trouble you that a member of the executive can strip someone of their citizenship, without any legal process, if they are eligible to be a citizen of another country?
It seems that stripping someone of their citizenship is a punishment, in the same way that locking someone up is. We wouldn't tolerate, or at least I hope we wouldn't tolerate, the Home Secretary being able to lock people up at will, saying "oh, they can always appeal the decision if they have money and lawyers."
As regards this case, the very fact that we're debating whether she has Bangladeshi citizenship or not, and that the matter is potentially open to interpretation, suggests that this was a decision made without due process.
There *is* a legal process
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
No, there's no maybe about it. We are in a deal or remain situation. If the ERG vote the deal down then they will have lowered the drawbridge for remain. No deal is dead.
We shall see.
More likely at this stage if the deal is voted down is a [potentially lengthy] extension being agreed a la Cooper-Boles and in that transition potentially a better deal could be agreed.
I'm not ERG but I'd rather remain for now, take our seats in the European Parliament in July and continue negotiating until a Hotel California Brexit is taken off the table.
And of course no deal remains on the table in any extension.
No, you don't get it. The EU needs to agree an extension they will ask "why should we say yes?" to any request for one. Having seen 10-15 MPs walk already because if no deal, the new PM will have no choice but to agree to whatever terms the EU set for an A50 extension.
The EU have hinted lately they'd be open to an extension to avoid no deal.
Cooper-Boles originally was seeking an extension without an agreed end post.
So. It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
May's deal won't pa postpone A50, hold a referendum
It only takes 5 more Tory MUP support
TIG won't take her down just now.
They will if hard Brexit looks likely
Her party will
No, most Tories would accept No Deal if necessary aand Lee
Most conservative mps will not
Sadly most Conservative MPs voted to make May immune to challenge for 12 months. And its too late to get a new government in place before Brexit day too.
No it isn't, you can change government in a day as happens after most general elections.
All it takes is for a PM to lose a VONC and a new PM to win a VONC and the new PM to travel up the Mall, kiss hands with the Queen then appoint his new Cabinet later that day
No, there is no "new PM" until the kissing hands bit. If there's a VONC, Brenda commissions whoever appears to be most likely to command the confidence of the Commons to attempt to form a new administration. If the FTPA two-week clock runs out before an affirmative vote of confidence in the new administration is held, then there would be a GE called automatically.
Typically the LOTO would be the first in line to be commissioned, but I think strictly speaking it's up to the outgoing PM to advise the sovereign whom she should summon first, and there would be circumstances where a PM might through personal unpopularity lose the confidence of the Commons, but someone else in the PM's party such as its deputy leader might clearly be the person most likely to be able to command confidence. Does the Parliamentary Conservative Party have a deputy leader?
If Labour offers an EUref2 then after May refuses TIG simply backs a Labour PM in a vote of confidence within that fortnight, not that difficult. Given TIG would hold the balance of power if May lost a VONC no alternative Tory leader could command their support unless they also offered EUref2 so they would not be called
Where is the Brexit Swingometer needle pointing right now after these past few days? Has it moved away from No Deal and back towards May's Deal; or has it swung even further, towards a Customs Union or even Remain?
Does TSE still think No Deal is the most likely outcome, I wonder?
No Deal exit is still the most likely outcome, but I do think the chances of revocation have increased.
In any event the Brexit swingometer probably needs a quantum needle that can be in several places at once.
No, there's no maybe about it. We are in a deal or remain situation. If the ERG vote the deal down then they will have lowered the drawbridge for remain. No deal is dead.
We shall see.
More likely at this stage if the deal is voted down is a [potentially lengthy] extension being agreed a la Cooper-Boles and in that transition potentially a better deal could be agreed.
I'm not ERG but I'd rather remain for now, take our seats in the European Parliament in July and continue negotiating until a Hotel California Brexit is taken off the table.
And of course no deal remains on the table in any extension.
No, you don't get it. The EU needs to agree an extension they will ask "why should we say yes?" to any request for one. Having seen 10-15 MPs walk already because if no deal, the new PM will have no choice but to agree to whatever terms the EU set for an A50 extension.
The EU have hinted lately they'd be open to an extension to avoid no deal.
Cooper-Boles originally was seeking an extension without an agreed end post.
We're not dumping her anywhere. We're leaving her where she is in Syria. Good riddance to her.
Bangladesh could have stripped her citizenship first but didn't, we beat them to the punch.
It's hard to strip someone of a citizenship, when you don't know they're a citizen
The Government are still trying to strip me of my EU citzenship on March 29th, just saying.
No, the additional benefits of your UK citizenship are changing.
Am I an EU citizen today or not?
If the Government get's it's way will I still be an EU citizen on 30th March?
You are not an EU citizen. The EU are not a country (yet)
You may not be a member of the European Union by then but that is different
Citizenship is not something that only sovereign independent states can bestow. As well as being a citizen of the United Kingdom and the United States, I am also a citizen of the State of New York. However, that last one is only as long as I reside there. If I <shudder> moved to New Jersey tomorrow I would then become a citizen of New Jersey <retch>.
In Switzerland I believe Swiss citizens are also citizens of both the canton and commune in which they reside, and to acquire Swiss citizenship, a resident has to be approved at all three levels.
So. It’s May’s Deal, May’s Deal with a Referendum (which has the risk of leading to Remain), or No Deal.
May's deal won't pass.
What are the mechanisms by which May could be forced to do things she doesn't want to do? e.g. include customs union in deal, postpone A50, hold a referendum
It only takes 5 more Tory MPs to defect to TIG and TIG not the DUP will hold the balance of power in the Commons.
In those circumstances May either backs EUref2 or permanent Customs Union or she loses a VONC even if she keeps DUP support
TIG won't support any vote of no confidence. Either they'd be installing Corbyn as PM, or they'd cause a general election in which they'd vanish.
They could well install Corbyn as PM with the requirement of EUref2 if the alternative is hard Brexit
Which makes their objections to Corbyn ridiculous. "Okay, we think he's an anti-Semite, and an extreme left wing nutcase, but he wants to keep us in the EU, so he's alright after all."
TIG's aim above all is to stop hard Brexit at any cost and at any price, they may not like Corbyn or anti Semitic elements in Labour but it is Brexit they hate above all.
If May turns down EUref2 or refuses to shift to BINO and Labour agrees to the latter inevitably they will shift to Labour
Let them. It will show them up as fools and a united Conservative Party will be confronting a bickering multi-party coalition who've decided that anti-semifsm is not the deal-breaker that they said it was.
No, there's no maybe about it. We are in a deal or remain situation. If the ERG vote the deal down then they will have lowered the drawbridge for remain. No deal is dead.
We shall see.
More likely at this stage if the deal is voted down is a [potentially lengthy] extension being agreed a la Cooper-Boles and in that transition potentially a better deal could be agreed.
I'm not ERG but I'd rather remain for now, take our seats in the European Parliament in July and continue negotiating until a Hotel California Brexit is taken off the table.
And of course no deal remains on the table in any extension.
The EU will not extend just to talk ad infinitum
The EU have made clear they will only extend for permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Or GE
GE is irrelevant for the EU unless the new PM commits to a permanent Customs Union or EUref2
No, there's no maybe about it. We are in a deal or remain situation. If the ERG vote the deal down then they will have lowered the drawbridge for remain. No deal is dead.
We shall see.
More likely at this stage if the deal is voted down is a [potentially lengthy] extension being agreed a la Cooper-Boles and in that transition potentially a better deal could be agreed.
I'm not ERG but I'd rather remain for now, take our seats in the European Parliament in July and continue negotiating until a Hotel California Brexit is taken off the table.
And of course no deal remains on the table in any extension.
The EU will not extend just to talk ad infinitum
The EU have made clear they will only extend for permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Or GE
GE is irrelevant for the EU unless the new PM commits to a permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Of course it is not. The EU will grant time for a GE without conditions.
As any thread relating to Brexit grows longer, the probability of someone invoking "but muh democracy" approaches 1.
The horror. The horror. Of people wanting a vote to be respected.
The thing is, it's such a thin argument. Nobody is an an out-and-out democracy fan for its own sake; everybody accepts that democracy has to be very heavily tempered and restricted to make it workable, which is why we don't have GEs twice a month or referendums on whether the death penalty should be reenacted for the child-killer du jour. "Oooh, you have to respect the vote" is a really pissy procedural point. It's also flat wrong because the referendum was advisory, so you can quite consistently consider the result in the most respectful manner imaginable and then reject it.
Yes, you can quite consider the result then reject it.
So long as you're willing for the 52% of people who voted in the way you're now rejecting to say, OK, democracy doesn't work. What now?
If you can name a better system than democracy, I'm all ears.
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.
It maybe their power but is not their right to do something about it. And almost every one of them - bar Ken Clark, the SNP and a very few honourable exceptions - was elected promising to enact the referendum result. Now as I mentioned earlier of course they can in theory ignore their own promises but that shows exactly the same disregard for democracy as you are exhibiting. And once you have shown that democracy doesn't matter there is no reason why any of us should abide by it in the future.
No sensible person would ever argue that conventions - in so far as they exist* - about party manifesto commitments being binding on individual backbench MPs could apply where there’s been a material change of circumstances.
In 2017 it was widely believed that an orderly Brexit that wouldn’t cause huge economic and reputational damage to the UK was possible (albeit possibly worse than remaining, depending on your view). Who believes that now? Not even most Leave zealots, I’d suggest. That’s a change of circumstances.
* there’s no such convention anyway - governments are bound by manifestos, not individual MPs, who should never be considered delegates, neither of political parties nor indeed of constituents.
It wasn't about the party manifestos. It was about the individual promises those candidates made. Anna Soubry, as an example, actually included a promise to abide by the referendum result in her own personal election literature.
And her constituents can and will judge her on it. Her response would sensibly be that she didn’t realise how disasterous the situation at this point would be. Circumstances have changed. Only sociopaths want Brexit now.
LOL!
Name one Leave-backing MP now backing Remain please.
No, there's no maybe about it. We are in a deal or remain situation. If the ERG vote the deal down then they will have lowered the drawbridge for remain. No deal is dead.
We shall see.
More likely at this stage if the deal is voted down is a [potentially lengthy] extension being agreed a la Cooper-Boles and in that transition potentially a better deal could be agreed.
I'm not ERG but I'd rather remain for now, take our seats in the European Parliament in July and continue negotiating until a Hotel California Brexit is taken off the table.
And of course no deal remains on the table in any extension.
No, you don't get it. The EU needs to agree an extension they will ask "why should we say yes?" to any request for one. Having seen 10-15 MPs walk already because if no deal, the new PM will have no choice but to agree to whatever terms the EU set for an A50 extension.
The EU have hinted lately they'd be open to an extension to avoid no deal.
Cooper-Boles originally was seeking an extension without an agreed end post.
That's if we ask for it now, not if we ask for it after the government has lost its majority.
Its if we ask for it. That's how Parliament (as far as Cooper Boles is concerned) have suggested asking for it.
Hypothetically if May's deal is rejected next week and there's no sign of compromise and May turns around and says "this deal can't go through, I do not think we are prepared for no deal, we need to request more time and continue talking as European Council President Donald Tusk has suggested" and she puts that forward as Plan C to Parliament then will she lose her majority? Will that be rejected?
I think the EU will agree to it, they don't want no deal. I think Parliament will agree to it. And I think the Tory Party will somehow ensure she is replaced with a new leader to start revised negotiations but at least no deal is avoided for now.
No commitment to remain, just kick the can for now.
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.
It maybe their power but is not their right to do something about it. And almost every one of them - bar Ken Clark, the SNP and a very few honourable exceptions - was elected promising to enact the referendum result. Now as I mentioned earlier of course they can in theory ignore their own promises but that shows exactly the same disregard for democracy as you are exhibiting. And once you have shown that democracy doesn't matter there is no reason why any of us should abide by it in the future.
No sensible person would ever argue that conventions - in so far as they exist* - about party manifesto commitments being binding on individual backbench MPs could apply where there’s been a material change of circumstances.
In 2017 it was widely believed that an orderly Brexit that wouldn’t cause huge economic and reputational damage to the UK was possible (albeit possibly worse than remaining, depending on your view). Who believes that now? Not even most Leave zealots, I’d suggest. That’s a change of circumstances.
* there’s no such convention anyway - governments are bound by manifestos, not individual MPs, who should never be considered delegates, neither of political parties nor indeed of constituents.
It wasn't about the party manifestos. It was about the individual promises those candidates made. Anna Soubry, as an example, actually included a promise to abide by the referendum result in her own personal election literature.
And her constituents can and will judge her on it. Her response would sensibly be that she didn’t realise how disasterous the situation at this point would be. Circumstances have changed. Only sociopaths want Brexit now.
LOL!
Name one Leave-backing MP now backing Remain please.
Sarah Wollaston.
Dr Wollaston quite famously backed Remain on referendum day actually.
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.
It maybe their power but is not their right to do something about it. And almost every one of them - bar Ken Clark, the SNP and a very few honourable exceptions - was elected promising to enact the referendum result. Now as I mentioned earlier of course they can in theory ignore their own promises but that shows exactly the same disregard for democracy as you are exhibiting. And once you have shown that democracy doesn't matter there is no reason why any of us should abide by it in the future.
No sensible person would ever argue that conventions - in so far as they exist* - about party manifesto commitments being binding on individual backbench MPs could apply where there’s been a material change of circumstances.
In 2017 it was widely believed that an orderly Brexit that wouldn’t cause huge economic and reputational damage to the UK was possible (albeit possibly worse than remaining, depending on your view). Who believes that now? Not even most Leave zealots, I’d suggest. That’s a change of circumstances.
* there’s no such convention anyway - governments are bound by manifestos, not individual MPs, who should never be considered delegates, neither of political parties nor indeed of constituents.
It wasn't about the party manifestos. It was about the individual promises those candidates made. Anna Soubry, as an example, actually included a promise to abide by the referendum result in her own personal election literature.
And her constituents can and will judge her on it. Her response would sensibly be that she didn’t realise how disasterous the situation at this point would be. Circumstances have changed. Only sociopaths want Brexit now.
LOL!
Name one Leave-backing MP now backing Remain please.
Sarah Wollaston.
BoJo's keeping unusually quiet these days too. Suspect he appreciates what an almighty cock-up he's made. It's a long way from the noble defeat he envisaged.
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
No, there's no maybe about it. We are in a deal or remain situation. If the ERG vote the deal down then they will have lowered the drawbridge for remain. No deal is dead.
We shall see.
More likely at this stage if the deal is voted down is a [potentially lengthy] extension being agreed a la Cooper-Boles and in that transition potentially a better deal could be agreed.
I'm not ERG but I'd rather remain for now, take our seats in the European Parliament in July and continue negotiating until a Hotel California Brexit is taken off the table.
And of course no deal remains on the table in any extension.
The EU will not extend just to talk ad infinitum
The EU have made clear they will only extend for permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Or GE
GE is irrelevant for the EU unless the new PM commits to a permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Of course it is not. The EU will grant time for a GE without conditions.
Did you miss President Tusk suggesting an extension without conditions.
I can see this name that some classy person dreamed up on this board sticking, whatever official name they come up with.
Remember, Tories were Irish cattle thieves. Whigs were Scottish sheep rustlers (I think). Labour still talk about Socialism. People like nicknames.
And compared to animal thieves and mass murderers, a fluffy toy for a five year old with a father who liked telling stories seems eminently respectable.
We're not dumping her anywhere. We're leaving her where she is in Syria. Good riddance to her.
Bangladesh could have stripped her citizenship first but didn't, we beat them to the punch.
It's hard to strip someone of a citizenship, when you don't know they're a citizen
The Government are still trying to strip me of my EU citzenship on March 29th, just saying.
No, the additional benefits of your UK citizenship are changing.
Am I an EU citizen today or not?
If the Government get's it's way will I still be an EU citizen on 30th March?
Why would it matter?
It matters to me.
Well, you always have the option of migrating.
I don't after March 29th.
Of course you can. My eldest emigrated to New Zealand 15 years ago and just did the paperwork
Same for EU
Nah, not with my medical condition Big_G - no country would take me in as an immigrant.
Anyway, I don't want to permanently move to another part of Europe, I just don't want to loose the freedoms and rights I currently have as an EU citizen.
As with all minor parties, the prospects for TIG are hugely dependent on events outside their control. IF we were to get to a situation where No Deal was inevitable, would an implosion within the Conservative Party take place ? What about Labour under similar circumstances?
As Antifrank suggests, the aim of TIG may be nothing more than to force pragmatism onto the main parties (which is what the SDP effected though after its own demise). The problem is as that aim looks more distant and as views become more entrenched, the pressure to start coming up with a distinct alternative.
As for those who cry crocodile tears over the impact of TIG on the LDs, as far as this LD is concerned, if TIG can get LD policies enacted, who am I to disagree? Supporting a party is a means, not an end in itself and it's not like supporting a football team or Liverpool where it's my party, right or wrong, is it?
It clearly is for some.
As an aside some spectacular borrowing figures this morning and clearly there will be those calling for big tax cuts to stimulate the economy in the event of a No Deal. To be honest, a surplus of £15 billion could be a down payment on some decent social care for vulnerable adults and children (who needs tax cuts?).
The question is what will May do IF the WDA fails again in the Commons - there seems little prospect of meaningful change. Revocation will be political suicide for the Conservatives - it would be a betrayal several orders of magnitude greater than Nick Clegg's tuition fees debacle. The problem for May is she can see Cabinet resignations and defections to TIG if she abandons her Deal and pivots to No Deal.
No, there's no maybe about it. We are in a deal or remain situation. If the ERG vote the deal down then they will have lowered the drawbridge for remain. No deal is dead.
We shall see.
More likely at this stage if the deal is voted down is a [potentially lengthy] extension being agreed a la Cooper-Boles and in that transition potentially a better deal could be agreed.
I'm not ERG but I'd rather remain for now, take our seats in the European Parliament in July and continue negotiating until a Hotel California Brexit is taken off the table.
And of course no deal remains on the table in any extension.
The EU will not extend just to talk ad infinitum
The EU have made clear they will only extend for permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Or GE
GE is irrelevant for the EU unless the new PM commits to a permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Of course it is not. The EU will grant time for a GE without conditions.
Hopefully.
But it requires unanimity. Would be a great opportunity for say Spain to demand Gibraltar for instance.
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.
It maybe their power but is not their right to do something about it. And almost every one of them - bar Ken Clark, the SNP and a very few honourable exceptions - was elected promising to enact the referendum result. Now as I mentioned earlier of course they can in theory ignore their own promises but that shows exactly the same disregard for democracy as you are exhibiting. And once you have shown that democracy doesn't matter there is no reason why any of us should abide by it in the future.
No sensible person would ever argue that conventions - in so far as they exist* - about party manifesto commitments being binding on individual backbench MPs could apply where there’s been a material change of circumstances.
In 2017 it was widely believed that an orderly Brexit that wouldn’t cause huge economic and reputational damage to the UK was possible (albeit possibly worse than remaining, depending on your view). Who believes that now? Not even most Leave zealots, I’d suggest. That’s a change of circumstances.
* there’s no such convention anyway - governments are bound by manifestos, not individual MPs, who should never be considered delegates, neither of political parties nor indeed of constituents.
It wasn't about the party manifestos. It was about the individual promises those candidates made. Anna Soubry, as an example, actually included a promise to abide by the referendum result in her own personal election literature.
And her constituents can and will judge her on it. Her response would sensibly be that she didn’t realise how disasterous the situation at this point would be. Circumstances have changed. Only sociopaths want Brexit now.
LOL!
Name one Leave-backing MP now backing Remain please.
Sarah Wollaston.
Dr Wollaston quite famously backed Remain on referendum day actually.
You didn't say anything about when they switched. You asked for somebody who changed their mind from Leave to Remain. I obliged.
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
Under our Common Law Constitution the Home Secretary has long had judicial powers. They've been chipped away at, but I can't think when the last time in our history was that the Home Secretary didn't have judicial powers.
No, I'm suggesting that the current set of MPs, elected after the referendum, having realised triggering A50 might have been an enormous mistake, still have the power to do something about it.
It maybe their power but is not their right to do something about it. And almost every one of them - bar Ken Clark, the SNP and a very few honourable exceptions - was elected promising to enact the referendum result. Now as I mentioned earlier of course they can in theory ignore their own promises but that shows exactly the same disregard for democracy as you are exhibiting. And once you have shown that democracy doesn't matter there is no reason why any of us should abide by it in the future.
No sensible person would ever argue that conventions - in so far as they exist* - about party manifesto commitments being binding on individual backbench MPs could apply where there’s been a material change of circumstances.
In 2017 it was widely believed that an orderly Brexit that wouldn’t cause huge economic and reputational damage to the UK was possible (albeit possibly worse than remaining, depending on your view). Who believes that now? Not even most Leave zealots, I’d suggest. That’s a change of circumstances.
* there’s no such convention anyway - governments are bound by manifestos, not individual MPs, who should never be considered delegates, neither of political parties nor indeed of constituents.
It wasn't about the party manifestos. It was about the individual promises those candidates made. Anna Soubry, as an example, actually included a promise to abide by the referendum result in her own personal election literature.
And her constituents can and will judge her on it. Her response would sensibly be that she didn’t realise how disasterous the situation at this point would be. Circumstances have changed. Only sociopaths want Brexit now.
LOL!
Name one Leave-backing MP now backing Remain please.
Sarah Wollaston.
Dr Wollaston quite famously backed Remain on referendum day actually.
You didn't say anything about when they switched. You asked for somebody who changed their mind from Leave to Remain. I obliged.
The premise was Stonch saying that "cirumstances have changed" since the referendum. Of course my retort meant since the referendum as that was the context I was replying to.
If Dr Wollaston is as good as you can get then I assume nothing has changed since the referendum afterall?
Name one Leave-backing MP now backing Remain please.
Sarah Wollaston.
I believe the word is "owned".
Nope the word is wrong. Woolaston changed sides during the campaign itself not after the referendum. It was also clear from her previous statements that this was obviously a pre planned ploy as no one on earth had expected her to originally come out for Leave.
We're not dumping her anywhere. We're leaving her where she is in Syria. Good riddance to her.
Bangladesh could have stripped her citizenship first but didn't, we beat them to the punch.
It's hard to strip someone of a citizenship, when you don't know they're a citizen
The Government are still trying to strip me of my EU citzenship on March 29th, just saying.
No, the additional benefits of your UK citizenship are changing.
Am I an EU citizen today or not?
If the Government get's it's way will I still be an EU citizen on 30th March?
Why would it matter?
It matters to me.
Well, you always have the option of migrating.
I don't after March 29th.
Of course you can. My eldest emigrated to New Zealand 15 years ago and just did the paperwork
Same for EU
Nah, not with my medical condition Big_G - no country would take me in as an immigrant.
Anyway, I don't want to permanently move to another part of Europe, I just don't whnt to loose the fredoms and rights I currently have as an EU citizen.
Actually, the US is a country that doesn't automatically consider immigrants with a medical condition to be likely to become a public charge, as we don't have public healthcare!
There are restrictions on immigration for those with untreated communicable diseases (I had to have a chest x-ray to show I don't have TB) or a mental health problem that could make the immigrant a danger to themselves or others.
< The premise was you saying that "cirumstances have changed" since the referendum. Of course my retort meant since the referendum as that was the context I was replying to.
If Dr Wollaston is as good as you can get then I assume nothing has changed since the referendum afterall?
Well, I did think of Jeremy Corbyn but we're still not quite sure where he stands.
And anyway, you're splitting hairs. Or at least, rabbitting on.
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
Under our Common Law Constitution the Home Secretary has long had judicial powers. They've been chipped away at, but I can't think when the last time in our history was that the Home Secretary didn't have judicial powers.
I would guess 1794.
The reason being we had no home secretary then, and their functions were split between the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for War.
No, there's no maybe about it. We are in a deal or remain situation. If the ERG vote the deal down then they will have lowered the drawbridge for remain. No deal is dead.
We shall see.
More likely at this stage if the deal is voted down is a [potentially lengthy] extension being agreed a la Cooper-Boles and in that transition potentially a better deal could be agreed.
I'm not ERG but I'd rather remain for now, take our seats in the European Parliament in July and continue negotiating until a Hotel California Brexit is taken off the table.
And of course no deal remains on the table in any extension.
The EU will not extend just to talk ad infinitum
The EU have made clear they will only extend for permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Or GE
GE is irrelevant for the EU unless the new PM commits to a permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Of course it is not. The EU will grant time for a GE without conditions.
Did you miss President Tusk suggesting an extension without conditions.
The EU don't want no deal any more than we do.
I have heard him suggest an extension but it would need parameters to pass the 27. Not another talking shop
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
Under our Common Law Constitution the Home Secretary has long had judicial powers. They've been chipped away at, but I can't think when the last time in our history was that the Home Secretary didn't have judicial powers.
What on earth is a "Common Law Constitution" when it's at home?
We're not dumping her anywhere. We're leaving her where she is in Syria. Good riddance to her.
Bangladesh could have stripped her citizenship first but didn't, we beat them to the punch.
It's hard to strip someone of a citizenship, when you don't know they're a citizen
The Government are still trying to strip me of my EU citzenship on March 29th, just saying.
No, the additional benefits of your UK citizenship are changing.
Am I an EU citizen today or not?
If the Government get's it's way will I still be an EU citizen on 30th March?
Why would it matter?
It matters to me.
Well, you always have the option of migrating.
I don't after March 29th.
Of course you can. My eldest emigrated to New Zealand 15 years ago and just did the paperwork
Same for EU
Nah, not with my medical condition Big_G - no country would take me in as an immigrant.
Anyway, I don't want to permanently move to another part of Europe, I just don't want to loose the freedoms and rights I currently have as an EU citizen.
I am sorry to hear that Ben. I did not mean to be insensitive, apologies
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
Under our Common Law Constitution the Home Secretary has long had judicial powers. They've been chipped away at, but I can't think when the last time in our history was that the Home Secretary didn't have judicial powers.
"Separation of powers"? That's for the other countries!
At least we've moved on from when the Lord Chancellor was simultaneously a member of the executive, legislature and the judiciary though.
< The premise was you saying that "cirumstances have changed" since the referendum. Of course my retort meant since the referendum as that was the context I was replying to.
If Dr Wollaston is as good as you can get then I assume nothing has changed since the referendum afterall?
Well, I did think of Jeremy Corbyn but we're still not quite sure where he stands.
And anyway, you're splitting hairs. Or at least, rabbitting on.
I'm not splitting hairs, I'm disputing that "circumstances have changed". Nobody relevant has changed their minds since the referendum so that is evidence that circumstances haven't changed.
When prominent Leavers start backing a second referendum it'd be a sign that circumstances have changed.
No, there's no maybe about it. We are in a deal or remain situation. If the ERG vote the deal down then they will have lowered the drawbridge for remain. No deal is dead.
We shall see.
More likely at this stage if the deal is voted down is a [potentially lengthy] extension being agreed a la Cooper-Boles and in that transition potentially a better deal could be agreed.
I'm not ERG but I'd rather remain for now, take our seats in the European Parliament in July and continue negotiating until a Hotel California Brexit is taken off the table.
And of course no deal remains on the table in any extension.
The EU will not extend just to talk ad infinitum
The EU have made clear they will only extend for permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Or GE
GE is irrelevant for the EU unless the new PM commits to a permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Of course it is not. The EU will grant time for a GE without conditions.
The EU as they made clear last time could not care less about a GE unless a new government backs the Deal or pivots towards EUref2 or permanent Customs Union
No, there's no maybe about it. We are in a deal or remain situation. If the ERG vote the deal down then they will have lowered the drawbridge for remain. No deal is dead.
We shall see.
More likely at this stage if the deal is voted down is a [potentially lengthy] extension being agreed a la Cooper-Boles and in that transition potentially a better deal could be agreed.
I'm not ERG but I'd rather remain for now, take our seats in the European Parliament in July and continue negotiating until a Hotel California Brexit is taken off the table.
And of course no deal remains on the table in any extension.
The EU will not extend just to talk ad infinitum
The EU have made clear they will only extend for permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Or GE
GE is irrelevant for the EU unless the new PM commits to a permanent Customs Union or EUref2
Of course it is not. The EU will grant time for a GE without conditions.
Hopefully.
But it requires unanimity. Would be a great opportunity for say Spain to demand Gibraltar for instance.
If we really wanted to annoy Spain, we should persuade the EU to grant it similar status to Ceuta and Melilla. And then say we will talk about Gib when those are returned to Morocco.
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
"Quasi-judicial" is not a form of words which reflects the reality of the situation, any more than you can get away with being drunk by claiming to be quasi-sober. The first requirement for justice to be done is impartiality, which you will get from a judge or a juror long before you will get it from a Home Secretary who thinks his Prime Ministerial ambitions depend on the conclision he arrives at.
Under our Common Law Constitution the Home Secretary has long had judicial powers. They've been chipped away at, but I can't think when the last time in our history was that the Home Secretary didn't have judicial powers.
Really?
Name half a dozen, and then explain why we have a judiciary at all if there is nothing questionable about the executive carrying out the judiciary's function.
Comments
I rather liked buying a paper to read.
Mostly I purchased the Independent. I also bought a lot of copies of the FT. I always enjoyed buying the Times, but never felt I was quite ready. The Telegraph was always there, but didn't seem human. The Guardian didn't seem of this world.
A public reckoning of the evil that IS is would do something for the many victims and might help deter others from doing something similar.
If it became no deal versus revoke rather than no deal versus a better deal then numbers can change rapidly.
The ERG refuse the pass the deal so we head towards no deal. It results in 10-12 Cabinet resignations and 10-15 defections to the Tiggers. We've lost our majority, Theresa can't just plough on with that many resignations and defections. She will have no choice but to step down. A new leader is elected in an MPs coup because we need one, he or she goes to Brussels and says "I need an extension for an election, I've got no majority and no mandate". The EU says "why should we agree?".
With the Tiggers now offering an option to MPs not in favour of No Deal by default the deal is the only game in town for Brexit, if the ERG vote it down then we remain.
And they would be crucified by the press and the rest of the party . The DUPs threats are now also blunted by the Ind Group.
If Corbyn doesn’t support a second vote I expect a large exodus next week of Labour MPs .
As an ardent Remainer I could easily forgive the Ind Group propping up May on the condition she supports a second vote .
And they certainly would support the government to pass the legislation and make sure the vote happens .
If May had not had that confidence challenge in December the ERG would have had a lot more leverage now.
Does TSE still think No Deal is the most likely outcome, I wonder?
As any thread relating to Brexit grows longer, the probability of someone invoking "but muh democracy" approaches 1.
But I was thinking of trials using the ICC. But if the Iraqis want to go ahead and try people let them. It’s their country which IS ruined.
I think the stakes are too high for enough MPs to change their votes now without the EU agreeing any changes. Hopefully the EU and the AG know that.
Hopefully the AG doesn't just change his advice in order to get a different result. But I don't think he'd do that.
Theirs seems odd in [apparently] being automatic.
a) By-elections in their constituencies
b) An early General Election triggered by a VONC.
If the Government get's it's way will I still be an EU citizen on 30th March?
More likely at this stage if the deal is voted down is a [potentially lengthy] extension being agreed a la Cooper-Boles and in that transition potentially a better deal could be agreed.
I'm not ERG but I'd rather remain for now, take our seats in the European Parliament in July and continue negotiating until a Hotel California Brexit is taken off the table.
And of course no deal remains on the table in any extension.
The absurdity of Brexit !
A koala maybe
If May turns down EUref2 or refuses to shift to BINO and Labour agrees to the latter inevitably they will shift to Labour
Typically the LOTO would be the first in line to be commissioned, but I think strictly speaking it's up to the outgoing PM to advise the sovereign whom she should summon first, and there would be circumstances where a PM might through personal unpopularity lose the confidence of the Commons, but someone else in the PM's party such as its deputy leader might clearly be the person most likely to be able to command confidence. Does the Parliamentary Conservative Party have a deputy leader?
You may not be a member of the European Union by then but that is different
Granted I am not a nationality expert, but if you are a citizen of X and that affords you privileges of being in club Y, then of course people will be upset about losing those privileges when you leave, but the X part has not changed and it is not a citizenship issue.
Per @DougSeal I am not an expert but l’d expect that in a situation like this the Home Secretary is acting in a quasi judicial capacity
It’s why he needs to be “convinced thst” X, Y and Z are the case (not “decide”) and why it goes directly to appeal not to a lower court
Cooper-Boles originally was seeking an extension without an agreed end post.
Tusk yesterday proposed this as a solution: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-tusk/eus-tusk-longer-brexit-talks-would-be-better-than-no-deal-idUKKCN1Q92OL
In Switzerland I believe Swiss citizens are also citizens of both the canton and commune in which they reside, and to acquire Swiss citizenship, a resident has to be approved at all three levels.
So long as you're willing for the 52% of people who voted in the way you're now rejecting to say, OK, democracy doesn't work. What now?
If you can name a better system than democracy, I'm all ears.
Hypothetically if May's deal is rejected next week and there's no sign of compromise and May turns around and says "this deal can't go through, I do not think we are prepared for no deal, we need to request more time and continue talking as European Council President Donald Tusk has suggested" and she puts that forward as Plan C to Parliament then will she lose her majority? Will that be rejected?
I think the EU will agree to it, they don't want no deal. I think Parliament will agree to it. And I think the Tory Party will somehow ensure she is replaced with a new leader to start revised negotiations but at least no deal is avoided for now.
No commitment to remain, just kick the can for now.
Same for EU
The EU don't want no deal any more than we do.
Remember, Tories were Irish cattle thieves. Whigs were Scottish sheep rustlers (I think). Labour still talk about Socialism. People like nicknames.
And compared to animal thieves and mass murderers, a fluffy toy for a five year old with a father who liked telling stories seems eminently respectable.
Anyway, I don't want to permanently move to another part of Europe, I just don't want to loose the freedoms and rights I currently have as an EU citizen.
As with all minor parties, the prospects for TIG are hugely dependent on events outside their control. IF we were to get to a situation where No Deal was inevitable, would an implosion within the Conservative Party take place ? What about Labour under similar circumstances?
As Antifrank suggests, the aim of TIG may be nothing more than to force pragmatism onto the main parties (which is what the SDP effected though after its own demise). The problem is as that aim looks more distant and as views become more entrenched, the pressure to start coming up with a distinct alternative.
As for those who cry crocodile tears over the impact of TIG on the LDs, as far as this LD is concerned, if TIG can get LD policies enacted, who am I to disagree? Supporting a party is a means, not an end in itself and it's not like supporting a football team or Liverpool where it's my party, right or wrong, is it?
It clearly is for some.
As an aside some spectacular borrowing figures this morning and clearly there will be those calling for big tax cuts to stimulate the economy in the event of a No Deal. To be honest, a surplus of £15 billion could be a down payment on some decent social care for vulnerable adults and children (who needs tax cuts?).
The question is what will May do IF the WDA fails again in the Commons - there seems little prospect of meaningful change. Revocation will be political suicide for the Conservatives - it would be a betrayal several orders of magnitude greater than Nick Clegg's tuition fees debacle. The problem for May is she can see Cabinet resignations and defections to TIG if she abandons her Deal and pivots to No Deal.
But it requires unanimity. Would be a great opportunity for say Spain to demand Gibraltar for instance.
If Dr Wollaston is as good as you can get then I assume nothing has changed since the referendum afterall?
There are restrictions on immigration for those with untreated communicable diseases (I had to have a chest x-ray to show I don't have TB) or a mental health problem that could make the immigrant a danger to themselves or others.
And anyway, you're splitting hairs. Or at least, rabbitting on.
The reason being we had no home secretary then, and their functions were split between the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for War.
At least we've moved on from when the Lord Chancellor was simultaneously a member of the executive, legislature and the judiciary though.
When prominent Leavers start backing a second referendum it'd be a sign that circumstances have changed.
Name half a dozen, and then explain why we have a judiciary at all if there is nothing questionable about the executive carrying out the judiciary's function.