But I suspect that a large proportion of the grudgingly-accepting will switch to full-on Revoke if this deal fails - "you had your chance, you had a deal and you blew it".
Yes, that is spot-on. The ERG have blown it in my opinion. If like Michael Gove they'd backed the deal as a reasonable implementation of Brexit (which it is), then I think it would have passed, and we'd be leaving on time next March. By trashing it, they've encouraged Remainers to trash it as well, and if the deal fails there is only one other option, which is to revoke Article 50 either unilaterally (if the Advocate General's opinion is confirmed), or by agreement with the EU.
The backstop is an unreasonable restriction that violated the whole concept of "take back control".
The ability to revoke A50 has not been agreed. There has been no ruling.
The Advocate General has indicated his *opinion*. The ECJ will then rule, taking into consideration all information and views, including their own.
True, they tends to agree with the AG more often than not (~80% of the time), but this is not, and never has been, a normal case.
The assumption that everyone made is that the ECJ will rule as it always does in a way which increases the power of the EU.
That's not the case here. This opinion, if affirmed by the ECJ, will greatly, potentially catastrophically, undermine the EU's power to stop governments playing silly buggers.
It could just be showing that the ECJ just goes along with whatever the EU wants at any one time rather than being driven by legal principle.
They want us to remain so suddenly it's possible.
I'm sure it's occurred to the great legal and constitutional minds in Luxembourg that this ruling will have *consequences* far beyond the question at hand here.
It doesn't matter if it's hard, soft, pure or I-can't-believe-it's-not-Brexit, it's a blooming mess.
You keep on making a big deal about the fact May is a 'remainer', as if it's some virulent form of 21st century leprosy. Again I ask why you think that any of the likely leavers could have done any better, given their rather poor histories? What's your thinking?
I think the starting position for a leaver in charge of the negotiations would have been very different.
For a start I doubt a Leaver PM would have accepted the EU's timetable and schedule so right at the start they'd have been an almighty row.
I think the UK's default position would have been WTO (with two years of planning for that outcome) and then negotiate inwards from there...
I don't think a leaver would ever have agreed to the backstop in 5am in the morning a few days before Christmas 2017.
He's just trying to make it personal as displacement for having to think about the flaws in the whole enterprise. Which Mrs M has done her best to try and work through.
"Which Mrs M has done her best to try and work through."
That's a really good point. She and her immediate team have done a heck of a lot of work to get this far, whereas Davis, Fox, Boris etc appear to have achieved f'all over two years; and in fact have gone out of their way to undermine her.
Now, it could be that May is hopeless, and that all the activity has been akin to a headless chicken running around. But she has at least got a deal, whereas the aforementioned Brexiteers titans did fa'll.
And whilst the deal is not liked by many, it has got a great deal of the moderate leavers and remainers on here behind it. And that's quite an achievement.
Whisper it quietly: perhaps she's done a reasonable job of an impossible task?
"Informed Consent" doesn't come close to "Take Back Control" as a slogan IMO.
And its probably not as good as "Better In" or "Better Together" from the first go round.
"Make Britain Sane Again"
"Stop The Chaos" would be a good one for Remain.
Leave takes a little more thinking but is has to emphasize the way the establishment are trying to subvert democracy maybe something like: "Vote Leave In The Loser's Vote!
"Don't make us make you vote again"
"We aren't allowed to leave so we let's vote to stay"
What a shower our Government is. Refusing to make contingency plans to stop chaos.
What contingency plans do you suggest should have been made to rework Dover to be able to handle a completely different freight model? And should we have taken back control of Calais as well, just to be sure they made the same arrangements their end?
Get Chris Grayling down there with a transit van full of 2x4 and he'll have it sorted by mid-Feb.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
What a shower our Government is. Refusing to make contingency plans to stop chaos.
What contingency plans do you suggest should have been made to rework Dover to be able to handle a completely different freight model? And should we have taken back control of Calais as well, just to be sure they made the same arrangements their end?
The 36-month segue from "it'll be easy" to "why are there no contingency plans to avert this entirely obvious disaster" is almost complete.
It doesn't matter if it's hard, soft, pure or I-can't-believe-it's-not-Brexit, it's a blooming mess.
You keep on making a big deal about the fact May is a 'remainer', as if it's some virulent form of 21st century leprosy. Again I ask why you think that any of the likely leavers could have done any better, given their rather poor histories? What's your thinking?
I think the starting position for a leaver in charge of the negotiations would have been very different.
For a start I doubt a Leaver PM would have accepted the EU's timetable and schedule so right at the start they'd have been an almighty row.
I think the UK's default position would have been WTO (with two years of planning for that outcome) and then negotiate inwards from there...
I don't think a leaver would ever have agreed to the backstop in 5am in the morning a few days before Christmas 2017.
Just three things off the top of my head.
The leaver on offer was one Mrs Leadsom, as I recall. Your faith in her abilities to understand and navigate her way through one of the most complex issues of modern times is remarkable.
Sorry but I won't be so polite. That is complete and utter bollocks. May put Leavers in key positions whilst at the same time making sure they had no power to actually take any decisions and vesting all that power in her own office and a few select Europhile civil servants. The Leaver ministers were never anything more than smoke screen and a disposal asset for when she needed to deflect attention from her own failings. She did exactly the same thing with Amber Rudd who carried the can for May's own failings at the Home Office.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It is just sad that so many useful idiots are taken in by this scam.
I think you're being charitable. They aren't taken in, many in fact they know it's complete rubbish. They are doing and saying anything they can to remain in the EU.
Oh dear we sort of tried but it was impossible, what a shame.
That does not apply to me. Had Leavers come up with a coherent plan I would have been OK with them to go ahead with it. But they haven't. They had not a clue about what they wanted.
The whole leave campaign has shown the folly of making a decision based on only the "push" factors rather than have a clear and realistic idea of the "pull" factor. There has been no coherent plan from any of the Leavers about what Britain's alternative to membership of the EU should be, its costs and benefits, who bears them and how to get from where we are now to there.
@RichardTyndall did have a destination: EFTA I believe and set it out in a thread header shortly after the vote. So he at least has been coherent.
But a lot of the Leaver politicians have talked airy fairy bollocks in the last two and a half years and have been shown wanting, both in vision and execution.
So even though I have some quite serious doubts about the EU and its direction of travel, I think on balance - now - that if we can we should seek to Remain and do the very hard thinking about what sort of country we want to be and what our role in Europe and the world should be that we have not done in the last few years.
And, at risk of repeating myself, I think this could be - if we approach it in the right way i.e. instead of shouting about betrayal and looking for conspiracies and castigating people for not being true believers - an opportunity for Britain and a new generation of politicians. Though I am probably being naive and romantic and hopelessly hopeful in wishing for this.
But I do - for my childrens' sake, and my country's sake - if that does not sound too pompous.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
He's just trying to make it personal as displacement for having to think about the flaws in the whole enterprise. Which Mrs M has done her best to try and work through.
"Which Mrs M has done her best to try and work through."
That's a really good point. She and her immediate team have done a heck of a lot of work to get this far, whereas Davis, Fox, Boris etc appear to have achieved f'all over two years; and in fact have gone out of their way to undermine her.
Now, it could be that May is hopeless, and that all the activity has been akin to a headless chicken running around. But she has at least got a deal, whereas the aforementioned Brexiteers titans did fa'll.
And whilst the deal is not liked by many, it has got a great deal of the moderate leavers and remainers on here behind it. And that's quite an achievement.
Whisper it quietly: perhaps she's done a reasonable job of an impossible task?
What the Tories don't seem to appreciate is that Mrs M is actually carrying their poll ratings with ordinary voters right now. As many of the lemming letter club MPs found when they went back to their constituencies just recently.
He's just trying to make it personal as displacement for having to think about the flaws in the whole enterprise. Which Mrs M has done her best to try and work through.
Nope. If you genuinely believe it is impossible to leave the EU then you are accepting that the concepts of the Nation State and democracy are dead. William at least has the honesty to admit to the first whilst Barnesian is happy to proclaim the second. The flaws have been entirely in the execution, not in the basic principle.
My view of Mrs May is a rather separate issue as my disdain for her long predates Brexit. She was an atrocious Home Secretary and has continued to be an atrocious PM. Pretty much anyone could have done a better job - and I include a fair few on the Labour benches there as well although perhaps not their leader.
If the government was found to be in contempt of Parliament surely the rest of the day's business would be suspended and Theresa would spend the evening considering her position for allowing it to happen?
It doesn't matter if it's hard, soft, pure or I-can't-believe-it's-not-Brexit, it's a blooming mess.
You keep on making a big deal about the fact May is a 'remainer', as if it's some virulent form of 21st century leprosy. Again I ask why you think that any of the likely leavers could have done any better, given their rather poor histories? What's your thinking?
I think the starting position for a leaver in charge of the negotiations would have been very different.
For a start I doubt a Leaver PM would have accepted the EU's timetable and schedule so right at the start they'd have been an almighty row.
I think the UK's default position would have been WTO (with two years of planning for that outcome) and then negotiate inwards from there...
I don't think a leaver would ever have agreed to the backstop in 5am in the morning a few days before Christmas 2017.
Just three things off the top of my head.
No, but they would have faced other problems and issues. These are people who wanted one of the biggest changes to occur to the UK in decades, campaigned for it, brought down their party leaders over it, and they didn't even have a plan. They are Wile E Coyote after he's caught Roadrunner.
They would have faced just the same pressures from the happy-dancing remainer tribes and the UKIP-leaning xenophobic shits; also add in the fact they'd have been negotiating with an organisation they clearly hate.
Brexit isn't a zero-sum gain: both the EU and the UK could do well or poorly out of it. Many leavers would have gone into the negotiations wanting to actively hurt the EU, and that's hardly a good starting point.
In short: leavers may not have made the same decisions, or mistakes, as May. But I have zero confidence any of the likely PM's would have made better decisions, or fewer mistakes.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
If the government was found to be in contempt of Parliament surely the rest of the day's business would be suspended and Theresa would spend the evening considering her position for allowing it to happen?
I demand to see the Serjeant at Arms, bedecked in his most outrageously ceremonial tights, marching Geoffrey Cox, David Lidington and Theresa May to the Tower for a month's stay at her majesty's pleasure.
If the government was found to be in contempt of Parliament surely the rest of the day's business would be suspended and Theresa would spend the evening considering her position for allowing it to happen?
You really do not understand this do you. If the contempt is passed it goes to the standards committee for consideration in due course
The ECJ advocate's opinion is pretty startling in many ways.
It says that since A50 is part of an international treaty, that means the UK may derogate from it the same way it may derogate from any international treaty obligation, as is its right as a sovereign state. That's a pretty serious opinion: one that greatly undermines and weakens the EU, since it now has no mechanism to prevent any sovereign state from derogating from anything, since its entire existence is based on international treaties.
To put it another way, the EU is a rules-based organization, and amazingly the ECJ's attorney is arguing that the rules don't matter.
It is interesting because it acts directly against the basic principles of the Vienna Convention - although of course the EU is not a signatory to that. That makes it clear that there can be no derogation except by mechanisms included in the relevant treaties. If the AG is saying this is not the case then it basically makes any treaty meaningless - which is what the Vienna Convention was supposed to prevent.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
If the government was found to be in contempt of Parliament surely the rest of the day's business would be suspended and Theresa would spend the evening considering her position for allowing it to happen?
You really do not understand this do you. If the contempt is passed it goes to the standards committee for consideration in due course
Standards? Or privileges? The two are very different.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
As others have said she not so much fell for it as warmly embraced it. It satisfied her own preconceived bias against immigrants.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It is just sad that so many useful idiots are taken in by this scam.
I think you're being charitable. They aren't taken in, many in fact they know it's complete rubbish. They are doing and saying anything they can to remain in the EU.
Oh dear we sort of tried but it was impossible, what a shame.
That does not apply to me. Had Leavers come up with a coherent plan I would have been OK with them to go ahead with it. But they haven't. They had not a clue about what they wanted.
The whole leave campaign has shown the folly of making a decision based on only the "push" factors rather than have a clear and realistic idea of the "pull" factor. There has been no coherent plan from any of the Leavers about what Britain's alternative to membership of the EU should be, its costs and benefits, who bears them and how to get from where we are now to there.
@RichardTyndall did have a destination: EFTA I believe and set it out in a thread header shortly after the vote. So he at least has been coherent.
But a lot of the Leaver politicians have talked airy fairy bollocks in the last two and a half years and have been shown wanting, both in vision and execution.
So even though I have some quite serious doubts about the EU and its direction of travel, I think on balance - now - that if we can we should seek to Remain and do the very hard thinking about what sort of country we want to be and what our role in Europe and the world should be that we have not done in the last few years.
And, at risk of repeating myself, I think this could be - if we approach it in the right way i.e. instead of shouting about betrayal and looking for conspiracies and castigating people for not being true believers - an opportunity for Britain and a new generation of politicians. Though I am probably being naive and romantic and hopelessly hopeful in wishing for this.
But I do - for my childrens' sake, and my country's sake - if that does not sound too pompous.
Fair enough...I'm just angry about the ridiculous way the government has gone about sorting the referendum result out. For both remain and leave members of the government.
And as I suspected from the start it looks like we're not going to end up leaving at all. The largest ever vote for anything in the history of the country....ignored.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
That dumb word cloud shows it's about much more than the word immigration. I can clearly see control, sovereignty etc there too.
If you added control/sovereignty and laws together I wonder how big the “size” of that combined would be next to immigration?
After all, they mean more or less the same thing.
Yes, although did respondents just pick a single word or did they make a statement which then got word-clouded? If the latter, then adding together isn't valid because a single person may have said, e.g. "take back control of our laws"
If the government was found to be in contempt of Parliament surely the rest of the day's business would be suspended and Theresa would spend the evening considering her position for allowing it to happen?
You really do not understand this do you. If the contempt is passed it goes to the standards committee for consideration in due course
Not quite.
The government has amended the motion to remand the motion with the privileges (not standards) committee. But the amendment will be voted on first. If the amendment does not carry, then the decision whether to find the goverment in contempt will stay with the House.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
As others have said she not so much fell for it as warmly embraced it. It satisfied her own preconceived bias against immigrants.
Agreed. Better phrasing than mine but the point is it was a straw man then and is now
He's just trying to make it personal as displacement for having to think about the flaws in the whole enterprise. Which Mrs M has done her best to try and work through.
"Which Mrs M has done her best to try and work through."
That's a really good point. She and her immediate team have done a heck of a lot of work to get this far, whereas Davis, Fox, Boris etc appear to have achieved f'all over two years; and in fact have gone out of their way to undermine her.
Now, it could be that May is hopeless, and that all the activity has been akin to a headless chicken running around. But she has at least got a deal, whereas the aforementioned Brexiteers titans did fa'll.
And whilst the deal is not liked by many, it has got a great deal of the moderate leavers and remainers on here behind it. And that's quite an achievement.
Whisper it quietly: perhaps she's done a reasonable job of an impossible task?
What the Tories don't seem to appreciate is that Mrs M is actually carrying their poll ratings with ordinary voters right now. As many of the lemming letter club MPs found when they went back to their constituencies just recently.
The ECJ ruling by the Advocate General the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50 and cancel Brexit and stay in the EU is clearly good news for Remainers as it means if they won an EUref2 before next March the UK can rejoin the EU without needing other EU nations support or the risk of joining the Euro or Schengen being required as conditions
Always happy to help out Remain voters … How about "Grovelling is good." "We are not worthy." "Know your place." Or more realistically ... "Brexiteers, bow to your masters."'
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
That dumb word cloud shows it's about much more than the word immigration. I can clearly see control, sovereignty etc there too.
If you added control/sovereignty and laws together I wonder how big the “size” of that combined would be next to immigration?
After all, they mean more or less the same thing.
Yes, although did respondents just pick a single word or did they make a statement which then got word-clouded? If the latter, then adding together isn't valid because a single person may have said, e.g. "take back control of our laws"
Taking back "control" of "borders" was seen as the means to control immigration as much (if not more) than to prevent rulings on the wattage of vacuum cleaners.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
If the government was found to be in contempt of Parliament surely the rest of the day's business would be suspended and Theresa would spend the evening considering her position for allowing it to happen?
You really do not understand this do you. If the contempt is passed it goes to the standards committee for consideration in due course
Standards? Or privileges? The two are very different.
Ah yeah, it looks like Lab+SNP have a majority on privileges, whereas they don't on standards.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
I like to think Grieve has been plotting this for several months.
Grieve has been clever, but dishonourable. He voted to trigger A50, but has constantly sought to sabotage Brexit.
Grieve's actions are consistent with being a committed, good Parliamentarian. The way he's used Parliament against May repeatedly is very impressive. Shining example of why it's better to have people like Grieve inside the tent pissing out.
But I suspect that a large proportion of the grudgingly-accepting will switch to full-on Revoke if this deal fails - "you had your chance, you had a deal and you blew it".
Yes, that is spot-on. The ERG have blown it in my opinion. If like Michael Gove they'd backed the deal as a reasonable implementation of Brexit (which it is), then I think it would have passed, and we'd be leaving on time next March. By trashing it, they've encouraged Remainers to trash it as well, and if the deal fails there is only one other option, which is to revoke Article 50 either unilaterally (if the Advocate General's opinion is confirmed), or by agreement with the EU.
True, but they are too stupid and blinkered to see it.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
That dumb word cloud shows it's about much more than the word immigration. I can clearly see control, sovereignty etc there too.
Without immigration control being a key promise Leave would not have got over 50% and would have lost
You often repeat this but it is just as meaningless now as it was the first time you said it. In a tight vote where there are multiple reasons for voting in a particular way it stands to reason that if any one of those factors had been different then the vote would have been lost.
The reverse argument is more accurate. If Leave had only been about immigration there is no way it would have won.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
If the government was found to be in contempt of Parliament surely the rest of the day's business would be suspended and Theresa would spend the evening considering her position for allowing it to happen?
You really do not understand this do you. If the contempt is passed it goes to the standards committee for consideration in due course
Do you have a source for this? As far as I can see, the vote is the final word unless the government's amendment passes. That may well be wrong though, I can't find any reporting that's very clear on this. Not sure why the government would have tabled that amendment otherwise, though.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
Anyway, time for me to be off. Nice for there to actually be some developments regarding this story to justify the airtime, rather than endless rehashing old news.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
Scott thinks that HGVs travelling the length of Europe and onward into Britain, thundering accross our countryside to collect Irish goods is a good thing.
You don't think free trade is a good thing?
Wow
Free trade is a good thing.
Having our motorways clogged up by hauliers for a hostile third party nation that aren't trading with us isn't.
Are there really that many Russian trucks on UK roads?
The only Russian trucks are the ones going to the London laundry full of cash
Nigel Dodds on R5L says "unlikely" DUP will support VONC in govt if MV fails.
The DUP are going to keep May's hands glued to the wheel so long as she is hurtling toward the cliff edge
So the DUP will abstain, leaving May with a majority of 1 in the house.
Unless Sinn Fein can be cajoled into taking their seats
DUP did not comment on abstaining as far as I am aware
If the deal falls they will support HMG
Fair point- they said they will reconsider C&S only if the dodgy deal passes.
Indeed.
Listening to Sky the narrative is changing minute by minute with an amendment signed by 16 conservative mps seemingly to prevent no deal. It does look as if the sane conservatives including Nick Boles, Dominic Grieve, Nicky Morgan and Amber Rudd are making moves to recapture the party from ERG
There is so much going on but my instinct tells me we have seen peak ERG and TM deal becomes the deal or we do actually remain
Everything the media are reporting does look like the mps are acting across party to protect the country from the worst excess of brexit
The ECJ ruling by the Advocate General the UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50 and cancel Brexit and stay in the EU is clearly good news for Remainers as it means if they won an EUref2 before next March the UK can rejoin the EU without needing other EU nations support or the risk of joining the Euro or Schengen being required as conditions
There was never any danger of these things, but what it's done (if the actual court agrees with it) is remove the ability of the PM to preemptively block the whole thing by sabotaging discussions with the other member states.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
If the government was found to be in contempt of Parliament surely the rest of the day's business would be suspended and Theresa would spend the evening considering her position for allowing it to happen?
You really do not understand this do you. If the contempt is passed it goes to the standards committee for consideration in due course
Not quite.
The government has amended the motion to remand the motion with the privileges (not standards) committee. But the amendment will be voted on first. If the amendment does not carry, then the decision whether to find the goverment in contempt will stay with the House.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
If the government was found to be in contempt of Parliament surely the rest of the day's business would be suspended and Theresa would spend the evening considering her position for allowing it to happen?
You really do not understand this do you. If the contempt is passed it goes to the standards committee for consideration in due course
Do you have a source for this? As far as I can see, the vote is the final word unless the government's amendment passes. That may well be wrong though, I can't find any reporting that's very clear on this. Not sure why the government would have tabled that amendment otherwise, though.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
That is, if I may say so politely, rubbish. May embraced Brexit and defined it in the way best calculated to get Tory leavers supporting her. She appointed Leavers to the main three departments and they failed. Blaming one civil servant for the mess the government and leavers have made of this project is unjustifiable and, frankly, distasteful. Politicians need to take responsibility not blame others. Pretty much everything Davis, Johnson, Fox and others have said has turned out to be wrong, flawed or incoherent. That is their fault not that of Mr Robbins.
Sorry but I won't be so polite. That is complete and utter bollocks. May put Leavers in key positions whilst at the same time making sure they had no power to actually take any decisions and vesting all that power in her own office and a few select Europhile civil servants. The Leaver ministers were never anything more than smoke screen and a disposal asset for when she needed to deflect attention from her own failings. She did exactly the same thing with Amber Rudd who carried the can for May's own failings at the Home Office.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It is just sad that so many useful idiots are taken in by this scam.
I utterly disagree with you. You have spent decades of your life honourably working towards Brexit, and now it's happening, and is looking fairly chaotic, if not disastrous, you're looking for someone to blame.
And it can't be Brexiteers, as Brexit is pure and good.
It must be someone else's fault.
I also love your belief that it would all have been better if (say) Boris, Davis or fox had been in charge. A belief based, as far as I can tell, on nothing but the strength of their Brexit fervour. To make it clear to you: they're clueless and ineffective. And I could put it stronger than that ...
Given I am not interested in a hard or pure Brexit your comments are at best ill informed and at worst utter garbage. I blame the person in charge. That is May. An authoritarian Remainer unfit for any public office above cleaning the municipal loos.
Which is of course a view I have held about her since long before she got anywhere near derailing Brexit.
Make your mind up. Has she negotiated an acceptable deal given the necessary compromises that you didn't anticipate, or has she totally derailed Brexit through her incompetence?
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
Abusive and ranting about fake news? Richard is Donald Trump and I claim my 5 Euros.
The OP pointed out some words appear multiple times.
Having said that, I think the biggest issue is fundamentally that a word cloud focuses, on, well, words. Abstract concepts like sovereignty - perhaps frequently misspelled - are a lot more complex than immigration, which is nicely surmised by that word.
Nevertheless I do think that Richard T sometimes overstates his own position. Whether or not sovereignty or immigration was "the" top factor, clearly both were concerns for voters. Plenty of people voted Leave driven by one or both factors. Some people voted Remain despite agreeing on those points.
This is the motion as moved by the shadow attorney:
That this House finds Ministers in contempt for their failure to comply with the requirements of the motion for return passed on 13 November 2018, to publish the final and full legal advice provided by the Attorney General to the Cabinet concerning the EU Withdrawal Agreement and the framework for the future relationship, and orders its immediate publication.
This government has proposed an amendment to refer it to the privileges committee, but Labour have not accepted the amendment.
The government's amendment will be voted on first, if it does not pass, then the motion will be voted on unamended, and it will be for the house to decide whether to find the government in contempt.
As for who will be punished and for how long? My guess it will be up to Mr Speaker to decide who gets to carry the can and issue the appropriate warrants for the Serjeant-at-Arms to carry out. Initially I think the Serjeant will be empowered to march Cox to his office and obtain the requested documents. Only if he fails to comply will Cox be suspended from Parliament.
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
That dumb word cloud shows it's about much more than the word immigration. I can clearly see control, sovereignty etc there too.
Without immigration control being a key promise Leave would not have got over 50% and would have lost
You often repeat this but it is just as meaningless now as it was the first time you said it. In a tight vote where there are multiple reasons for voting in a particular way it stands to reason that if any one of those factors had been different then the vote would have been lost.
The reverse argument is more accurate. If Leave had only been about immigration there is no way it would have won.
So your comment is pointless.
No it is not as for the Leave vote to be respected free movement must end given it was one of the Leave campaigns key promises and pivotal for working class Leavers
May never had the first idea about Brexit and has done everything she can to make sure it cannot be completed.
It's a remarkable achievement to block something so effectively while not having the first idea about it. I'd say nobody in parliament understands Brexit as well as Theresa May at this point.
I will clarify my comment. She never had the first idea about what drove Brexit.
She fell for the Remainers straw man that it was about immigration and not control.
You're saying that now but can you imagine the shitstorm that Leave enthusiasts would be kicking up if she'd come back with a deal that failed to end freedom of movement?
Nigel Dodds on R5L says "unlikely" DUP will support VONC in govt if MV fails.
The DUP are going to keep May's hands glued to the wheel so long as she is hurtling toward the cliff edge
So the DUP will abstain, leaving May with a majority of 1 in the house.
Unless Sinn Fein can be cajoled into taking their seats
DUP did not comment on abstaining as far as I am aware
If the deal falls they will support HMG
Fair point- they said they will reconsider C&S only if the dodgy deal passes.
Indeed.
Listening to Sky the narrative is changing minute by minute with an amendment signed by 16 conservative mps seemingly to prevent no deal. It does look as if the sane conservatives including Nick Boles, Dominic Grieve, Nicky Morgan and Amber Rudd are making moves to recapture the party from ERG
There is so much going on but my instinct tells me we have seen peak ERG and TM deal becomes the deal or we do actually remain
Everything the media are reporting does look like the mps are acting across party to protect the country from the worst excess of brexit
Comments
For a start I doubt a Leaver PM would have accepted the EU's timetable and schedule so right at the start they'd have been an almighty row.
I think the UK's default position would have been WTO (with two years of planning for that outcome) and then negotiate inwards from there...
I don't think a leaver would ever have agreed to the backstop in 5am in the morning a few days before Christmas 2017.
Just three things off the top of my head.
That's a really good point. She and her immediate team have done a heck of a lot of work to get this far, whereas Davis, Fox, Boris etc appear to have achieved f'all over two years; and in fact have gone out of their way to undermine her.
Now, it could be that May is hopeless, and that all the activity has been akin to a headless chicken running around. But she has at least got a deal, whereas the aforementioned Brexiteers titans did fa'll.
And whilst the deal is not liked by many, it has got a great deal of the moderate leavers and remainers on here behind it. And that's quite an achievement.
Whisper it quietly: perhaps she's done a reasonable job of an impossible task?
"We aren't allowed to leave so we let's vote to stay"
"Don't take back control"
"Vote remain to make this referendum the last"
The whole leave campaign has shown the folly of making a decision based on only the "push" factors rather than have a clear and realistic idea of the "pull" factor. There has been no coherent plan from any of the Leavers about what Britain's alternative to membership of the EU should be, its costs and benefits, who bears them and how to get from where we are now to there.
@RichardTyndall did have a destination: EFTA I believe and set it out in a thread header shortly after the vote. So he at least has been coherent.
But a lot of the Leaver politicians have talked airy fairy bollocks in the last two and a half years and have been shown wanting, both in vision and execution.
So even though I have some quite serious doubts about the EU and its direction of travel, I think on balance - now - that if we can we should seek to Remain and do the very hard thinking about what sort of country we want to be and what our role in Europe and the world should be that we have not done in the last few years.
And, at risk of repeating myself, I think this could be - if we approach it in the right way i.e. instead of shouting about betrayal and looking for conspiracies and castigating people for not being true believers - an opportunity for Britain and a new generation of politicians. Though I am probably being naive and romantic and hopelessly hopeful in wishing for this.
But I do - for my childrens' sake, and my country's sake - if that does not sound too pompous.
She was meeting with TM last night. Plan B on its way hopefully
Unless Sinn Fein can be cajoled into taking their seats
My view of Mrs May is a rather separate issue as my disdain for her long predates Brexit. She was an atrocious Home Secretary and has continued to be an atrocious PM. Pretty much anyone could have done a better job - and I include a fair few on the Labour benches there as well although perhaps not their leader.
They would have faced just the same pressures from the happy-dancing remainer tribes and the UKIP-leaning xenophobic shits; also add in the fact they'd have been negotiating with an organisation they clearly hate.
Brexit isn't a zero-sum gain: both the EU and the UK could do well or poorly out of it. Many leavers would have gone into the negotiations wanting to actively hurt the EU, and that's hardly a good starting point.
In short: leavers may not have made the same decisions, or mistakes, as May. But I have zero confidence any of the likely PM's would have made better decisions, or fewer mistakes.
I mean, Boris? Really?
After all, they mean more or less the same thing.
But let's disperse a complicated issue into a cloud of words then pretend only one matters ....
And as I suspected from the start it looks like we're not going to end up leaving at all. The largest ever vote for anything in the history of the country....ignored.
If the deal falls they will support HMG
And we all know everything that idiot touches turns to ashes...
The government has amended the motion to remand the motion with the privileges (not standards) committee. But the amendment will be voted on first. If the amendment does not carry, then the decision whether to find the goverment in contempt will stay with the House.
https://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/what-mattered-most-to-you-when-deciding-how-to-vote-in-the-eu-referendum/#.XAZ5bxP7Su4
The reverse argument is more accurate. If Leave had only been about immigration there is no way it would have won.
So your comment is pointless.
Anyway, time for me to be off. Nice for there to actually be some developments regarding this story to justify the airtime, rather than endless rehashing old news.
Listening to Sky the narrative is changing minute by minute with an amendment signed by 16 conservative mps seemingly to prevent no deal. It does look as if the sane conservatives including Nick Boles, Dominic Grieve, Nicky Morgan and Amber Rudd are making moves to recapture the party from ERG
There is so much going on but my instinct tells me we have seen peak ERG and TM deal becomes the deal or we do actually remain
Everything the media are reporting does look like the mps are acting across party to protect the country from the worst excess of brexit
But when I pointed out there are other polling that backs this up Leavers get all precious.
Very good post (on the probabilities for ultimate outcome).
FWIW mine are:
Deal*: 85%
Crash Out: 5%
No Brexit: 10%
* This one or something close to. Either under TM or somebody else.
Having said that, I think the biggest issue is fundamentally that a word cloud focuses, on, well, words. Abstract concepts like sovereignty - perhaps frequently misspelled - are a lot more complex than immigration, which is nicely surmised by that word.
Nevertheless I do think that Richard T sometimes overstates his own position. Whether or not sovereignty or immigration was "the" top factor, clearly both were concerns for voters. Plenty of people voted Leave driven by one or both factors. Some people voted Remain despite agreeing on those points.
That this House finds Ministers in contempt for their failure to comply with the requirements of the motion for return passed on 13 November 2018, to publish the final and full legal advice provided by the Attorney General to the Cabinet concerning the EU Withdrawal Agreement and the framework for the future relationship, and orders its immediate publication.
This government has proposed an amendment to refer it to the privileges committee, but Labour have not accepted the amendment.
The government's amendment will be voted on first, if it does not pass, then the motion will be voted on unamended, and it will be for the house to decide whether to find the government in contempt.
As for who will be punished and for how long? My guess it will be up to Mr Speaker to decide who gets to carry the can and issue the appropriate warrants for the Serjeant-at-Arms to carry out. Initially I think the Serjeant will be empowered to march Cox to his office and obtain the requested documents. Only if he fails to comply will Cox be suspended from Parliament.
NEW THREAD
for some time.NEW THREAD