Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Brexit doesn’t happen on the March 29th Article 50 deadline

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited March 7 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Brexit doesn’t happen on the March 29th Article 50 deadline then it might not happen at all

Betdata.io chart of movement on the Betfair exchange

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 27,688
    Malcolm Turnbull is scathing about the way the 2016 referendum was set up and says there should have been a second referendum after negotiations were complete.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p072vd4v
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 24,686

    Malcolm Turnbull is scathing about the way the 2016 referendum was set up and says there should have been a second referendum after negotiations were complete.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p072vd4v

    Everybody has a right to be scathing about every aspect of the Brexit process, from the drafting of Article 50 onwards.....
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 24,554
    I'd go further than the headline. If Brexit doesn't happen on schedule or with the deal agreed before that date, my default expectation is that it won't happen.

    John Rentoul and OGH are of course right. It's like karaoke: you don't get anywhere by singing hesitantly. You need to get up on stage, grab the microphone and sing your heart out. It doesn't matter if you hit a few duff notes, the crowd respond to gusto.
  • kingbongokingbongo Posts: 215
    best header Mike has written for ages - absolutely spot on - May's deal is an amazing achievement and should be grabbed with both hands by leavers - as it is the ERG types prefer to moan about the EU rather than leave so they are ensuring no exit is the most likely outcome - a can of leave kicked into 2021 where the contents will dribble away to nothing by the time we get there.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 4,367
    Took a stubborn technocrat to negotiate. A charismatic, empathic salesperson to present it.
    Unfortunately, May is only one of these. Her inability to relinquish control over the latter may end up being the reason it never got through.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,953

    Malcolm Turnbull is scathing about the way the 2016 referendum was set up and says there should have been a second referendum after negotiations were complete.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p072vd4v

    Who? :smiley:
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 27,688
    RobD said:

    Malcolm Turnbull is scathing about the way the 2016 referendum was set up and says there should have been a second referendum after negotiations were complete.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p072vd4v

    Who? :smiley:
    An Anglosphere conservative of the kind beloved by Brexiteers.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 374
    kingbongo said:

    best header Mike has written for ages - absolutely spot on - May's deal is an amazing achievement and should be grabbed with both hands by leavers - as it is the ERG types prefer to moan about the EU rather than leave so they are ensuring no exit is the most likely outcome - a can of leave kicked into 2021 where the contents will dribble away to nothing by the time we get there.

    Absolutely agree. Any deal will have flaws because the deal most people want isn't going to be available for political reasons. This is as close as it gets. It is just possible that this sane Brexit (one which delivers the mandate, ends freedom of movement and has been voted for by Kenneth Clarke to name just three features) could still be rescued from the jaws of defeat.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,953

    RobD said:

    Malcolm Turnbull is scathing about the way the 2016 referendum was set up and says there should have been a second referendum after negotiations were complete.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p072vd4v

    Who? :smiley:
    An Anglosphere conservative of the kind beloved by Brexiteers.
    He's beloved by Brexiteers?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,297
    edited March 7
    Yep, Mike is spot-on. Not only did Mrs May fail to champion her deal, she left space for Steve Baker and the other ERGers to trash it before anyone had read it. A fatal mistake, which will probably be very damaging to the country. The only consolation is that the ultimate losers are likely to be the ERG.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,115
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Of course, if you'd all voted for the Morris Dancer Party, with our sensible, centre-ground policies of constructing a small fleet of Death Stars and invading France, we wouldn't be in this mess.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 8,443
    algarkirk said:

    kingbongo said:

    best header Mike has written for ages - absolutely spot on - May's deal is an amazing achievement and should be grabbed with both hands by leavers - as it is the ERG types prefer to moan about the EU rather than leave so they are ensuring no exit is the most likely outcome - a can of leave kicked into 2021 where the contents will dribble away to nothing by the time we get there.

    Absolutely agree. Any deal will have flaws because the deal most people want isn't going to be available for political reasons. This is as close as it gets. It is just possible that this sane Brexit (one which delivers the mandate, ends freedom of movement and has been voted for by Kenneth Clarke to name just three features) could still be rescued from the jaws of defeat.

    Really?, Can't see it myself, but good odds on BF

    Currently 5.3
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,566
    "[Sounding hesitant] was the exact opposite of Harold Wilson and his negotiation ahead of the first European referendum in the mid-1970s. He achieved relatively little but very much overplayed it and the public went with him."

    Harold Wilson didn't have to deal with social media, and had all the main politicians on his side, bar the oddballs on either extreme such as Tony Benn and Enoch Powell.

    If May had sounded triumphant, it might have worked for a while but the backstop issue couldn't have been fudged: it is what it is.

    That said, I do agree with Mike that there is an awful lot in the WA where HMG can be quite proud of what it's achieved. The problem is that that doesn't matter very much if one clause is unacceptable.
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,277
    What do PBrs think the chances are of a last minute fudge over the weekend happening that will enable TM to get her deal over the line ?
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 8,589
    kjohnw said:

    What do PBrs think the chances are of a last minute fudge over the weekend happening that will enable TM to get her deal over the line ?

    The first part of your sentence: reasonably high. The second part: sub-50%, at the first time of asking.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 776
    Same problem as the election campaign. Almost none of the cabinet lining up to big-up the Deal properly (honourable exception of Rory Stewart).

    Does she not trust them, or are they not prepared to go in to bat for her?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,297
    edited March 7
    Endillion said:

    Same problem as the election campaign. Almost none of the cabinet lining up to big-up the Deal properly (honourable exception of Rory Stewart).

    Does she not trust them, or are they not prepared to go in to bat for her?

    It looks to me as though she doesn't understand the need for message management and getting your version of the narrative out there first. She seems to think people should be logical. She made exactly the same mistake with the 'death tax'.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,342

    RobD said:

    Malcolm Turnbull is scathing about the way the 2016 referendum was set up and says there should have been a second referendum after negotiations were complete.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p072vd4v

    Who? :smiley:
    An Anglosphere conservative of the kind beloved by Brexiteers.
    Brexiteers far preferred Tony Abbott and John Howard.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,342

    Endillion said:

    Same problem as the election campaign. Almost none of the cabinet lining up to big-up the Deal properly (honourable exception of Rory Stewart).

    Does she not trust them, or are they not prepared to go in to bat for her?

    It looks to me as though she doesn't understand the need for message management and getting your version of the narrative out there first. She seems to think people should be logical. She made exactly the same mistake with the 'death tax'.
    She is absolutely terrible at politics, which is surprising in a politician.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,297
    edited March 7
    Sean_F said:

    Endillion said:

    Same problem as the election campaign. Almost none of the cabinet lining up to big-up the Deal properly (honourable exception of Rory Stewart).

    Does she not trust them, or are they not prepared to go in to bat for her?

    It looks to me as though she doesn't understand the need for message management and getting your version of the narrative out there first. She seems to think people should be logical. She made exactly the same mistake with the 'death tax'.
    She is absolutely terrible at politics, which is surprising in a politician.
    Particularly surprising in one who gets to be PM!
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 3,882
    edited March 7
    Sean_F said:

    RobD said:

    Malcolm Turnbull is scathing about the way the 2016 referendum was set up and says there should have been a second referendum after negotiations were complete.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p072vd4v

    Who? :smiley:
    An Anglosphere conservative of the kind beloved by Brexiteers.
    Brexiteers far preferred Tony Abbott and John Howard.
    Tony Abbott is an idiot.

    John Howard on the other hand, established a two part referendum on the Australian republicanism issue, first establishing which form of republicanism Australians might want, before they ultimately rejected it against the status quo.

    Turnball is right.
    Among other things, Brexit has become a global by-word for constituitional malfeasance.
  • sladeslade Posts: 731
    Only one by-election today - Conservative defence in Aylesbury Vale.
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 659

    Sean_F said:

    Endillion said:

    Same problem as the election campaign. Almost none of the cabinet lining up to big-up the Deal properly (honourable exception of Rory Stewart).

    Does she not trust them, or are they not prepared to go in to bat for her?

    It looks to me as though she doesn't understand the need for message management and getting your version of the narrative out there first. She seems to think people should be logical. She made exactly the same mistake with the 'death tax'.
    She is absolutely terrible at politics, which is surprising in a politician.
    Particularly surprising in one who gets to be PM!
    Unless the contest in which you end up as last person standing and thus running the country already resembles one of those discussions where someone says "hands up who wants to do X", and all 20 people in the room put their hands on the floor.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 12,226

    I'd go further than the headline. If Brexit doesn't happen on schedule or with the deal agreed before that date, my default expectation is that it won't happen.

    John Rentoul and OGH are of course right. It's like karaoke: you don't get anywhere by singing hesitantly. You need to get up on stage, grab the microphone and sing your heart out. It doesn't matter if you hit a few duff notes, the crowd respond to gusto.

    Yes, she needs a Tony Blair.

    Tbh this is ALSO a problem on the Labour side on Brexit. We hesitantly move into positions, apologetically saying that we think this is what we now think, probably. Some fanfare and glitz is needed. Yeah, you'll get some people grumbling and saying "no, that's not what I think", but you get that anyway.

    And I'm someone who is really, really allergic to spin and marketing and all that bullshit. But one has to live in the real world.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 21,790
    kjohnw said:

    What do PBrs think the chances are of a last minute fudge over the weekend happening that will enable TM to get her deal over the line ?

    Sadly quite low. Changes to a meaningless political declaration aren’t going to cut the mustard with those opposed to the backstop.

    The EU aren’t going to blink unless and until no deal is certain to otherwise be the outcome.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,342

    Sean_F said:

    RobD said:

    Malcolm Turnbull is scathing about the way the 2016 referendum was set up and says there should have been a second referendum after negotiations were complete.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p072vd4v

    Who? :smiley:
    An Anglosphere conservative of the kind beloved by Brexiteers.
    Brexiteers far preferred Tony Abbott and John Howard.
    Tony Abbott is an idiot.

    John Howard on the other hand, established a two part referendum on the Australian republicanism issue, first establishing which form of republicanism Australians might want, before they ultimately rejected it against the status quo.

    Turnball is right.
    Among other things, Brexit has become a global by-word for constituitional malfeasance.
    Howard was cunning. He wanted people to retain the monarchy.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 19,136
    Scott_P said:
    I'm confused. 'Funny tinge' is just oddball, but coloured is an outdated term but to my understand was not an offensive one.

    It is what the C stands for in America's NAACP. The AA is not African American.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 3,882
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    RobD said:

    Malcolm Turnbull is scathing about the way the 2016 referendum was set up and says there should have been a second referendum after negotiations were complete.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p072vd4v

    Who? :smiley:
    An Anglosphere conservative of the kind beloved by Brexiteers.
    Brexiteers far preferred Tony Abbott and John Howard.
    Tony Abbott is an idiot.

    John Howard on the other hand, established a two part referendum on the Australian republicanism issue, first establishing which form of republicanism Australians might want, before they ultimately rejected it against the status quo.

    Turnball is right.
    Among other things, Brexit has become a global by-word for constituitional malfeasance.
    Howard was cunning. He wanted people to retain the monarchy.
    And Cameron wanted to Remain.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 19,136
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    RobD said:

    Malcolm Turnbull is scathing about the way the 2016 referendum was set up and says there should have been a second referendum after negotiations were complete.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p072vd4v

    Who? :smiley:
    An Anglosphere conservative of the kind beloved by Brexiteers.
    Brexiteers far preferred Tony Abbott and John Howard.
    Tony Abbott is an idiot.

    John Howard on the other hand, established a two part referendum on the Australian republicanism issue, first establishing which form of republicanism Australians might want, before they ultimately rejected it against the status quo.

    Turnball is right.
    Among other things, Brexit has become a global by-word for constituitional malfeasance.
    Howard was cunning. He wanted people to retain the monarchy.
    Cameron wanted people to retain the EU. He was not cunning.

    There wasn't a first referendum to determine what type of republic in Australia, there was from memory (I lived there at the time) a constitutional convention to debate it and settle upon something and then it went against the status quo in a referendum.

    Cameron could have followed that precedent.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,342

    Scott_P said:
    I'm confused. 'Funny tinge' is just oddball, but coloured is an outdated term but to my understand was not an offensive one.

    It is what the C stands for in America's NAACP. The AA is not African American.
    And Amber Rudd was sympathising with Diane Abbott (Abbott's response is, as you'd expect, quite graceless).
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,297
    Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:
    I'm confused. 'Funny tinge' is just oddball, but coloured is an outdated term but to my understand was not an offensive one.

    It is what the C stands for in America's NAACP. The AA is not African American.
    And Amber Rudd was sympathising with Diane Abbott (Abbott's response is, as you'd expect, quite graceless).
    Tut, Amber should have known the incontrovertible truth that 'coloured woman' is unspeakably offensive but 'woman of colour' is perfectly OK (or at least was when I last looked, I might be out of date in the fast-changing world of outrage-bidding).

    I've no idea why, or who decided on this utterly bizarre distinction.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 776

    Sean_F said:

    Endillion said:

    Same problem as the election campaign. Almost none of the cabinet lining up to big-up the Deal properly (honourable exception of Rory Stewart).

    Does she not trust them, or are they not prepared to go in to bat for her?

    It looks to me as though she doesn't understand the need for message management and getting your version of the narrative out there first. She seems to think people should be logical. She made exactly the same mistake with the 'death tax'.
    She is absolutely terrible at politics, which is surprising in a politician.
    Particularly surprising in one who gets to be PM!
    I feel the Cabinet should be picking up the slack. They're meant to be a team - no PM is perfect, so surely they all need support from those around them to do the things they can't?

    Maybe politicians really are too self-centred for this to work properly. Or just too busy keeping their own departments above the waterline.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 19,136
    I have to take issue that it's not Mrs May's style to bullshit a bit.

    It's only true in the case that she bullshit's a lot.

    No early election.
    No PM could agree to being bound by the backstop.
    No deal is better than a bad deal.
    Brexit means Brexit.
    The UK will leave on time.

    She does bullshit all the time. She is a poster representative for the old joke "how can you tell when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving".

    What Mrs May doesn't do is bullshitting well.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 17,667
    re Amber Rudd

    It's definitely gone too far in terms of political correctness.

    Said David Oyelowo.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 9,239
    Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:
    I'm confused. 'Funny tinge' is just oddball, but coloured is an outdated term but to my understand was not an offensive one.

    It is what the C stands for in America's NAACP. The AA is not African American.
    And Amber Rudd was sympathising with Diane Abbott (Abbott's response is, as you'd expect, quite graceless).
    Indeed - 'revealing'.....
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,297
    edited March 7
    Endillion said:

    I feel the Cabinet should be picking up the slack. They're meant to be a team - no PM is perfect, so surely they all need support from those around them to do the things they can't?

    Maybe politicians really are too self-centred for this to work properly. Or just too busy keeping their own departments above the waterline.

    Whilst I sympathise with that, the problem seems to have been that she keeps them in the dark. Her colleagues won't want to get themselves in a situation where they come out batting for the agreed position and then find they are made to look idiots when she U-turns, as happened with the 'death tax'.

    Also these things need detailed, professional planning. Just think of the attention to detail that the New Labour machine at its height put into announcements. It wasn't very attractive, but it was extremely effective.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 2,713
    Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,342

    Endillion said:

    I feel the Cabinet should be picking up the slack. They're meant to be a team - no PM is perfect, so surely they all need support from those around them to do the things they can't?

    Maybe politicians really are too self-centred for this to work properly. Or just too busy keeping their own departments above the waterline.

    Whilst I sympathise with that, the problem seems to have been that she keeps them in the dark. Her colleagues won;t want to get themselves in a situation where they come out batting for the agreed position and then find they are made to look idiots when she U-turns, as happened with the 'death tax'.
    Everything about her is secretive, nervous, and defensive.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 3,882
    edited March 7

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    RobD said:

    Malcolm Turnbull is scathing about the way the 2016 referendum was set up and says there should have been a second referendum after negotiations were complete.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p072vd4v

    Who? :smiley:
    An Anglosphere conservative of the kind beloved by Brexiteers.
    Brexiteers far preferred Tony Abbott and John Howard.
    Tony Abbott is an idiot.

    John Howard on the other hand, established a two part referendum on the Australian republicanism issue, first establishing which form of republicanism Australians might want, before they ultimately rejected it against the status quo.

    Turnball is right.
    Among other things, Brexit has become a global by-word for constituitional malfeasance.
    Howard was cunning. He wanted people to retain the monarchy.
    Cameron wanted people to retain the EU. He was not cunning.

    There wasn't a first referendum to determine what type of republic in Australia, there was from memory (I lived there at the time) a constitutional convention to debate it and settle upon something and then it went against the status quo in a referendum.

    Cameron could have followed that precedent.
    Yes, you are correct. Incidentally here is one account of why Republicanism failed.

    High Court Justice Michael Kirby, a constitutional monarchist, ascribed the failure of the republic referendum to ten factors: lack of bi-partisanship; undue haste; a perception that the republic was supported by big city elites; a "denigration" of monarchists as "unpatriotic" by republicans; the adoption of an inflexible republican model by the Convention; concerns about the specific model proposed (chiefly the ease with which a Prime Minister could dismiss a president); a republican strategy of using big "names" attached to the Whitlam era to promote their cause; strong opposition to the proposal in the smaller states; a counter-productive pro-republican bias in the media; and an instinctive caution among the Australian electorate regarding Constitutional change.


    Have bolded the relevant lessons for Remain.
  • _Anazina__Anazina_ Posts: 1,432
    What a superb column by Mike.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 7,037

    Endillion said:

    Same problem as the election campaign. Almost none of the cabinet lining up to big-up the Deal properly (honourable exception of Rory Stewart).

    Does she not trust them, or are they not prepared to go in to bat for her?

    It looks to me as though she doesn't understand the need for message management and getting your version of the narrative out there first. She seems to think people should be logical. She made exactly the same mistake with the 'death tax'.
    It could be simply that she's crap at politics, but is there another reason?

    One of her overriding concerns would have been to hold first her cabinet, and then her party, together. Perhaps she was worried that by taking a triumphant approach she would unnecessarily provoke those who disagreed with her.

    I don't say that it was the right decision to make, but I can understand it in that way.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 24,554
    Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:
    I'm confused. 'Funny tinge' is just oddball, but coloured is an outdated term but to my understand was not an offensive one.

    It is what the C stands for in America's NAACP. The AA is not African American.
    And Amber Rudd was sympathising with Diane Abbott (Abbott's response is, as you'd expect, quite graceless).
    As chance would have it, three different non-white English-born people, all of different backgrounds, have separately told me this week that they would not see themselves as English because in their minds English connotes white (the first two were unprompted, the third was in response to my question following the other two). None of them are especially left-wing, all three are thoroughly integrated and none of them are particularly woke.

    I expect a large part of that is that the white majority has no sense of how it seems to minorities.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,342

    Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop

    Up to a point, she did.

    I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 374
    Sandpit said:

    kjohnw said:

    What do PBrs think the chances are of a last minute fudge over the weekend happening that will enable TM to get her deal over the line ?

    Sadly quite low. Changes to a meaningless political declaration aren’t going to cut the mustard with those opposed to the backstop.

    The EU aren’t going to blink unless and until no deal is certain to otherwise be the outcome.
    I am going to stick with the view I have held for ages that TM's deal, slightly tweaked, will go through either just before or within 2 months after 29th March.

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,297

    Endillion said:

    Same problem as the election campaign. Almost none of the cabinet lining up to big-up the Deal properly (honourable exception of Rory Stewart).

    Does she not trust them, or are they not prepared to go in to bat for her?

    It looks to me as though she doesn't understand the need for message management and getting your version of the narrative out there first. She seems to think people should be logical. She made exactly the same mistake with the 'death tax'.
    It could be simply that she's crap at politics, but is there another reason?

    One of her overriding concerns would have been to hold first her cabinet, and then her party, together. Perhaps she was worried that by taking a triumphant approach she would unnecessarily provoke those who disagreed with her.

    I don't say that it was the right decision to make, but I can understand it in that way.
    True, she needed to avoid being triumphalist, but she should have ensured it was presented in a positive way. There was lots to be positive about - it was actually a rather successful negotiation, from a weak position.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 27,688

    Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop

    She wanted to transform the backstop into "Chequers" and in the end settled for adding a UK-wide customs union to the existing NI-only part of the backstop. While it was a concession from the EU, because it wasn't what she wanted, the spin from Number 10 to sell it didn't land well.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 19,136
    Sean_F said:

    Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop

    Up to a point, she did.

    I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.
    There is though enough in it that sensible people can object to.

    I can't think of any nation in the globe that has signed something as much of a usurpation of sovereignty as the backstop is. To permanently take out of our hands our ability to have any say on customs, phytosanitary standards etc unless or until the EU agrees to hand control back to us is to my knowledge utterly without precedent.

    Can you provide any examples anywhere else in the world where it operates like this, with no exit clause?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,342

    Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:
    I'm confused. 'Funny tinge' is just oddball, but coloured is an outdated term but to my understand was not an offensive one.

    It is what the C stands for in America's NAACP. The AA is not African American.
    And Amber Rudd was sympathising with Diane Abbott (Abbott's response is, as you'd expect, quite graceless).
    As chance would have it, three different non-white English-born people, all of different backgrounds, have separately told me this week that they would not see themselves as English because in their minds English connotes white (the first two were unprompted, the third was in response to my question following the other two). None of them are especially left-wing, all three are thoroughly integrated and none of them are particularly woke.

    I expect a large part of that is that the white majority has no sense of how it seems to minorities.
    Would they see themselves as British (which I think is much less of an ethnic identity?)
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 24,554
    Theresa May could have secured support for the deal where it mattered by pointing out that it was not what the EU wanted. For the headbangers, that would have been enough.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 24,686
    Sean_F said:

    Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop

    Up to a point, she did.

    I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.
    Sensible ones should live with it. ERG should take it - then help put in place a leader who will talk about abrogation if they don't like the way the trade deal negotiations are going (whilst actively contingency planning for WTO...).

    ERG letting Brexit slip away because of some indeterminate "better deal" they can't map out is crass in the extreme.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 19,136

    Theresa May could have secured support for the deal where it mattered by pointing out that it was not what the EU wanted. For the headbangers, that would have been enough.

    The thing is that the hundred plus government MPs who had objections to the deal are not all headbangers.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,297
    edited March 7

    Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:
    I'm confused. 'Funny tinge' is just oddball, but coloured is an outdated term but to my understand was not an offensive one.

    It is what the C stands for in America's NAACP. The AA is not African American.
    And Amber Rudd was sympathising with Diane Abbott (Abbott's response is, as you'd expect, quite graceless).
    As chance would have it, three different non-white English-born people, all of different backgrounds, have separately told me this week that they would not see themselves as English because in their minds English connotes white (the first two were unprompted, the third was in response to my question following the other two). None of them are especially left-wing, all three are thoroughly integrated and none of them are particularly woke.

    I expect a large part of that is that the white majority has no sense of how it seems to minorities.
    Is that so surprising? 'English' like 'Scottish' or 'Welsh' denotes a sense of identity based on a (rather loose) combination of ancestry, upbringing, culture, and geography, as opposed to 'British' which is much more about citizenship.

    Edit: I see SeanF has already made the same point.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 24,554
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Scott_P said:
    I'm confused. 'Funny tinge' is just oddball, but coloured is an outdated term but to my understand was not an offensive one.

    It is what the C stands for in America's NAACP. The AA is not African American.
    And Amber Rudd was sympathising with Diane Abbott (Abbott's response is, as you'd expect, quite graceless).
    As chance would have it, three different non-white English-born people, all of different backgrounds, have separately told me this week that they would not see themselves as English because in their minds English connotes white (the first two were unprompted, the third was in response to my question following the other two). None of them are especially left-wing, all three are thoroughly integrated and none of them are particularly woke.

    I expect a large part of that is that the white majority has no sense of how it seems to minorities.
    Would they see themselves as British (which I think is much less of an ethnic identity?)
    I think two out of three would say yes, but I got very long - and different - answers from each, reflecting their background. Two out of three saw London as a central part of their identity (the third is not from London). One of those two did not want to use concepts of Englishness or Britishness.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,342
    edited March 7

    Sean_F said:

    Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop

    Up to a point, she did.

    I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.
    There is though enough in it that sensible people can object to.

    I can't think of any nation in the globe that has signed something as much of a usurpation of sovereignty as the backstop is. To permanently take out of our hands our ability to have any say on customs, phytosanitary standards etc unless or until the EU agrees to hand control back to us is to my knowledge utterly without precedent.

    Can you provide any examples anywhere else in the world where it operates like this, with no exit clause?
    It seems to me that the restrictions on self-government contained in the backstop are no worse than the status quo, while self-government is enhanced in other areas.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,115
    Mr. F, be fair. Whites do want to divide and rule, as some idiot once said.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 776
    Sean_F said:

    Endillion said:

    I feel the Cabinet should be picking up the slack. They're meant to be a team - no PM is perfect, so surely they all need support from those around them to do the things they can't?

    Maybe politicians really are too self-centred for this to work properly. Or just too busy keeping their own departments above the waterline.

    Whilst I sympathise with that, the problem seems to have been that she keeps them in the dark. Her colleagues won;t want to get themselves in a situation where they come out batting for the agreed position and then find they are made to look idiots when she U-turns, as happened with the 'death tax'.
    Everything about her is secretive, nervous, and defensive.
    So they're not working effectively together as a team, and it's largely her fault because she's no good at actually leading (and regardless of her other talents, that's the only one that matters right now). OK, I buy that. Gordon Brown, as someone here once said.

    And now I have no idea how she managed to stay on top of the Home Office for six years with so few blemishes on her record (Windrush, and the occasional summer crush with passports or Border Control, aside).
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 11,531
    On Topic Strong and stable. More like weak and cowering under the table.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 19,136

    Sean_F said:

    Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop

    Up to a point, she did.

    I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.
    Sensible ones should live with it. ERG should take it - then help put in place a leader who will talk about abrogation if they don't like the way the trade deal negotiations are going (whilst actively contingency planning for WTO...).

    ERG letting Brexit slip away because of some indeterminate "better deal" they can't map out is crass in the extreme.
    Any deal without the backstop is a better deal. Any deal with an exit clause is a better deal.

    Continued membership has an exit clause, the backstop doesn't. QED.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 19,136
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop

    Up to a point, she did.

    I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.
    There is though enough in it that sensible people can object to.

    I can't think of any nation in the globe that has signed something as much of a usurpation of sovereignty as the backstop is. To permanently take out of our hands our ability to have any say on customs, phytosanitary standards etc unless or until the EU agrees to hand control back to us is to my knowledge utterly without precedent.

    Can you provide any examples anywhere else in the world where it operates like this, with no exit clause?
    It seems to me that the loss of self-government contained in the backstop is no worse than the status quo, while self-government is enhanced in other areas.
    We have a say in the rules in the status quo, we don't in the backstop.
    We have an exit clause in the status quo, we don't in the backstop.

    That's 2 ways in which the backstop is worse.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 776
    edited March 7

    Sean_F said:

    Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop

    Up to a point, she did.

    I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.
    There is though enough in it that sensible people can object to.

    I can't think of any nation in the globe that has signed something as much of a usurpation of sovereignty as the backstop is. To permanently take out of our hands our ability to have any say on customs, phytosanitary standards etc unless or until the EU agrees to hand control back to us is to my knowledge utterly without precedent.

    Can you provide any examples anywhere else in the world where it operates like this, with no exit clause?
    The other 27 countries currently in the EU. For starters.

    Edit: yes, technically Article 50 is an exit clause, but it doesn't seem to work particularly well in practice.
  • Harris_TweedHarris_Tweed Posts: 659
    edited March 7

    I'd go further than the headline. If Brexit doesn't happen on schedule or with the deal agreed before that date, my default expectation is that it won't happen.

    John Rentoul and OGH are of course right. It's like karaoke: you don't get anywhere by singing hesitantly. You need to get up on stage, grab the microphone and sing your heart out. It doesn't matter if you hit a few duff notes, the crowd respond to gusto.

    Yes, she needs a Tony Blair.

    Tbh this is ALSO a problem on the Labour side on Brexit. We hesitantly move into positions, apologetically saying that we think this is what we now think, probably. Some fanfare and glitz is needed. Yeah, you'll get some people grumbling and saying "no, that's not what I think", but you get that anyway.

    And I'm someone who is really, really allergic to spin and marketing and all that bullshit. But one has to live in the real world.
    There's a sweet spot somewhere between being allergic to spin and yearning for political leaders who aren't constantly apologising for being a bit shit :)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 23,419

    On Topic Strong and stable. More like weak and cowering under the table.

    Yep, that's Corbyn all right. His followers are worse ...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,342

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop

    Up to a point, she did.

    I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.
    There is though enough in it that sensible people can object to.

    I can't think of any nation in the globe that has signed something as much of a usurpation of sovereignty as the backstop is. To permanently take out of our hands our ability to have any say on customs, phytosanitary standards etc unless or until the EU agrees to hand control back to us is to my knowledge utterly without precedent.

    Can you provide any examples anywhere else in the world where it operates like this, with no exit clause?
    It seems to me that the loss of self-government contained in the backstop is no worse than the status quo, while self-government is enhanced in other areas.
    We have a say in the rules in the status quo, we don't in the backstop.
    We have an exit clause in the status quo, we don't in the backstop.

    That's 2 ways in which the backstop is worse.
    1. We have a say, but can still be outvoted. We still face the same restraints on our ability to act independently.

    2. No agreement lasts forever. They get renegotiated all the time.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 19,136
    Endillion said:

    Sean_F said:

    Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop

    Up to a point, she did.

    I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.
    There is though enough in it that sensible people can object to.

    I can't think of any nation in the globe that has signed something as much of a usurpation of sovereignty as the backstop is. To permanently take out of our hands our ability to have any say on customs, phytosanitary standards etc unless or until the EU agrees to hand control back to us is to my knowledge utterly without precedent.

    Can you provide any examples anywhere else in the world where it operates like this, with no exit clause?
    The other 27 countries currently in the EU. For starters.

    Edit: yes, technically Article 50 is an exit clause, but it doesn't seem to work particularly well in practice.
    Its more than just a technicality, Article 50 is an exit clause full stop. The fact our government has been so incompetent is neither here nor there. Plus under the EU membership we have a say in the rules.

    Is there an example of anywhere were a third party determines the rules, without you getting a say, and without an exit clause? That's how colonies were treated not modern nations.
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 1,470
    Endillion said:

    Sean_F said:

    Endillion said:

    I feel the Cabinet should be picking up the slack. They're meant to be a team - no PM is perfect, so surely they all need support from those around them to do the things they can't?

    Maybe politicians really are too self-centred for this to work properly. Or just too busy keeping their own departments above the waterline.

    Whilst I sympathise with that, the problem seems to have been that she keeps them in the dark. Her colleagues won;t want to get themselves in a situation where they come out batting for the agreed position and then find they are made to look idiots when she U-turns, as happened with the 'death tax'.
    Everything about her is secretive, nervous, and defensive.
    So they're not working effectively together as a team, and it's largely her fault because she's no good at actually leading (and regardless of her other talents, that's the only one that matters right now). OK, I buy that. Gordon Brown, as someone here once said.

    And now I have no idea how she managed to stay on top of the Home Office for six years with so few blemishes on her record (Windrush, and the occasional summer crush with passports or Border Control, aside).
    One can only conclude that her shadow did not provide any decent opposition to May when she was Home Sec.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 19,136
    It seems to me that the term headbangers is used a lot but there are actually four types of headbangers.

    Three of the headbanger types reject the deal automatically.
    ERG-types: Anything the EU likes is bad automatically, reject it.
    Grieve-types: Anything but Remain is bad, reject it.
    Corbyn-types: Anything the Tories approve of is bad, reject it.

    But then there seems to me to be a fourth headbanger type that is automatically pro-deal.
    Anything whatsoever would be better than being an EU member, take any deal.

    If you are automatically rejecting or accepting a deal regardless of its merits then that is acting like a headbanger. Any deal will have pros or cons and should be taken on its merits.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 19,136
    That's what I've been saying here all along and why I oppose the deal!
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 7,037

    Endillion said:

    Sean_F said:

    Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop

    Up to a point, she did.

    I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.
    There is though enough in it that sensible people can object to.

    I can't think of any nation in the globe that has signed something as much of a usurpation of sovereignty as the backstop is. To permanently take out of our hands our ability to have any say on customs, phytosanitary standards etc unless or until the EU agrees to hand control back to us is to my knowledge utterly without precedent.

    Can you provide any examples anywhere else in the world where it operates like this, with no exit clause?
    The other 27 countries currently in the EU. For starters.

    Edit: yes, technically Article 50 is an exit clause, but it doesn't seem to work particularly well in practice.
    Its more than just a technicality, Article 50 is an exit clause full stop. The fact our government has been so incompetent is neither here nor there. Plus under the EU membership we have a say in the rules.

    Is there an example of anywhere were a third party determines the rules, without you getting a say, and without an exit clause? That's how colonies were treated not modern nations.
    Do you genuinely think that the EU would be happy to keep the UK in the backstop indefinitely?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 3,882
    edited March 7
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 14,740

    Endillion said:

    Sean_F said:

    Endillion said:

    I feel the Cabinet should be picking up the slack. They're meant to be a team - no PM is perfect, so surely they all need support from those around them to do the things they can't?

    Maybe politicians really are too self-centred for this to work properly. Or just too busy keeping their own departments above the waterline.

    Whilst I sympathise with that, the problem seems to have been that she keeps them in the dark. Her colleagues won;t want to get themselves in a situation where they come out batting for the agreed position and then find they are made to look idiots when she U-turns, as happened with the 'death tax'.
    Everything about her is secretive, nervous, and defensive.
    So they're not working effectively together as a team, and it's largely her fault because she's no good at actually leading (and regardless of her other talents, that's the only one that matters right now). OK, I buy that. Gordon Brown, as someone here once said.

    And now I have no idea how she managed to stay on top of the Home Office for six years with so few blemishes on her record (Windrush, and the occasional summer crush with passports or Border Control, aside).
    One can only conclude that her shadow did not provide any decent opposition to May when she was Home Sec.
    RobD said:
    James O'Brien is apparently saying that the backstop was a British proposal.

    Zat so?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 24,686

    Sean_F said:

    Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop

    Up to a point, she did.

    I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.
    Sensible ones should live with it. ERG should take it - then help put in place a leader who will talk about abrogation if they don't like the way the trade deal negotiations are going (whilst actively contingency planning for WTO...).

    ERG letting Brexit slip away because of some indeterminate "better deal" they can't map out is crass in the extreme.
    Any deal without the backstop is a better deal. Any deal with an exit clause is a better deal.

    Continued membership has an exit clause, the backstop doesn't. QED.
    We have an exit clause under May's deal. We can abrogate - when the interim arrangements of the WA prove to be unworkable.

    Just need a PM with the balls to pursue that route.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 776

    Endillion said:

    Sean_F said:

    Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop

    Up to a point, she did.

    I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.
    There is though enough in it that sensible people can object to.

    I can't think of any nation in the globe that has signed something as much of a usurpation of sovereignty as the backstop is. To permanently take out of our hands our ability to have any say on customs, phytosanitary standards etc unless or until the EU agrees to hand control back to us is to my knowledge utterly without precedent.

    Can you provide any examples anywhere else in the world where it operates like this, with no exit clause?
    The other 27 countries currently in the EU. For starters.

    Edit: yes, technically Article 50 is an exit clause, but it doesn't seem to work particularly well in practice.
    Its more than just a technicality, Article 50 is an exit clause full stop. The fact our government has been so incompetent is neither here nor there. Plus under the EU membership we have a say in the rules.

    Is there an example of anywhere were a third party determines the rules, without you getting a say, and without an exit clause? That's how colonies were treated not modern nations.
    I'd say one of the EU's main objectives in the negotiations has been to ensure that no-one ever invokes it again (including us, if relevant).

    I'd add that they'll probably end up proving to have been remarkably successful.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,342

    It seems to me that the term headbangers is used a lot but there are actually four types of headbangers.

    Three of the headbanger types reject the deal automatically.
    ERG-types: Anything the EU likes is bad automatically, reject it.
    Grieve-types: Anything but Remain is bad, reject it.
    Corbyn-types: Anything the Tories approve of is bad, reject it.

    But then there seems to me to be a fourth headbanger type that is automatically pro-deal.
    Anything whatsoever would be better than being an EU member, take any deal.

    If you are automatically rejecting or accepting a deal regardless of its merits then that is acting like a headbanger. Any deal will have pros or cons and should be taken on its merits.

    Agreed, and certainly, many people who rejected the WA are not headbangers. A headbanger is someone like Mark Francois.
  • Awb683Awb683 Posts: 64
    May's deal is NOT Brexit - nothing like. Let's go No Deal and be done with it.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 7,037

    Endillion said:

    Sean_F said:

    Endillion said:

    I feel the Cabinet should be picking up the slack. They're meant to be a team - no PM is perfect, so surely they all need support from those around them to do the things they can't?

    Maybe politicians really are too self-centred for this to work properly. Or just too busy keeping their own departments above the waterline.

    Whilst I sympathise with that, the problem seems to have been that she keeps them in the dark. Her colleagues won;t want to get themselves in a situation where they come out batting for the agreed position and then find they are made to look idiots when she U-turns, as happened with the 'death tax'.
    Everything about her is secretive, nervous, and defensive.
    So they're not working effectively together as a team, and it's largely her fault because she's no good at actually leading (and regardless of her other talents, that's the only one that matters right now). OK, I buy that. Gordon Brown, as someone here once said.

    And now I have no idea how she managed to stay on top of the Home Office for six years with so few blemishes on her record (Windrush, and the occasional summer crush with passports or Border Control, aside).
    One can only conclude that her shadow did not provide any decent opposition to May when she was Home Sec.
    RobD said:
    James O'Brien is apparently saying that the backstop was a British proposal.

    Zat so?
    Well it is quite advantageous to the UK. It means the EU cannot use the threat of no deal, including chaos on the Irish border, to pressurise us into signing a future trade deal on disadvantageous terms.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 27,342

    Endillion said:

    Sean_F said:

    Endillion said:

    I feel the Cabinet should be picking up the slack. They're meant to be a team - no PM is perfect, so surely they all need support from those around them to do the things they can't?

    Maybe politicians really are too self-centred for this to work properly. Or just too busy keeping their own departments above the waterline.

    Whilst I sympathise with that, the problem seems to have been that she keeps them in the dark. Her colleagues won;t want to get themselves in a situation where they come out batting for the agreed position and then find they are made to look idiots when she U-turns, as happened with the 'death tax'.
    Everything about her is secretive, nervous, and defensive.
    So they're not working effectively together as a team, and it's largely her fault because she's no good at actually leading (and regardless of her other talents, that's the only one that matters right now). OK, I buy that. Gordon Brown, as someone here once said.

    And now I have no idea how she managed to stay on top of the Home Office for six years with so few blemishes on her record (Windrush, and the occasional summer crush with passports or Border Control, aside).
    One can only conclude that her shadow did not provide any decent opposition to May when she was Home Sec.
    RobD said:
    James O'Brien is apparently saying that the backstop was a British proposal.

    Zat so?
    Not as such. Making it all UK, as opposed to Northern Ireland specific, was however.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 22,297
    edited March 7

    James O'Brien is apparently saying that the backstop was a British proposal.

    Zat so?

    It's partially true. The original EU proposal was for a backstop which would have applied to Northern Ireland only, which of course was unacceptable to the UK because it would simply transfer the border checks from the Irish border to the Irish sea. So the UK negotiators managed to get it changed to an all-UK backstop, which was extremely unpalatable to the EU because it basically would give us full membership of the Single Market in goods but without having the sign up to Freedom of Movement and without paying a cent of fees. It drives a coach and horses through their sacred 'four freedoms'. Nonetheless they agreed to it, which was a big achievement by the UK side.

    This is why they are now so astonished by the UK trying to renegotiate it. They let us pick the cherries they vowed they would never allow us to pick, and now we're bitching about it.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 36,953

    Endillion said:

    Sean_F said:

    Endillion said:

    I feel the Cabinet should be picking up the slack. They're meant to be a team - no PM is perfect, so surely they all need support from those around them to do the things they can't?

    Maybe politicians really are too self-centred for this to work properly. Or just too busy keeping their own departments above the waterline.

    Whilst I sympathise with that, the problem seems to have been that she keeps them in the dark. Her colleagues won;t want to get themselves in a situation where they come out batting for the agreed position and then find they are made to look idiots when she U-turns, as happened with the 'death tax'.
    Everything about her is secretive, nervous, and defensive.
    So they're not working effectively together as a team, and it's largely her fault because she's no good at actually leading (and regardless of her other talents, that's the only one that matters right now). OK, I buy that. Gordon Brown, as someone here once said.

    And now I have no idea how she managed to stay on top of the Home Office for six years with so few blemishes on her record (Windrush, and the occasional summer crush with passports or Border Control, aside).
    One can only conclude that her shadow did not provide any decent opposition to May when she was Home Sec.
    RobD said:
    James O'Brien is apparently saying that the backstop was a British proposal.

    Zat so?
    It says it was negotiated. I don’t think that implies whose idea it was.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 36

    James O'Brien is apparently saying that the backstop was a British proposal.

    Zat so?

    This is why they are now so astonished by the UK trying to renegotiate it. They let us pick the cherries they vowed they would never allow us to pick, and now we're bitching about it.
    The evidence that the ERG are secretly working as fifth columnists for Remain continues to mount.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 776

    James O'Brien is apparently saying that the backstop was a British proposal.

    Zat so?

    It's partially true. The original EU proposal was for a backstop which would have applied to Northern Ireland only, which of course was unacceptable to the UK because it would simply transfer the border checks from the Irish border to the Irish sea. So the UK negotiators managed to get it changed to an all-UK backstop, which was extremely unpalatable to the EU because it basically would give us full membership of the Single Market in goods but without having the sign up to Freedom of Movement and without paying a cent of fees. It drives a coach and horses through their sacred 'four freedoms'. Nonetheless they agreed to it, which was a big achievement by the UK side.

    This is why they are now so astonished by the UK trying to renegotiate it. They let us pick the cherries they vowed they would never allow us to pick, and now we're bitching about it.
    I dislike the EU as much as the next naturally slightly Eurosceptic British non-headbanger, but they do sorta kinda have a point.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 17,667
    Great piece Mike and no, Theresa is not that person.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 776
    It's a bad day when the EHCR and the EHRC are both in the news for different reasons. Intensely confusing.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 7,037
    Is it fair to blame Theresa May for this alone?

    It's been striking to me that the BBC have completely accepted the ERG narrative that the backstop is a concession the EU have forced us to accept, rather than something that is in our interest too.

    I suppose there are very few people in Britain making that argument so it's hard for the BBC to present an independent judgement.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 51,299

    Endillion said:

    Sean_F said:

    Endillion said:

    I feel the Cabinet should be picking up the slack. They're meant to be a team - no PM is perfect, so surely they all need support from those around them to do the things they can't?

    Maybe politicians really are too self-centred for this to work properly. Or just too busy keeping their own departments above the waterline.

    Whilst I sympathise with that, the problem seems to have been that she keeps them in the dark. Her colleagues won;t want to get themselves in a situation where they come out batting for the agreed position and then find they are made to look idiots when she U-turns, as happened with the 'death tax'.
    Everything about her is secretive, nervous, and defensive.
    So they're not working effectively together as a team, and it's largely her fault because she's no good at actually leading (and regardless of her other talents, that's the only one that matters right now). OK, I buy that. Gordon Brown, as someone here once said.

    And now I have no idea how she managed to stay on top of the Home Office for six years with so few blemishes on her record (Windrush, and the occasional summer crush with passports or Border Control, aside).
    One can only conclude that her shadow did not provide any decent opposition to May when she was Home Sec.
    RobD said:
    James O'Brien is apparently saying that the backstop was a British proposal.

    Zat so?
    Yes ! EU underpants O'Brien is entirely correct, the EU wanted an Irish sea border.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 2,005

    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    RobD said:

    Malcolm Turnbull is scathing about the way the 2016 referendum was set up and says there should have been a second referendum after negotiations were complete.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p072vd4v

    Who? :smiley:
    An Anglosphere conservative of the kind beloved by Brexiteers.
    Brexiteers far preferred Tony Abbott and John Howard.
    Tony Abbott is an idiot.

    John Howard on the other hand, established a two part referendum on the Australian republicanism issue, first establishing which form of republicanism Australians might want, before they ultimately rejected it against the status quo.

    Turnball is right.
    Among other things, Brexit has become a global by-word for constituitional malfeasance.
    Howard was cunning. He wanted people to retain the monarchy.
    Cameron wanted people to retain the EU. He was not cunning.

    There wasn't a first referendum to determine what type of republic in Australia, there was from memory (I lived there at the time) a constitutional convention to debate it and settle upon something and then it went against the status quo in a referendum.

    Cameron could have followed that precedent.
    Putting Brexit to a vote before defining what it meant was incredibly stupid and has quite predictably led to the current impasse. If it was not possible to define what Brexit meant first there should have been a vote in principle followed by a ratification vote once the final deal was known.

    If that had been the process set out at the beginning most people would have considered it perfectly fair. Trying to do it now is still perfectly fair but it suits some to scream about trashing democracy etc because they know there is unlikely to be a Brexit deal that would be ratified.
  • _Anazina__Anazina_ Posts: 1,432
    Phil said:

    James O'Brien is apparently saying that the backstop was a British proposal.

    Zat so?

    This is why they are now so astonished by the UK trying to renegotiate it. They let us pick the cherries they vowed they would never allow us to pick, and now we're bitching about it.
    The evidence that the ERG are secretly working as fifth columnists for Remain continues to mount.
    This is (and to Richard’s OP) is what genuinely baffles me about the Ergers. The backstop is the best bit of the deal. And it is limited until such a time as a solution can be found to the Irish border. So, what is the effing problem? I know the ERG are utterly mad, but even within the normal parameters of crazy their opposition presents as sheer lunacy.
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,277
    Sandpit said:

    kjohnw said:

    What do PBrs think the chances are of a last minute fudge over the weekend happening that will enable TM to get her deal over the line ?

    Sadly quite low. Changes to a meaningless political declaration aren’t going to cut the mustard with those opposed to the backstop.

    The EU aren’t going to blink unless and until no deal is certain to otherwise be the outcome.
    The EU know they have us now by the balls. They know parliament will not countenance a no deal Brexit, there is no incentive for them to give way especially if they can see the prize of an extended A50 leading to more watered down Brexit where we are less of a threat to them. well done Yvette cooper nick boles - not
  • _Anazina__Anazina_ Posts: 1,432
    Awb683 said:

    May's deal is NOT Brexit - nothing like. Let's go No Deal and be done with it.


    Bargain-basement algorithms on this one.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 49,115
    Mr. W, in the short term.

    Longer term, that scenario could easily play into the hands of the far right.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 51,299
    More stimulus from the ECB, good news in a roundabout way for mortgage holders here I think.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 2,380
    Endillion said:

    It's a bad day when the EHCR and the EHRC are both in the news for different reasons. Intensely confusing.

    Indeed, I should think it is enough to make your average Brexit supporters head to explode. There was one on here the other day that thought the ECHR was the same as the ECJ. This was one of the more intelligent Brexiteers!
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 15,566

    James O'Brien is apparently saying that the backstop was a British proposal.

    Zat so?

    It's partially true. The original EU proposal was for a backstop which would have applied to Northern Ireland only, which of course was unacceptable to the UK because it would simply transfer the border checks from the Irish border to the Irish sea. So the UK negotiators managed to get it changed to an all-UK backstop, which was extremely unpalatable to the EU because it basically would give us full membership of the Single Market in goods but without having the sign up to Freedom of Movement and without paying a cent of fees. It drives a coach and horses through their sacred 'four freedoms'. Nonetheless they agreed to it, which was a big achievement by the UK side.

    This is why they are now so astonished by the UK trying to renegotiate it. They let us pick the cherries they vowed they would never allow us to pick, and now we're bitching about it.
    That analysis fails to recognise that "we" the country, "we" the government, and "we" the parliament are three different things.
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,277
    perhaps the more enlightened members of PB can advise if I am incorrect but the backstop allows us to continue to gain access to the single market on goods without freedom of movement, we would be outside the SM for services, in a customs union, but still able to forge trade deals (don't know how realistic that would be if we are in a customs union). as a half way house to a free trade deal it could be worse. I think its time the ERG accepts this is the best we can get for now, and if we need to revisit later if EU act in bad faith then we can. Next week is probably the last chance of getting Brexit enacted. Or am I missing something?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 2,380
    _Anazina_ said:

    Awb683 said:

    May's deal is NOT Brexit - nothing like. Let's go No Deal and be done with it.


    Bargain-basement algorithms on this one.
    My face hurts. I know, I am going to cut my nose off and be done with it! Ouch, fuck that hurt, ahh I'm bleeding to death, still it was worth it, it looked a bit foreign to me, bloody Romans!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 27,688

    James O'Brien is apparently saying that the backstop was a British proposal.

    Zat so?

    It's partially true. The original EU proposal was for a backstop which would have applied to Northern Ireland only, which of course was unacceptable to the UK because it would simply transfer the border checks from the Irish border to the Irish sea. So the UK negotiators managed to get it changed to an all-UK backstop, which was extremely unpalatable to the EU because it basically would give us full membership of the Single Market in goods but without having the sign up to Freedom of Movement and without paying a cent of fees. It drives a coach and horses through their sacred 'four freedoms'. Nonetheless they agreed to it, which was a big achievement by the UK side.

    This is why they are now so astonished by the UK trying to renegotiate it. They let us pick the cherries they vowed they would never allow us to pick, and now we're bitching about it.
    That analysis fails to recognise that "we" the country, "we" the government, and "we" the parliament are three different things.
    The government backed the Brady amendment.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 2,005
    kjohnw said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjohnw said:

    What do PBrs think the chances are of a last minute fudge over the weekend happening that will enable TM to get her deal over the line ?

    Sadly quite low. Changes to a meaningless political declaration aren’t going to cut the mustard with those opposed to the backstop.

    The EU aren’t going to blink unless and until no deal is certain to otherwise be the outcome.
    The EU know they have us now by the balls. They know parliament will not countenance a no deal Brexit, there is no incentive for them to give way especially if they can see the prize of an extended A50 leading to more watered down Brexit where we are less of a threat to them. well done Yvette cooper nick boles - not
    Your problem is that It's not just parliament that won't countenance a no deal Brexit. Parliament are reflecting the views of a majority of the country.

    It's always been a non-starter which is why very few ever tried to pretend it was a serious option. Even Johnson was quoted as saying in 2017 that no one was planning for no deal because there would be a deal.

    Trying to pretend that if everyone had shut and pretended we wanted a no deal Brexit then the EU would have fallen for it is naive in the extreme.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 19,136

    Endillion said:

    Sean_F said:

    Rentoul's piece ignores that May had very loudly been arguing for something different to what she got. By the time we got anywhere near November she had already made her bed. And the reason she ended up there is that she genuinely believed she was going to get the EU to back down on the backstop

    Up to a point, she did.

    I agree with @rcs1000 et al, that it's a reasonable deal. Not a great deal, but a reasonable deal, one that sensible people should be able to live with.
    There is though enough in it that sensible people can object to.

    I can't think of any nation in the globe that has signed something as much of a usurpation of sovereignty as the backstop is. To permanently take out of our hands our ability to have any say on customs, phytosanitary standards etc unless or until the EU agrees to hand control back to us is to my knowledge utterly without precedent.

    Can you provide any examples anywhere else in the world where it operates like this, with no exit clause?
    The other 27 countries currently in the EU. For starters.

    Edit: yes, technically Article 50 is an exit clause, but it doesn't seem to work particularly well in practice.
    Its more than just a technicality, Article 50 is an exit clause full stop. The fact our government has been so incompetent is neither here nor there. Plus under the EU membership we have a say in the rules.

    Is there an example of anywhere were a third party determines the rules, without you getting a say, and without an exit clause? That's how colonies were treated not modern nations.
    Do you genuinely think that the EU would be happy to keep the UK in the backstop indefinitely?
    Yes, which is why they are prepared for it to be indefinite and not have an end date or exit clause. If they weren't happy to do that, then they wouldn't be insisting it is permanent with no end date or exit clause.
This discussion has been closed.