I've just thought of something and again perhaps the knowledgeable on here will help.
As I understand it, IF we pass the WA, we will still effectively leave on 22/5 - the date prevents us having to get involved in the EU parliamentary elections - but the Transition period, backstop and all the rest of it kick in so we are in effect still members (though without any say) until 31/12/20 or whenever.
If we don't pass the WA and we don't revoke, we leave without a Deal on 12/4 - that's it. We would then have to move forward with trade negotiations round the world.
If we chose to Revoke we would have to do so before 12/4 because we would then still be full members and would legally have to participate in the EU parliamentary elections. Revocation simply ends the cancellation of this A50 process and doesn't stop us re-instigating A50 in the summer or autumn and re-setting the clock.
Have I got this and would I be right in thinking second votes, GE, alternative options and the like are all just smoke and mirrors?
No because a further option is to agree an alternative plan (#peoplesvote/GE/completely different objectives) by 12 April, pass a Euro elections enabling bill, and for the EU to arrange a longer extension. More complex, but viable.
I agree and thank you for acknowledging the enabling bill.
Nothing is impossible but in our HOC getting the enabling bill through all it stages and passing into law by the 12th April would require a single attitude of purpose by mps that is not there, and would be fought tooth and nail by ERG and others
Does an enabling bill need to pass by the 12th or do we just need to commit to holding the elections by the 12th?
Has to be in law by the 12th April as the EU election campaigns start then
There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.
The swine.
Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?
I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....
I've just thought of something and again perhaps the knowledgeable on here will help.
As I understand it, IF we pass the WA, we will still effectively leave on 22/5 - the date prevents us having to get involved in the EU parliamentary elections - but the Transition period, backstop and all the rest of it kick in so we are in effect still members (though without any say) until 31/12/20 or whenever.
If we don't pass the WA and we don't revoke, we leave without a Deal on 12/4 - that's it. We would then have to move forward with trade negotiations round the world.
If we chose to Revoke we would have to do so before 12/4 because we would then still be full members and would legally have to participate in the EU parliamentary elections. Revocation simply ends the cancellation of this A50 process and doesn't stop us re-instigating A50 in the summer or autumn and re-setting the clock.
Have I got this and would I be right in thinking second votes, GE, alternative options and the like are all just smoke and mirrors?
No because a further option is to agree an alternative plan (#peoplesvote/GE/completely different objectives) by 12 April, pass a Euro elections enabling bill, and for the EU to arrange a longer extension. More complex, but viable.
I agree and thank you for acknowledging the enabling bill.
Nothing is impossible but in our HOC getting the enabling bill through all it stages and passing into law by the 12th April would require a single attitude of purpose by mps that is not there, and would be fought tooth and nail by ERG and others
Yes, the need for an enabling bill for the Euro elections is why the date is April 12th. It is a prerequesite for a longer extension. If MV3 fails then voting against a Euro elections bill means voting for No Deal.
There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.
The swine.
Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?
I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....
He won't be Tory leader. Or he will be, but temporary leader. But he'll definitely be PM.
It seems clear that May's deal won't pass unless there's a massive shift over the next few days, and also clear that Cooper/Boles/Benn will pass, giving us indicative votes which will probably give majorities to "customs union" and "referendum", both of which have been ruled out by May up to now.
May then has three choices. She's spent three years refusing to shift her red lines,but she can pick one of the options with majority support and try to run with it. Her recent statements seem to indicate a possible willingness to do that, backing off from "as PM I will not...". She can resign. I don't think anything we've seen of her suggests she'll willingly give up. Or she can defy Parliament and say she'll let no deal happen.
In case 3, we then get an instant Labour VONC. Tory rebels then have to consider whether they will break party unity on that (=reselection death) or accept that May can ignore Parliament (=democracy death).
On past performance what she'll do is stall until it's too late to pass legislation enabling the Euros then try the MV again. This makes it hard to bring her down with a VONC because there's no definitive point at which the rebels know they need to jump, and once Corbyn tables it she can lie to them to keep them on board.
PS. The "=democracy death" bit reads with more melodrama than you probably intended...
I've just thought of something and again perhaps the knowledgeable on here will help.
As I understand it, IF we pass the WA, we will still effectively leave on 22/5 - the date prevents us having to get involved in the EU parliamentary elections - but the Transition period, backstop and all the rest of it kick in so we are in effect still members (though without any say) until 31/12/20 or whenever.
If we don't pass the WA and we don't revoke, we leave without a Deal on 12/4 - that's it. We would then have to move forward with trade negotiations round the world.
If we chose to Revoke we would have to do so before 12/4 because we would then still be full members and would legally have to participate in the EU parliamentary elections. Revocation simply ends the cancellation of this A50 process and doesn't stop us re-instigating A50 in the summer or autumn and re-setting the clock.
Have I got this and would I be right in thinking second votes, GE, alternative options and the like are all just smoke and mirrors?
No because a further option is to agree an alternative plan (#peoplesvote/GE/completely different objectives) by 12 April, pass a Euro elections enabling bill, and for the EU to arrange a longer extension. More complex, but viable.
I agree and thank you for acknowledging the enabling bill.
Nothing is impossible but in our HOC getting the enabling bill through all it stages and passing into law by the 12th April would require a single attitude of purpose by mps that is not there, and would be fought tooth and nail by ERG and others
Does an enabling bill need to pass by the 12th or do we just need to commit to holding the elections by the 12th?
Has to be in law by the 12th April as the EU election campaigns start then
Not negotiable at all - in law or no extension
I get that but the EU communique makes no reference to laws, simply the UK's "intention" not to hold elections at the moment. Does the law actually need changing? A lot of the UK's Brexit law changes haven't actually been enacted yet and simply occur on "exit day" so if the law to hold elections hasn't been repealed yet then a new one doesn't need passing we just need to get on with it.
There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.
The swine.
Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?
I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....
Surely an uncontested coronation by MPs would meet the criteria. Not a cat in hells chance of that though!
If you love Indian restaurants but loathe Chinese restaurant, and your wife loves Chinese restaurants but loathes Indian restaurants, insisting on one Asian cuisine or the other is unlikely to lead to enjoyable nights out.
Better to compromise on French or Italian food, which is neither partner’s first choice. More compromise, happier couple, healthier sex life.
How about Fusion?
With a waiter/waitress to explain how to eat it.
Intrusive service is the think I dislike above everything else
There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.
The swine.
Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?
I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....
You don't need to be a party leader to be PM.
Churchill was PM for several months despite not being Tory party leader.
There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.
The swine.
Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?
I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....
Surely an uncontested coronation by MPs would meet the criteria. Not a cat in hells chance of that though!
they might be forced to. If May resigns as PM, then the tory party have a choice. Have a 'new' tory PM, which would have to be uncontested (or a very very quick election), or Lizzie sends for Jezza.
I've just thought of something and again perhaps the knowledgeable on here will help.
As I understand it, IF we pass the WA, we will still effectively leave on 22/5 - the date prevents us having to get involved in the EU parliamentary elections - but the Transition period, backstop and all the rest of it kick in so we are in effect still members (though without any say) until 31/12/20 or whenever.
If we don't pass the WA and we don't revoke, we leave without a Deal on 12/4 - that's it. We would then have to move forward with trade negotiations round the world.
If we chose to Revoke we would have to do so before 12/4 because we would then still be full members and would legally have to participate in the EU parliamentary elections. Revocation simply ends the cancellation of this A50 process and doesn't stop us re-instigating A50 in the summer or autumn and re-setting the clock.
Have I got this and would I be right in thinking second votes, GE, alternative options and the like are all just smoke and mirrors?
No because a further option is to agree an alternative plan (#peoplesvote/GE/completely different objectives) by 12 April, pass a Euro elections enabling bill, and for the EU to arrange a longer extension. More complex, but viable.
I agree and thank you for acknowledging the enabling bill.
Nothing is impossible but in our HOC getting the enabling bill through all it stages and passing into law by the 12th April would require a single attitude of purpose by mps that is not there, and would be fought tooth and nail by ERG and others
Yes, the need for an enabling bill for the Euro elections is why the date is April 12th. It is a prerequesite for a longer extension. If MV3 fails then voting against a Euro elections bill means voting for No Deal.
I am so pleased we are on the same page Foxy
It has been a battle over the last few days and this morning especially, to explain the 12th April was selected by the EU as it is the last date before the campaign for the EU elections and we have to take part if we want an extension of any kind
It is upto the HOC, but I am truly dismayed at how journalists, media and politicians are not explaining this in detail, as it was one of the most important issues coming from the EU
There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.
The swine.
Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?
I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....
You don't need to be a party leader to be PM.
Churchill was PM for several months despite not being Tory party leader.
you don't but you do need to have support of the house, which would effectively be party leader (at least for a period of time).
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
Do you think those Leave voters bothered about FoM are happy with the fact that non-EU immigration has gone up since the referendum and EU migration is down. Are they whooping with delight at this and at the prospect of even more migrants coming in from the far corners of the world, the sorts of migrants that the Leave campaigns were so intent on putting on their posters?
If Leavers don’t want immigration they have the ability to vote for a government that will actually (as opposed to pretend to) reduce it
That option isn’t available while we are members of the EU
Democratic control of our politicians is important
It seems clear that May's deal won't pass unless there's a massive shift over the next few days, and also clear that Cooper/Boles/Benn will pass, giving us indicative votes which will probably give majorities to "customs union" and "referendum", both of which have been ruled out by May up to now.
May then has three choices. She's spent three years refusing to shift her red lines,but she can pick one of the options with majority support and try to run with it. Her recent statements seem to indicate a possible willingness to do that, backing off from "as PM I will not...". She can resign. I don't think anything we've seen of her suggests she'll willingly give up. Or she can defy Parliament and say she'll let no deal happen.
In case 3, we then get an instant Labour VONC. Tory rebels then have to consider whether they will break party unity on that (=reselection death) or accept that May can ignore Parliament (=democracy death).
On past performance what she'll do is stall until it's too late to pass legislation enabling the Euros then try the MV again. This makes it hard to bring her down with a VONC because there's no definitive point at which the rebels know they need to jump, and once Corbyn tables it she can lie to them to keep them on board.
PS. The "=democracy death" bit reads with more melodrama than you probably intended...
She will waste time. So she needs to go. ASAP. This, more than indicative votes, is what is needed now. A new PM can set a new strategy and get some goodwill from the EU. If the Tories had any sense they would install Ken Clarke - so that he can perform one last job for his party and the nation - and buy us the time needed to set an alternative course which commands support.
I've just thought of something and again perhaps the knowledgeable on here will help.
As I understand it, IF we pass the WA, we will still effectively leave on 22/5 - the date prevents us having to get involved in the EU parliamentary elections - but the Transition period, backstop and all the rest of it kick in so we are in effect still members (though without any say) until 31/12/20 or whenever.
If we don't pass the WA and we don't revoke, we leave without a Deal on 12/4 - that's it. We would then have to move forward with trade negotiations round the world.
If we chose to Revoke we would have to do so before 12/4 because we would then still be full members and would legally have to participate in the EU parliamentary elections. Revocation simply ends the cancellation of this A50 process and doesn't stop us re-instigating A50 in the summer or autumn and re-setting the clock.
Have I got this and would I be right in thinking second votes, GE, alternative options and the like are all just smoke and mirrors?
No because a further option is to agree an alternative plan (#peoplesvote/GE/completely different objectives) by 12 April, pass a Euro elections enabling bill, and for the EU to arrange a longer extension. More complex, but viable.
I agree and thank you for acknowledging the enabling bill.
Nothing is impossible but in our HOC getting the enabling bill through all it stages and passing into law by the 12th April would require a single attitude of purpose by mps that is not there, and would be fought tooth and nail by ERG and others
Yes, the need for an enabling bill for the Euro elections is why the date is April 12th. It is a prerequesite for a longer extension. If MV3 fails then voting against a Euro elections bill means voting for No Deal.
I am so pleased we are on the same page Foxy
It has been a battle over the last few days and this morning especially, to explain the 12th April was selected by the EU as it is the last date before the campaign for the EU elections and we have to take part if we want an extension of any kind
It is upto the HOC, but I am truly dismayed at how journalists, media and politicians are not explaining this in detail, as it was one of the most important issues coming from the EU
But according to Wiki at least the repeal of the European Elections Act hasn't been enacted yet. Therefore if we wish to hold elections we can presumably do so under the old act that is still legally current legislation. We just need to commit to do so as the law is still on the books.
It's ridiculous to say anyone could have done better: Brexit is a mess, and would have been a mess whoever was in charge of negotiations. The sides are too far apart for any meaningful compromise to be easily reached.
Give would have faced just as many problems as May; they might have been different problems, but problems nonetheless.
And the reason the sides are so far apart? The leave campaigns who lied about Brexit, and promised everything to everyone.
It'd be good for leavers to take some responsibility instead of pathetically moaning: "If my person was in charge it would have been different!"
Norway is a meaningful compromise, which could have been, and might just still be reached.
It would mean pissing off most people, but to a lesser extent overall than any other likely solution.
Norway does everything except deliver on the mandate obtained, which was an anti-immigration platform.
Norway is damage limitation. It is better than any other form of Brexit, but it doesn't offer any advantages to anyone over the status quo. Which is why noone much has gone for it.
Other than, of course, being outside the CAP.
Oh, and the CFP.
Apart from that, then... oh, what about being outside the Justice Pillar? And the Home Affairs and the Foreign Affairs Pillars? Those are advantages, as well, I'd guess.
The permanent and unconditional exemption from ever-closer-union might be seen as an advantage by some.
And, of course, a reduction in fees from £350 million per week to £100 million per week or so. That's a benefit, definitely.
Being outside the majority of the EU acquis of law is definitely a plus on the Brexit side, when you look at it.
Whilst retaining the benefits of the Single Market and access to whatever EU institutions we desire and being involved in the initial shaping of all Single Market legislation.
I've just thought of something and again perhaps the knowledgeable on here will help.
As I understand it, IF we pass the WA, we will still effectively leave on 22/5 - the date prevents us having to get involved in the EU parliamentary elections - but the Transition period, backstop and all the rest of it kick in so we are in effect still members (though without any say) until 31/12/20 or whenever.
If we don't pass the WA and we don't revoke, we leave without a Deal on 12/4 - that's it. We would then have to move forward with trade negotiations round the world.
If we chose to Revoke we would have to do so before 12/4 because we would then still be full members and would legally have to participate in the EU parliamentary elections. Revocation simply ends the cancellation of this A50 process and doesn't stop us re-instigating A50 in the summer or autumn and re-setting the clock.
Have I got this and would I be right in thinking second votes, GE, alternative options and the like are all just smoke and mirrors?
No because a further option is to agree an alternative plan (#peoplesvote/GE/completely different objectives) by 12 April, pass a Euro elections enabling bill, and for the EU to arrange a longer extension. More complex, but viable.
I agree and thank you for acknowledging the enabling bill.
Nothing is impossible but in our HOC getting the enabling bill through all it stages and passing into law by the 12th April would require a single attitude of purpose by mps that is not there, and would be fought tooth and nail by ERG and others
Does an enabling bill need to pass by the 12th or do we just need to commit to holding the elections by the 12th?
Has to be in law by the 12th April as the EU election campaigns start then
Not negotiable at all - in law or no extension
I get that but the EU communique makes no reference to laws, simply the UK's "intention" not to hold elections at the moment. Does the law actually need changing? A lot of the UK's Brexit law changes haven't actually been enacted yet and simply occur on "exit day" so if the law to hold elections hasn't been repealed yet then a new one doesn't need passing we just need to get on with it.
Yes - the law needs an enabling bill passed and with royal assent by the 12th April
I've just thought of something and again perhaps the knowledgeable on here will help.
As I understand it, IF we pass the WA, we will still effectively leave on 22/5 - the date prevents us having to get involved in the EU parliamentary elections - but the Transition period, backstop and all the rest of it kick in so we are in effect still members (though without any say) until 31/12/20 or whenever.
If we don't pass the WA and we don't revoke, we leave without a Deal on 12/4 - that's it. We would then have to move forward with trade negotiations round the world.
If we chose to Revoke we would have to do so before 12/4 because we would then still be full members and would legally have to participate in the EU parliamentary elections. Revocation simply ends the cancellation of this A50 process and doesn't stop us re-instigating A50 in the summer or autumn and re-setting the clock.
Have I got this and would I be right in thinking second votes, GE, alternative options and the like are all just smoke and mirrors?
No because a further option is to agree an alternative plan (#peoplesvote/GE/completely different objectives) by 12 April, pass a Euro elections enabling bill, and for the EU to arrange a longer extension. More complex, but viable.
I agree and thank you for acknowledging the enabling bill.
Nothing is impossible but in our HOC getting the enabling bill through all it stages and passing into law by the 12th April would require a single attitude of purpose by mps that is not there, and would be fought tooth and nail by ERG and others
Does an enabling bill need to pass by the 12th or do we just need to commit to holding the elections by the 12th?
Has to be in law by the 12th April as the EU election campaigns start then
Not negotiable at all - in law or no extension
I get that but the EU communique makes no reference to laws, simply the UK's "intention" not to hold elections at the moment. Does the law actually need changing? A lot of the UK's Brexit law changes haven't actually been enacted yet and simply occur on "exit day" so if the law to hold elections hasn't been repealed yet then a new one doesn't need passing we just need to get on with it.
Yes - the law needs an enabling bill passed and with royal assent by the 12th April
It's ridiculous to say anyone could have done better: Brexit is a mess, and would have been a mess whoever was in charge of negotiations. The sides are too far apart for any meaningful compromise to be easily reached.
Give would have faced just as many problems as May; they might have been different problems, but problems nonetheless.
And the reason the sides are so far apart? The leave campaigns who lied about Brexit, and promised everything to everyone.
It'd be good for leavers to take some responsibility instead of pathetically moaning: "If my person was in charge it would have been different!"
Norway is a meaningful compromise, which could have been, and might just still be reached.
It would mean pissing off most people, but to a lesser extent overall than any other likely solution.
Norway does everything except deliver on the mandate obtained, which was an anti-immigration platform.
Norway is damage limitation. It is better than any other form of Brexit, but it doesn't offer any advantages to anyone over the status quo. Which is why noone much has gone for it.
Other than, of course, being outside the CAP.
Oh, and the CFP.
Apart from that, then... oh, what about being outside the Justice Pillar? And the Home Affairs and the Foreign Affairs Pillars? Those are advantages, as well, I'd guess.
The permanent and unconditional exemption from ever-closer-union might be seen as an advantage by some.
And, of course, a reduction in fees from £350 million per week to £100 million per week or so. That's a benefit, definitely.
Being outside the majority of the EU acquis of law is definitely a plus on the Brexit side, when you look at it.
Whilst retaining the benefits of the Single Market and access to whatever EU institutions we desire and being involved in the initial shaping of all Single Market legislation.
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
Do you think those Leave voters bothered about FoM are happy with the fact that non-EU immigration has gone up since the referendum and EU migration is down. Are they whooping with delight at this and at the prospect of even more migrants coming in from the far corners of the world, the sorts of migrants that the Leave campaigns were so intent on putting on their posters?
If Leavers don’t want immigration they have the ability to vote for a government that will actually (as opposed to pretend to) reduce it
That option isn’t available while we are members of the EU
Democratic control of our politicians is important
Reducing non-EU immigration has always been available to us while in the EU. Altering our welfare system and tax credit system has always been available to us while in the EU. FoM would never have become the issue it has had either of these steps been taken seriously. Making the EU the scapegoat for problems which were always in our control has been a long-standing and bad habit of our politicians.
There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.
The swine.
Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?
I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....
Surely an uncontested coronation by MPs would meet the criteria. Not a cat in hells chance of that though!
they might be forced to. If May resigns as PM, then the tory party have a choice. Have a 'new' tory PM, which would have to be uncontested (or a very very quick election), or Lizzie sends for Jezza.
No the cabinet agree an interim PM until leadership is sorted. She only sends for Corbyn if VONC and he can command confidence which he can't unless Tories agree to abstain
I've just thought of something and again perhaps the knowledgeable on here will help.
As I understand it, IF we pass the WA, we will still effectively leave on 22/5 - the date prevents us having to get involved in the EU parliamentary elections - but the Transition period, backstop and all the rest of it kick in so we are in effect still members (though without any say) until 31/12/20 or whenever.
If we don't pass the WA and we don't revoke, we leave without a Deal on 12/4 - that's it. We would then have to move forward with trade negotiations round the world.
If we chose to Revoke we would have to do so before 12/4 because we would then still be full members and would legally have to participate in the EU parliamentary elections. Revocation simply ends the cancellation of this A50 process and doesn't stop us re-instigating A50 in the summer or autumn and re-setting the clock.
Have I got this and would I be right in thinking second votes, GE, alternative options and the like are all just smoke and mirrors?
No because a further option is to agree an alternative plan (#peoplesvote/GE/completely different objectives) by 12 April, pass a Euro elections enabling bill, and for the EU to arrange a longer extension. More complex, but viable.
I agree and thank you for acknowledging the enabling bill.
Nothing is impossible but in our HOC getting the enabling bill through all it stages and passing into law by the 12th April would require a single attitude of purpose by mps that is not there, and would be fought tooth and nail by ERG and others
Yes, the need for an enabling bill for the Euro elections is why the date is April 12th. It is a prerequesite for a longer extension. If MV3 fails then voting against a Euro elections bill means voting for No Deal.
I am so pleased we are on the same page Foxy
It has been a battle over the last few days and this morning especially, to explain the 12th April was selected by the EU as it is the last date before the campaign for the EU elections and we have to take part if we want an extension of any kind
It is upto the HOC, but I am truly dismayed at how journalists, media and politicians are not explaining this in detail, as it was one of the most important issues coming from the EU
But according to Wiki at least the repeal of the European Elections Act hasn't been enacted yet. Therefore if we wish to hold elections we can presumably do so under the old act that is still legally current legislation. We just need to commit to do so as the law is still on the books.
Catching up on last night's TW, I see Portillo thinks May's deal and no deal are both off the table and that we wont revoke; Parliament will probably take control and come up with a solution unacceptable to May, hence she resigns in the next few weeks and is replaced by an interim leader, probably Lidlington, who goes for a long extension, during which mayhem breaks out in the Tory party.
First time for a while that I agree with him on how things will play out.
Can someone explain how "parliament can take control" while May is still prime minister?
I cannot see how "parliament" can propose something to the EU without it being presented by the government, because the european council consists of 28 govenments.
May can resign and then a UK government with different personnell can take control, but as we have seen in the last month, what parliament wants puts pressure on the government, but cannot not compell it to do something it doesent want to.
This is a genuine question, as lots of people are suggesting it as a possibility but I cannot imagine how it occurs in practice
Letwin passes Monday, opening Wednesday for indicative votes and hopefully thereafter a preferred option emerges. If a majority supported option emerges from this process the government can hardly (well could, but won't, in the circumstances) refuse to run with it, but May can, so she resigns. Lidlington takes over, asks and gets a nine month extension from the EU.
Edit/ as Portillo says, mayhem breaks out in the Tory party, which presumably has a leadership contest thereafter, and there is a big question about viable government. Hence a possible GE or political realignment. But that's for after.
Thanks for the great answer. I find it a scandal that government refused to "run with" parliament voting to prohibit no deal (May has explicitly said it no deal is still the alternative to May's deal) but will have to "run with" parliament's proposals next week.
Unless May somehow manages to find a way to pass MV3 her successor will have no difficulty in blaming all the present problems on May.
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
Do you think those Leave voters bothered about FoM are happy with the fact that non-EU immigration has gone up since the referendum and EU migration is down. Are they whooping with delight at this and at the prospect of even more migrants coming in from the far corners of the world, the sorts of migrants that the Leave campaigns were so intent on putting on their posters?
If Leavers don’t want immigration they have the ability to vote for a government that will actually (as opposed to pretend to) reduce it
That option isn’t available while we are members of the EU
Democratic control of our politicians is important
Reducing non-EU immigration has always been available to us while in the EU. Altering our welfare system and tax credit system has always been available to us while in the EU. FoM would never have become the issue it has had either of these steps been taken seriously. Making the EU the scapegoat for problems which were always in our control has been a long-standing and bad habit of our politicians.
Why should we need to reduce non-EU immigration any more? We're already very strict on non-EU migration and non=EU represents 93% of the globe yet typically only about half of net migration. While EU represents 7% of the globe and roughly about the other half net.
It is now time for May to choose. She needs to ditch the ERG and accept Benn's offer to vote for her deal with a referendum. It is the only way she can act in the national interest.
That has gone with yesterdays 12th April deadline. No referendum now possible
Nah, they said they'd consider a longer extension for a "plan B". That includes a referendum
I do not want to be argumentative but many posters on here do not understand the EU position on this
I have for days said that without UK participation in the EU elections in May those elections become void in EU law if we are still a member. It is precisely for this reason the EU agreed the date of the 12th April for us to have passed the enabling legislation to take part, and that is not going to happen
Referendum and GE are out of the equation
TM deal - amended deal - no deal - revoke
Nothing else
Well obviously if you take it as a given that parliament won't pass the legislation, then it's not an option. You can say that for anything except no deal. When I say something is an option I mean it is available for parliament to choose, not that they will. I think that's what most other people mean too.
It seems clear that May's deal won't pass unless there's a massive shift over the next few days, and also clear that Cooper/Boles/Benn will pass, giving us indicative votes which will probably give majorities to "customs union" and "referendum", both of which have been ruled out by May up to now.
May then has three choices. She's spent three years refusing to shift her red lines,but she can pick one of the options with majority support and try to run with it. Her recent statements seem to indicate a possible willingness to do that, backing off from "as PM I will not...". She can resign. I don't think anything we've seen of her suggests she'll willingly give up. Or she can defy Parliament and say she'll let no deal happen.
In case 3, we then get an instant Labour VONC. Tory rebels then have to consider whether they will break party unity on that (=reselection death) or accept that May can ignore Parliament (=democracy death).
Parliament can’t instruct the executive to act
They can ask and, if defied, sack the executive
You are looking to upend the constitutional settlement
I've just thought of something and again perhaps the knowledgeable on here will help.
As I understand it, IF we pass the WA, we will still effectively leave on 22/5 - the date prevents us having to get involved in the EU parliamentary elections - but the Transition period, backstop and all the rest of it kick in so we are in effect still members (though without any say) until 31/12/20 or whenever.
If we don't pass the WA and we don't revoke, we leave without a Deal on 12/4 - that's it. We would then have to move forward with trade negotiations round the world.
If we chose to Revoke we would have to do so before 12/4 because we would then still be full members and would legally have to participate in the EU parliamentary elections. Revocation simply ends the cancellation of this A50 process and doesn't stop us re-instigating A50 in the summer or autumn and re-setting the clock.
Have I got this and would I be right in thinking second votes, GE, alternative options and the like are all just smoke and mirrors?
No because a further option is to agree an alternative plan (#peoplesvote/GE/completely different objectives) by 12 April, pass a Euro elections enabling bill, and for the EU to arrange a longer extension. More complex, but viable.
I agree and thank you for acknowledging the enabling bill.
Nothing is impossible but in our HOC getting the enabling bill through all it stages and passing into law by the 12th April would require a single attitude of purpose by mps that is not there, and would be fought tooth and nail by ERG and others
Does an enabling bill need to pass by the 12th or do we just need to commit to holding the elections by the 12th?
Has to be in law by the 12th April as the EU election campaigns start then
Not negotiable at all - in law or no extension
I get that but the EU communique makes no reference to laws, simply the UK's "intention" not to hold elections at the moment. Does the law actually need changing? A lot of the UK's Brexit law changes haven't actually been enacted yet and simply occur on "exit day" so if the law to hold elections hasn't been repealed yet then a new one doesn't need passing we just need to get on with it.
Yes - the law needs an enabling bill passed and with royal assent by the 12th April
Why if the old law is still legislation?
No idea - but the enabling act is needed as also confirmed by Foxy this morning
There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.
The swine.
Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?
I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....
Surely an uncontested coronation by MPs would meet the criteria. Not a cat in hells chance of that though!
they might be forced to. If May resigns as PM, then the tory party have a choice. Have a 'new' tory PM, which would have to be uncontested (or a very very quick election), or Lizzie sends for Jezza.
No the cabinet agree an interim PM until leadership is sorted. She only sends for Corbyn if VONC and he can command confidence which he can't unless Tories agree to abstain
I'm not sure it's as simple as that. The backbenchers would have a very dim view of a new PM (temp or not) being decided that way without their input, espceially if that person wasn't deemed to be valid by say the ERG.
The only way is a MP wide very quick election, in a matter of a day without giving the membership a vote, which is also soemthing which might not be accepted. I can;t see the MPs playing ball here.
Mr. Anazina, perhaps that every country to the east of Cyprus (excepting, of course, any African nations, I'd guess Madagascar might otherwise fit the bill) is in Asia.
So Norway is in Asia? You should be Grayling's Chief of Staff.
It's ridiculous to say anyone could have done better: Brexit is a mess, and would have been a mess whoever was in charge of negotiations. The sides are too far apart for any meaningful compromise to be easily reached.
Give would have faced just as many problems as May; they might have been different problems, but problems nonetheless.
And the reason the sides are so far apart? The leave campaigns who lied about Brexit, and promised everything to everyone.
It'd be good for leavers to take some responsibility instead of pathetically moaning: "If my person was in charge it would have been different!"
Norway is a meaningful compromise, which could have been, and might just still be reached.
It would mean pissing off most people, but to a lesser extent overall than any other likely solution.
Norway does everything except deliver on the mandate obtained, which was an anti-immigration platform.
Norway is damage limitation. It is better than any other form of Brexit, but it doesn't offer any advantages to anyone over the status quo. Which is why noone much has gone for it.
Other than, of course, being outside the CAP.
Oh, and the CFP.
Apart from that, then... oh, what about being outside the Justice Pillar? And the Home Affairs and the Foreign Affairs Pillars? Those are advantages, as well, I'd guess.
The permanent and unconditional exemption from ever-closer-union might be seen as an advantage by some.
And, of course, a reduction in fees from £350 million per week to £100 million per week or so. That's a benefit, definitely.
Being outside the majority of the EU acquis of law is definitely a plus on the Brexit side, when you look at it.
Whilst retaining the benefits of the Single Market and access to whatever EU institutions we desire and being involved in the initial shaping of all Single Market legislation.
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
Do you think those Leave voters bothered about FoM are happy with the fact that non-EU immigration has gone up since the referendum and EU migration is down. Are they whooping with delight at this and at the prospect of even more migrants coming in from the far corners of the world, the sorts of migrants that the Leave campaigns were so intent on putting on their posters?
If Leavers don’t want immigration they have the ability to vote for a government that will actually (as opposed to pretend to) reduce it
That option isn’t available while we are members of the EU
Democratic control of our politicians is important
Making the EU the scapegoat for problems which were always in our control has been a long-standing and bad habit of our politicians.
As been woefully exposed over the last few months.
Perhaps that is a worthwhile reason to LEAVE - they can shape up or we can ship 'em out.
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
Do you think those Leave voters bothered about FoM are happy with the fact that non-EU immigration has gone up since the referendum and EU migration is down. Are they whooping with delight at this and at the prospect of even more migrants coming in from the far corners of the world, the sorts of migrants that the Leave campaigns were so intent on putting on their posters?
If Leavers don’t want immigration they have the ability to vote for a government that will actually (as opposed to pretend to) reduce it
That option isn’t available while we are members of the EU
Democratic control of our politicians is important
Reducing non-EU immigration has always been available to us while in the EU. Altering our welfare system and tax credit system has always been available to us while in the EU. FoM would never have become the issue it has had either of these steps been taken seriously. Making the EU the scapegoat for problems which were always in our control has been a long-standing and bad habit of our politicians.
You’ve previously written, when I’ve made that point, why should Britain be forced to change its welfare system to fit with EU freedom of movement.
To be fair the only person i can see bridging the divide between leavers and remainers in the party and somehow bringing a softer Brexit position is Gove.
There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.
The swine.
Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?
I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....
Surely an uncontested coronation by MPs would meet the criteria. Not a cat in hells chance of that though!
they might be forced to. If May resigns as PM, then the tory party have a choice. Have a 'new' tory PM, which would have to be uncontested (or a very very quick election), or Lizzie sends for Jezza.
No the cabinet agree an interim PM until leadership is sorted. She only sends for Corbyn if VONC and he can command confidence which he can't unless Tories agree to abstain
I'm not sure it's as simple as that. The backbenchers would have a very dim view of a new PM (temp or not) being decided that way without their input, espceially if that person wasn't deemed to be valid by say the ERG.
The only way is a MP wide very quick election, in a matter of a day without giving the membership a vote, which is also soemthing which might not be accepted. I can;t see the MPs playing ball here.
That's the convention though. Continuity of government. There has to be a PM or Lizzie has yo exercise the royal prerogative. The executive ard not the party. Sure mps could cut up about it and no confidence them but that would be the end of the Tory party and a GE would follow unless jezza could command confidence
The market capitalisation at the current share price is £24 million so why on earth would anyone lend them £200 million. It's not exactly an up and coming start up either. Why would anyone lend them the money ?!
Mr. Anazina, perhaps that every country to the east of Cyprus (excepting, of course, any African nations, I'd guess Madagascar might otherwise fit the bill) is in Asia.
So Norway is in Asia? You should be Grayling's Chief of Staff.
It's ridiculous to say anyone could have done better: Brexit is a mess, and would have been a mess whoever was in charge of negotiations. The sides are too far apart for any meaningful compromise to be easily reached.
Give would have faced just as many problems as May; they might have been different problems, but problems nonetheless.
And the reason the sides are so far apart? The leave campaigns who lied about Brexit, and promised everything to everyone.
It'd be good for leavers to take some responsibility instead of pathetically moaning: "If my person was in charge it would have been different!"
Norway is a meaningful compromise, which could have been, and might just still be reached.
It would mean pissing off most people, but to a lesser extent overall than any other likely solution.
Norway does everything except deliver on the mandate obtained, which was an anti-immigration platform.
Norway is damage limitation. It is better than any other form of Brexit, but it doesn't offer any advantages to anyone over the status quo. Which is why noone much has gone for it.
Other than, of course, being outside the CAP.
Oh, and the CFP.
Apart from that, then... oh, what about being outside the Justice Pillar? And the Home Affairs and the Foreign Affairs Pillars? Those are advantages, as well, I'd guess.
The permanent and unconditional exemption from ever-closer-union might be seen as an advantage by some.
And, of course, a reduction in fees from £350 million per week to £100 million per week or so. That's a benefit, definitely.
Being outside the majority of the EU acquis of law is definitely a plus on the Brexit side, when you look at it.
Whilst retaining the benefits of the Single Market and access to whatever EU institutions we desire and being involved in the initial shaping of all Single Market legislation.
On reflection, I can see some advantages.
What is the mechanism for leaving "Norway"?
There's a ferry direct to Newcastle.
LOL. Sadly no more, and it was to < pedant > North Shields< /pedant >
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
Do you think those Leave voters bothered about FoM are happy with the fact that non-EU immigration has gone up since the referendum and EU migration is down. Are they whooping with delight at this and at the prospect of even more migrants coming in from the far corners of the world, the sorts of migrants that the Leave campaigns were so intent on putting on their posters?
If Leavers don’t want immigration they have the ability to vote for a government that will actually (as opposed to pretend to) reduce it
That option isn’t available while we are members of the EU
Democratic control of our politicians is important
Reducing non-EU immigration has always been available to us while in the EU. Altering our welfare system and tax credit system has always been available to us while in the EU. FoM would never have become the issue it has had either of these steps been taken seriously. Making the EU the scapegoat for problems which were always in our control has been a long-standing and bad habit of our politicians.
Why should we need to reduce non-EU immigration any more? We're already very strict on non-EU migration and non=EU represents 93% of the globe yet typically only about half of net migration. While EU represents 7% of the globe and roughly about the other half net.
If people want to reduce immigration then they reduce that which they are able to control.
You are assuming that migration should be shared equally around the globe as if all peoples are fungible and that there are not issues about where people come from which might be relevant to a country's decision on migration. Let's be blunt: do you think that a government should be indifferent as to whether all its migration comes from Holland or Saudi Arabia?
The reasoning behind FoM is that the EU and the countries within it form a largely cohesive whole with shared values, history, family ties etc and that therefore free movement within that whole is a good thing. That does not necessarily apply in the same way in relation to migration from very far away places.
Anyway need to go. I was just responding to @Charles's comment that we weren't able to control migration while in the EU. That only applied to part of the migration Britain has seen and FoM seems, IMO, to have been made a scapegoat for the migration which some Leave voters are really concerned about.
The market capitalisation at the current share price is £24 million so why on earth would anyone lend them £200 million. It's not exactly an up and coming start up either. Why would anyone lend them the money ?!
Great anecdote on the news this morning - Macron before May's speech to the EC, estimated chances of MV3 passing at 10%, post speech revised it to 5%...
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
Do you think those Leave voters bothered about FoM are happy with the fact that non-EU immigration has gone up since the referendum and EU migration is down. Are they whooping with delight at this and at the prospect of even more migrants coming in from the far corners of the world, the sorts of migrants that the Leave campaigns were so intent on putting on their posters?
If Leavers don’t want immigration they have the ability to vote for a government that will actually (as opposed to pretend to) reduce it
That option isn’t available while we are members of the EU
Democratic control of our politicians is important
Making the EU the scapegoat for problems which were always in our control has been a long-standing and bad habit of our politicians.
As been woefully exposed over the last few months.
Perhaps that is a worthwhile reason to LEAVE - they can shape up or we can ship 'em out.
But they will still be able to blame the EU, our powerful neighbour, and still will
There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.
The swine.
Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?
I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....
You don't need to be a party leader to be PM.
Churchill was PM for several months despite not being Tory party leader.
In Germany it is common that the party leader is not the "head" of the parliamentary party. Before the last Bundestag election Shulz was the SPD "Spitzenkandidat" (proposed Chancellor) but he was not at the time in Parliament. Horst Seehofer (CSU) stood down from the Bundestag when he becameMinisterpresident of Bavaria but has still had a very high profile in Merkels Government.
Oh and I almost forgot... The current German Chancellor is no longer leader of her CDU party, it is now Kramp-Karrenbauer.
There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.
The swine.
Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?
I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....
Surely an uncontested coronation by MPs would meet the criteria. Not a cat in hells chance of that though!
they might be forced to. If May resigns as PM, then the tory party have a choice. Have a 'new' tory PM, which would have to be uncontested (or a very very quick election), or Lizzie sends for Jezza.
No the cabinet agree an interim PM until leadership is sorted. She only sends for Corbyn if VONC and he can command confidence which he can't unless Tories agree to abstain
I'm not sure it's as simple as that. The backbenchers would have a very dim view of a new PM (temp or not) being decided that way without their input, espceially if that person wasn't deemed to be valid by say the ERG.
The only way is a MP wide very quick election, in a matter of a day without giving the membership a vote, which is also soemthing which might not be accepted. I can;t see the MPs playing ball here.
Why would the membership need to be involved in selecting a temporary PM ? There's no need for that individual to be leader of the party - but an obvious need to be confirmed by MPs.
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
Do you think those Leave voters bothered about FoM are happy with the fact that non-EU immigration has gone up since the referendum and EU migration is down. Are they whooping with delight at this and at the prospect of even more migrants coming in from the far corners of the world, the sorts of migrants that the Leave campaigns were so intent on putting on their posters?
If Leavers don’t want immigration they have the ability to vote for a government that will actually (as opposed to pretend to) reduce it
That option isn’t available while we are members of the EU
Democratic control of our politicians is important
Reducing non-EU immigration has always been available to us while in the EU. Altering our welfare system and tax credit system has always been available to us while in the EU. FoM would never have become the issue it has had either of these steps been taken seriously. Making the EU the scapegoat for problems which were always in our control has been a long-standing and bad habit of our politicians.
You’ve previously written, when I’ve made that point, why should Britain be forced to change its welfare system to fit with EU freedom of movement.
I know. It's one of the consequences of being in the EU. That it flattens out - and is intended to flatten out - differences like this. It's one reason why I can understand - and to some extent - share those with concerns about whether Britain fits happily within the EU. But @Charles was making an incorrect point about us not having control and I was simply saying that we did have some control, albeit not total control. We had to weigh up the costs and benefits.
There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.
The swine.
Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?
I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....
You don't need to be a party leader to be PM.
Churchill was PM for several months despite not being Tory party leader.
In Germany it is common that the party leader is not the "head" of the parliamentary party. Before the last Bundestag election Shulz was the SPD "Spitzenkandidat" (proposed Chancellor) but he was not at the time in Parliament. Horst Seehofer (CSU) stood down from the Bundestag when he becameMinisterpresident of Bavaria but has still had a very high profile in Merkels Government.
Oh and I almost forgot... The current German Chancellor is no longer leader of her CDU party, it is now Kramp-Karrenbauer.
And of course Major was not party leader during the 95 quit and restand but was PM
I think the Sackler are trashed. Most of my US friends (even apolitical ones) are outraged by their sh1tty behaviour pushing opioids.
The Universities and Museums and Galleries are disowning their money as too dirty -- rightly too.
I’m always conflicted about that
I don’t think with a situation like this the donations help their reputation (and in any event that wasn’t Maurice’s intention).
So why not take the money and use it for good?
What level or type of behaviour from a possible donor do you think should stop a recipient from accepting their money?
Fundamentally if the money isn’t legitimately their’s to give
In the case of the Sacklers for example, they pushed the envelope very aggressively in marketing but not more than other forms have done in different areas. AstraZeneca, for example, paid a $1bn fine for it (oncology I think)
Clearly opioid abuse is particularly damaging but that’s not Purdue’s fault - it’s the responsibility of the pill factories.
They should be fined heavily and forced to disgorge, plus be enjoined and probably have a DPA imposed. But the money left after all the above is itself is legitimate and can be given away
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
Do you think those Leave voters bothered about FoM are happy with the fact that non-EU immigration has gone up since the referendum and EU migration is down. Are they whooping with delight at this and at the prospect of even more migrants coming in from the far corners of the world, the sorts of migrants that the Leave campaigns were so intent on putting on their posters?
If Leavers don’t want immigration they have the ability to vote for a government that will actually (as opposed to pretend to) reduce it
That option isn’t available while we are members of the EU
Democratic control of our politicians is important
Reducing non-EU immigration has always been available to us while in the EU. Altering our welfare system and tax credit system has always been available to us while in the EU. FoM would never have become the issue it has had either of these steps been taken seriously. Making the EU the scapegoat for problems which were always in our control has been a long-standing and bad habit of our politicians.
Why should we need to reduce non-EU immigration any more? We're already very strict on non-EU migration and non=EU represents 93% of the globe yet typically only about half of net migration. While EU represents 7% of the globe and roughly about the other half net.
If people want to reduce immigration then they reduce that which they are able to control.
You are assuming that migration should be shared equally around the globe as if all peoples are fungible and that there are not issues about where people come from which might be relevant to a country's decision on migration. Let's be blunt: do you think that a government should be indifferent as to whether all its migration comes from Holland or Saudi Arabia?
The reasoning behind FoM is that the EU and the countries within it form a largely cohesive whole with shared values, history, family ties etc and that therefore free movement within that whole is a good thing. That does not necessarily apply in the same way in relation to migration from very far away places.
Or they take control of that which they can't control currently.
I'm struggling to see what shared values, history, family ties etc we share with Romania but not Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA, South Africa or India.
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
Do you think those Leave voters bothered about FoM are happy with the fact that non-EU immigration has gone up since the referendum and EU migration is down. Are they whooping with delight at this and at the prospect of even more migrants coming in from the far corners of the world, the sorts of migrants that the Leave campaigns were so intent on putting on their posters?
If Leavers don’t want immigration they have the ability to vote for a government that will actually (as opposed to pretend to) reduce it
That option isn’t available while we are members of the EU
Democratic control of our politicians is important
Reducing non-EU immigration has always been available to us while in the EU. Altering our welfare system and tax credit system has always been available to us while in the EU. FoM would never have become the issue it has had either of these steps been taken seriously. Making the EU the scapegoat for problems which were always in our control has been a long-standing and bad habit of our politicians.
Sure. But why should we have to give up our non contributory welfare system?
Mr. Anazina, perhaps that every country to the east of Cyprus (excepting, of course, any African nations, I'd guess Madagascar might otherwise fit the bill) is in Asia.
So Norway is in Asia? You should be Grayling's Chief of Staff.
It's ridiculous to say anyone could have done better: Brexit is a mess, and would have been a mess whoever was in charge of negotiations. The sides are too far apart for any meaningful compromise to be easily reached.
Give would have faced just as many problems as May; they might have been different problems, but problems nonetheless.
And the reason the sides are so far apart? The leave campaigns who lied about Brexit, and promised everything to everyone.
It'd be good for leavers to take some responsibility instead of pathetically moaning: "If my person was in charge it would have been different!"
Norway is a meaningful compromise, which could have been, and might just still be reached.
It would mean pissing off most people, but to a lesser extent overall than any other likely solution.
Norway does everything except deliver on the mandate obtained, which was an anti-immigration platform.
Norway is damage limitation. It is better than any other form of Brexit, but it doesn't offer any advantages to anyone over the status quo. Which is why noone much has gone for it.
Other than, of course, being outside the CAP.
Oh, and the CFP.
Apart from that, then... oh, what about being outside the Justice Pillar? And the Home Affairs and the Foreign Affairs Pillars? Those are advantages, as well, I'd guess.
The permanent and unconditional exemption from ever-closer-union might be seen as an advantage by some.
And, of course, a reduction in fees from £350 million per week to £100 million per week or so. That's a benefit, definitely.
Being outside the majority of the EU acquis of law is definitely a plus on the Brexit side, when you look at it.
Whilst retaining the benefits of the Single Market and access to whatever EU institutions we desire and being involved in the initial shaping of all Single Market legislation.
Catching up on last night's TW, I see Portillo thinks May's deal and no deal are both off the table and that we wont revoke; Parliament will probably take control and come up with a solution unacceptable to May, hence she resigns in the next few weeks and is replaced by an interim leader, probably Lidlington, who goes for a long extension, during which mayhem breaks out in the Tory party.
First time for a while that I agree with him on how things will play out.
Can someone explain how "parliament can take control" while May is still prime minister?
I cannot see how "parliament" can propose something to the EU without it being presented by the government, because the european council consists of 28 govenments.
May can resign and then a UK government with different personnell can take control, but as we have seen in the last month, what parliament wants puts pressure on the government, but cannot not compell it to do something it doesent want to.
This is a genuine question, as lots of people are suggesting it as a possibility but I cannot imagine how it occurs in practice
Letwin passes Monday, opening Wednesday for indicative votes and hopefully thereafter a preferred option emerges. If a majority supported option emerges from this process the government can hardly (well could, but won't, in the circumstances) refuse to run with it, but May can, so she resigns. Lidlington takes over, asks and gets a nine month extension from the EU.
Edit/ as Portillo says, mayhem breaks out in the Tory party, which presumably has a leadership contest thereafter, and there is a big question about viable government. Hence a possible GE or political realignment. But that's for after.
Thanks for the great answer. I find it a scandal that government refused to "run with" parliament voting to prohibit no deal (May has explicitly said it no deal is still the alternative to May's deal) but will have to "run with" parliament's proposals next week.
Unless May somehow manages to find a way to pass MV3 her successor will have no difficulty in blaming all the present problems on May.
I feel sorry for May to the extent that in a hung parliament getting any deal through is impossible, but once MV1 was lost by 200+ votes she had to stand down. Both sides need to accept the negotiations up this point have basically failed.
More importantly, they currently hold it in Assembly. Kirsty Williams is very popular and if she decided to stand for Westminster she would walk it - especially in current climate. But on the oether hand she has another 2 years in Cardiff Bay - she might only get a few months at Westminster...
Norway + CU seems the most likely outcome now, surely. It must be the outcome closest to the preferences of the median voter in the referendum. It pleases nobody but delivers something for everyone. There must be a parliamentary majority for it in the Commons, once people stop holding out for their favourite outcome. It honours the referendum and so respects democracy. It should solve the Irish border problem. It doesn't end freedom of movement, but that was not on the ballot paper. It will probably blow up the Tory party, but so what? The Tory party has almost blown up our country in pursuit of its own narrow interests. Fuck em.
There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.
The swine.
Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?
I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....
Surely an uncontested coronation by MPs would meet the criteria. Not a cat in hells chance of that though!
they might be forced to. If May resigns as PM, then the tory party have a choice. Have a 'new' tory PM, which would have to be uncontested (or a very very quick election), or Lizzie sends for Jezza.
No the cabinet agree an interim PM until leadership is sorted. She only sends for Corbyn if VONC and he can command confidence which he can't unless Tories agree to abstain
I'm not sure it's as simple as that. The backbenchers would have a very dim view of a new PM (temp or not) being decided that way without their input, espceially if that person wasn't deemed to be valid by say the ERG.
The only way is a MP wide very quick election, in a matter of a day without giving the membership a vote, which is also soemthing which might not be accepted. I can;t see the MPs playing ball here.
It could only be a rubber stamp election of conservative MPs for someone "to guide the country out of the crisis". If there is a proper leadership election then the current parliamentary tories would split and have a vicious fight at exactly the very worst time for the country.
There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.
The swine.
Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?
I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....
Surely an uncontested coronation by MPs would meet the criteria. Not a cat in hells chance of that though!
they might be forced to. If May resigns as PM, then the tory party have a choice. Have a 'new' tory PM, which would have to be uncontested (or a very very quick election), or Lizzie sends for Jezza.
No the cabinet agree an interim PM until leadership is sorted. She only sends for Corbyn if VONC and he can command confidence which he can't unless Tories agree to abstain
I'm not sure it's as simple as that. The backbenchers would have a very dim view of a new PM (temp or not) being decided that way without their input, espceially if that person wasn't deemed to be valid by say the ERG.
The only way is a MP wide very quick election, in a matter of a day without giving the membership a vote, which is also soemthing which might not be accepted. I can;t see the MPs playing ball here.
It could only be a rubber stamp election of conservative MPs for someone "to guide the country out of the crisis". If there is a proper leadership election then the current parliamentary tories would split and have a vicious fight at exactly the very worst time for the country.
Which is unavoidable. You think the ERG wouldn't see this as time to move? Get Boris or someone No10?
I think the Sackler are trashed. Most of my US friends (even apolitical ones) are outraged by their sh1tty behaviour pushing opioids.
The Universities and Museums and Galleries are disowning their money as too dirty -- rightly too.
I’m always conflicted about that
I don’t think with a situation like this the donations help their reputation (and in any event that wasn’t Maurice’s intention).
So why not take the money and use it for good?
What level or type of behaviour from a possible donor do you think should stop a recipient from accepting their money?
Fundamentally if the money isn’t legitimately their’s to give
In the case of the Sacklers for example, they pushed the envelope very aggressively in marketing but not more than other forms have done in different areas. AstraZeneca, for example, paid a $1bn fine for it (oncology I think)
Clearly opioid abuse is particularly damaging but that’s not Purdue’s fault - it’s the responsibility of the pill factories.
They should be fined heavily and forced to disgorge, plus be enjoined and probably have a DPA imposed. But the money left after all the above is itself is legitimate and can be given away
Though gifts of well scrubbed money may not be helping the Sacklers' reputation (dunno about that), the museums & galleries may be thinking of their own reputations. Those reputations won't last long if prestigious artists are boycotting them and protesting outside them, and no amount of donations can really make up for that.
There was someone who backed Lidington as next PM at nearly 470/1 back in December 2017.
The swine.
Does it count if he's only a temporary leader?
I would imagine they would have to be elected by the membership to count as non-temporary place-holders. Good luck getting Lidington past the members.....
Surely an uncontested coronation by MPs would meet the criteria. Not a cat in hells chance of that though!
they might be forced to. If May resigns as PM, then the tory party have a choice. Have a 'new' tory PM, which would have to be uncontested (or a very very quick election), or Lizzie sends for Jezza.
No the cabinet agree an interim PM until leadership is sorted. She only sends for Corbyn if VONC and he can command confidence which he can't unless Tories agree to abstain
I'm not sure it's as simple as that. The backbenchers would have a very dim view of a new PM (temp or not) being decided that way without their input, espceially if that person wasn't deemed to be valid by say the ERG.
The only way is a MP wide very quick election, in a matter of a day without giving the membership a vote, which is also soemthing which might not be accepted. I can;t see the MPs playing ball here.
Why would the membership need to be involved in selecting a temporary PM ? There's no need for that individual to be leader of the party - but an obvious need to be confirmed by MPs.
Because to avoid it MPs would, on the whole need to play ball on it.
Is there ANY evidence they would, given the last few years?
The market capitalisation at the current share price is £24 million so why on earth would anyone lend them £200 million. It's not exactly an up and coming start up either. Why would anyone lend them the money ?!
To launder it?
Ashley wants to buy their Danish business for £100m, so some of it is worth some cash
in terms of next PM. If May quits voluntarily and goes before a new Tory leader is elected then cabinet agree the next PM who will step down when the Tories select their new leader in whatever fashion. That's the process. Liz is only prepared to hold personal hold of the prerogative for the time May's car leaves and the replacement arrives immediately after.
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
Do you think those Leave voters bothered about FoM are happy with the fact that non-EU immigration has gone up since the referendum and EU migration is down. Are they whooping with delight at this and at the prospect of even more migrants coming in from the far corners of the world, the sorts of migrants that the Leave campaigns were so intent on putting on their posters?
If Leavers don’t want immigration they have the ability to vote for a government that will actually (as opposed to pretend to) reduce it
That option isn’t available while we are members of the EU
Democratic control of our politicians is important
That isn't true though is it. We've always had and continue to have control over non-EU migration. If leavers don't like Romanians and prefer Somalis they might be happy. But the complaints seem to be about numbers coming rather than where they come from.
Meanwhile, the revoke article 50 petition has now been signed by over 5% of the electorate.
And you think continued FoM respects the result of the referendum?
Or just the bits of the result you like?
Do you think those Leave voters bothered about FoM are happy with the fact that non-EU immigration has gone up since the referendum and EU migration is down. Are they whooping with delight at this and at the prospect of even more migrants coming in from the far corners of the world, the sorts of migrants that the Leave campaigns were so intent on putting on their posters?
If Leavers don’t want immigration they have the ability to vote for a government that will actually (as opposed to pretend to) reduce it
That option isn’t available while we are members of the EU
Democratic control of our politicians is important
That isn't true though is it. We've always had and continue to have control over non-EU migration. If leavers don't like Romanians and prefer Somalis they might be happy. But the complaints seem to be about numbers coming rather than where they come from.
Meanwhile, the revoke article 50 petition has now been signed by over 5% of the electorate.
One side-effect of Macron's new deadline is that it will very possibly reach 17.4 million in time, now.
in terms of next PM. If May quits voluntarily and goes before a new Tory leader is elected then cabinet agree the next PM who will step down when the Tories select their new leader in whatever fashion. That's the process. Liz is only prepared to hold personal hold of the prerogative for the time May's car leaves and the replacement arrives immediately after.
Which would be fine if we had the luxuary of time. The worst thing is if may resigns, but 'stuck' in office whilst the tories then tear each other apart.
the cabinet could lock themselves away and elect a new leader. that could happen but it required forces outside the cabinet to plat ball. but who..if someone like Hammond or Rudd then the ERG would throw a paddy. if someone like Boris or another No-dealer it would similarly be case on the Remainer side.
in terms of next PM. If May quits voluntarily and goes before a new Tory leader is elected then cabinet agree the next PM who will step down when the Tories select their new leader in whatever fashion. That's the process. Liz is only prepared to hold personal hold of the prerogative for the time May's car leaves and the replacement arrives immediately after.
Which would be fine if we had the luxuary of time. The worst thing is if may resigns, but 'stuck' in office whilst the tories then tear each other apart.
the cabinet could lock themselves away and elect a new leader. that could happen but it required forces outside the cabinet to plat ball. but who..if someone like Hammond or Rudd then the ERG would throw a paddy. if someone like Boris or another No-dealer it would similarly be case on the Remainer side.
Gove is possible.
It needs to be a temporary candidate with an election to follow. Liddington would be the best bet...
in terms of next PM. If May quits voluntarily and goes before a new Tory leader is elected then cabinet agree the next PM who will step down when the Tories select their new leader in whatever fashion. That's the process. Liz is only prepared to hold personal hold of the prerogative for the time May's car leaves and the replacement arrives immediately after.
Which would be fine if we had the luxuary of time. The worst thing is if may resigns, but 'stuck' in office whilst the tories then tear each other apart.
the cabinet could lock themselves away and elect a new leader. that could happen but it required forces outside the cabinet to plat ball. but who..if someone like Hammond or Rudd then the ERG would throw a paddy. if someone like Boris or another No-dealer it would similarly be case on the Remainer side.
Gove is possible.
It needs to be a temporary candidate with an election to follow. Liddington would be the best bet...
the problem though isn't the person. it's the policy. Would Liddington go for No-Deal, or new (softer) deal or referendum?
Just replacing the personnel at the top does nothing.
Comments
Not negotiable at all - in law or no extension
I don’t think with a situation like this the donations help their reputation (and in any event that wasn’t Maurice’s intention).
So why not take the money and use it for good?
Would be the biggest odds winner on PB I think.
PS. The "=democracy death" bit reads with more melodrama than you probably intended...
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/12/31/three-tips-on-who-might-be-theresa-mays-successor/
Churchill was PM for several months despite not being Tory party leader.
I think the strength of feeling on this in the US is stronger than here.
It has been a battle over the last few days and this morning especially, to explain the 12th April was selected by the EU as it is the last date before the campaign for the EU elections and we have to take part if we want an extension of any kind
It is upto the HOC, but I am truly dismayed at how journalists, media and politicians are not explaining this in detail, as it was one of the most important issues coming from the EU
That option isn’t available while we are members of the EU
Democratic control of our politicians is important
Oh, and the CFP.
Apart from that, then... oh, what about being outside the Justice Pillar? And the Home Affairs and the Foreign Affairs Pillars? Those are advantages, as well, I'd guess.
The permanent and unconditional exemption from ever-closer-union might be seen as an advantage by some.
And, of course, a reduction in fees from £350 million per week to £100 million per week or so. That's a benefit, definitely.
Being outside the majority of the EU acquis of law is definitely a plus on the Brexit side, when you look at it.
Whilst retaining the benefits of the Single Market and access to whatever EU institutions we desire and being involved in the initial shaping of all Single Market legislation.
On reflection, I can see some advantages.
Not least because I'd retain my title
Unless May somehow manages to find a way to pass MV3 her successor will have no difficulty in blaming all the present problems on May.
They can ask and, if defied, sack the executive
You are looking to upend the constitutional settlement
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47666249
The only way is a MP wide very quick election, in a matter of a day without giving the membership a vote, which is also soemthing which might not be accepted. I can;t see the MPs playing ball here.
Perhaps that is a worthwhile reason to LEAVE - they can shape up or we can ship 'em out.
So really is his crown.
https://twitter.com/camusson/status/1109025790119895040
It’s the same with the campaign against BP or BoAS art funding. Without that money there would be far fewer major exhibitions or conservation work.
Philanthropy shouldn’t be politicised
#charismatic
Why would anyone lend them the money ?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brecon_and_Radnorshire_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
You are assuming that migration should be shared equally around the globe as if all peoples are fungible and that there are not issues about where people come from which might be relevant to a country's decision on migration. Let's be blunt: do you think that a government should be indifferent as to whether all its migration comes from Holland or Saudi Arabia?
The reasoning behind FoM is that the EU and the countries within it form a largely cohesive whole with shared values, history, family ties etc and that therefore free movement within that whole is a good thing. That does not necessarily apply in the same way in relation to migration from very far away places.
Anyway need to go. I was just responding to @Charles's comment that we weren't able to control migration while in the EU. That only applied to part of the migration Britain has seen and FoM seems, IMO, to have been made a scapegoat for the migration which some Leave voters are really concerned about.
A very good article in the Guardian is equally damning:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/22/eu-mps-theresa-may-finished-brexit
Oh and I almost forgot... The current German Chancellor is no longer leader of her CDU party, it is now Kramp-Karrenbauer.
There's no need for that individual to be leader of the party - but an obvious need to be confirmed by MPs.
In the case of the Sacklers for example, they pushed the envelope very aggressively in marketing but not more than other forms have done in different areas. AstraZeneca, for example, paid a $1bn fine for it (oncology I think)
Clearly opioid abuse is particularly damaging but that’s not Purdue’s fault - it’s the responsibility of the pill factories.
They should be fined heavily and forced to disgorge, plus be enjoined and probably have a DPA imposed. But the money left after all the above is itself is legitimate and can be given away
I'm struggling to see what shared values, history, family ties etc we share with Romania but not Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA, South Africa or India.
(it's always £2 stake)
(OK I know 1000 is 999/1, before the pedants get here)
Is there ANY evidence they would, given the last few years?
But for next PM if you get the seal of office you're PM, and the bet pays out.
I've checked with both Shadsy and Betfair to confirm.
Meanwhile, the revoke article 50 petition has now been signed by over 5% of the electorate.
the cabinet could lock themselves away and elect a new leader. that could happen but it required forces outside the cabinet to plat ball. but who..if someone like Hammond or Rudd then the ERG would throw a paddy. if someone like Boris or another No-dealer it would similarly be case on the Remainer side.
Gove is possible.
It is not in the least bit generous to her, but it's hard to argue it's undeserved.
Just replacing the personnel at the top does nothing.