Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Threatened women live longest. Bet against Theresa May going q

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited June 13 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Threatened women live longest. Bet against Theresa May going quickly

We read in the weekend papers that the Brexiters within the Conservative party are mustering for an attempt in July to despatch Theresa May, once Royal Assent has been received to the withdrawal bill.  Sources close to David Davis and Jacob Rees-Mogg are covering their retreat in the face of the Prime Minister’s obduracy over future customs arrangements with the EU with a hail of Parthian shots.  Her opponents already have 42 MPs ready to lodge letters for a vote of no confidence, we are told.  48 would mean that a vote would be held.  We are told to expect an “almighty reckoning”. 

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,575
    edited June 13
    Some of the moderates should go ahead and send in letters. She'd probably win, and she'd be safe for a year and the hard-liners would lose all their leverage. They'd actually have negative leverage, because if they threatened her she could respond by cutting deal with MPs in other parties.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,202
    edited June 13

    Some of the moderates should go ahead and send in letters. She'd probably win, and she'd be safe for a year and the hard-liners would lose all their leverage. They'd actually have negative leverage, because if they threatened her she could respond by cutting deal with MPs in other parties.

    What's in it for the moderates? How can the moderates be sure they will like Theresa May's vision of Brexit when after the referendum, a general election she called specifically on that issue, and even yesterday, no-one has the foggiest idea what the Prime Minister wants?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,075
    Vanilla ate my first!

    Very good piece Alastair. I agree that the mechanism makes it more difficult to replace Mrs May than many think.

    There’s also the issue of timing. There would be a clamour from the membership to have the say in the new leader, which they were denied last time when Mrs Leadsom withdrew, so the contest will take take a couple of months in practice at a time when the A50 clock is running down.

    The MPs would be acutely aware of how this looks, so may hold off a challenge in order to see the Brexit legislation through Parliament - probably with a fair amount of fudge as we saw yesterday.

    Also agree about JRM. I’m still not sure that he’s either actually interested in standing, nor has the support of close to a third of MPs required to get on the members’ ballot.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,575
    edited June 13

    Some of the moderates should go ahead and send in letters. She'd probably win, and she'd be safe for a year and the hard-liners would lose all their leverage. They'd actually have negative leverage, because if they threatened her she could respond by cutting deal with MPs in other parties.

    What's in it for the moderates? How can the moderates be sure they will like Theresa May's vision of Brexit when after the referendum, a general election she called specifically on that issue, and even yesterday, no-one has the foggiest idea what the Prime Minister wants?
    True, she seems to be shambling towards BINO by virtue of it being too late to do anything except the status quo, but who knows.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,575
    OT Dems getting some big special election swings, trade wars might sound good when you declare them but you fuck with a Wisconsin man's cheese markets at your peril
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,700
    Sandpit said:

    Vanilla ate my first!

    Very good piece Alastair. I agree that the mechanism makes it more difficult to replace Mrs May than many think.

    There’s also the issue of timing. There would be a clamour from the membership to have the say in the new leader, which they were denied last time when Mrs Leadsom withdrew, so the contest will take take a couple of months in practice at a time when the A50 clock is running down.

    The MPs would be acutely aware of how this looks, so may hold off a challenge in order to see the Brexit legislation through Parliament - probably with a fair amount of fudge as we saw yesterday.

    Also agree about JRM. I’m still not sure that he’s either actually interested in standing, nor has the support of close to a third of MPs required to get on the members’ ballot.

    It is a good piece, which is quite persuasive.
    I’m not convinced about the timing argument; if there were a candidate to replace her with acknowledged leadership skills, I think it would happen anyway. May’s constrant prevarication is running down the A50 clock in very much the same way, so that argument is moot.
    There is no alternative in the cabinet with a real prospect of making enough those on both sides of the Brexit schism think the gamble might just be worth it. The team of mediocrities is what will save her for now.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,191
    It’s almost as though she’s another in the Cameron mould; stood for PM because she thought she’d be rather good at it.
    TBH, when Cameron lost the referendum and ran away there wasn’t anyone else in the cabinet except GO who could have realistically stood..... yes I know Leadsom did........ everyone else would have been too divisive, and, in retrospect, for a few months she was 'just about managing’.
    It was changing her moind about last year’s election which really did for her.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 1,948
    edited June 13

    It’s almost as though she’s another in the Cameron mould; stood for PM because she thought she’d be rather good at it.
    TBH, when Cameron lost the referendum and ran away there wasn’t anyone else in the cabinet except GO who could have realistically stood..... yes I know Leadsom did........ everyone else would have been too divisive, and, in retrospect, for a few months she was 'just about managing’.
    It was changing her moind about last year’s election which really did for her.

    To be fair to her I don't think she displays the kind of arrogance that Cameron exuded. And I think the responsibility for this unholy mess we are now in lies much more with him. She inherited an impossible situation; her predecessor resigning the day after he lost a vote he himself had called, having done absolutely no contingency planning for what was always quite a likely outcome. It was possibly the most irresponsible behaviour we have ever seen from a PM. Unforgiveable.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,596
    Good article Alastair and I think it is likely she will be the great survivor. Also she still seems to have a measure of trust with the electorate
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 36,412

    It’s almost as though she’s another in the Cameron mould; stood for PM because she thought she’d be rather good at it.

    It seems more likely she stood because Nick Timothy thought he would be rather good at it.

    He was wrong...
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,202

    It’s almost as though she’s another in the Cameron mould; stood for PM because she thought she’d be rather good at it.
    TBH, when Cameron lost the referendum and ran away there wasn’t anyone else in the cabinet except GO who could have realistically stood..... yes I know Leadsom did........ everyone else would have been too divisive, and, in retrospect, for a few months she was 'just about managing’.
    It was changing her moind about last year’s election which really did for her.

    To be fair to her I don't think she displays the kind of arrogance that Cameron exuded. And I think the responsibility for this unholy mess we are now in lies much more with him. She inherited an impossible situation; her predecessor resigning the day after he lost a vote he himself had called, having done absolutely no contingency planning for what was always quite a likely outcome. It was possibly the most irresponsible behaviour we have ever seen from a PM. Unforgiveable.
    Right about Cameron, wrong about May. David Cameron should have tasked a Royal Commission suitably stuffed with Eurosceptics to produce a viable blueprint for Brexit and then used their conclusion as the out-option in the referendum.

    But having inherited (and that is not quite the right word since she had to stand and fight for the leadership) Cameron's unholy mess, what on Earth possessed Theresa May to trigger Article 50 and start the countdown on her road to nowhere?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,043
    Good morning, everyone.

    Be interesting just when, and how, May does eventually go.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 4,999

    Good morning, everyone.

    Be interesting just when, and how, May does eventually go.

    The only person not interested in finding that out is Theresa May herself.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,241
    I’m getting confused. Is it not the remainers she has royally pissed off this time? It seems to me that Alastair is perhaps looking in the wrong direction after yesterday.

    Of course much of Alastair’s logic applies there too and they may fear the election of someone even less sympathetic to their position. But can you really run the most important negotiation in some considerable time with someone you can’t trust at the wheel?

    For someone who shows so little idea of what they want she seems to upset a dangerous number of people.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,191
    edited June 13

    It’s almost as though she’s another in the Cameron mould; stood for PM because she thought she’d be rather good at it.
    TBH, when Cameron lost the referendum and ran away there wasn’t anyone else in the cabinet except GO who could have realistically stood..... yes I know Leadsom did........ everyone else would have been too divisive, and, in retrospect, for a few months she was 'just about managing’.
    It was changing her moind about last year’s election which really did for her.

    To be fair to her I don't think she displays the kind of arrogance that Cameron exuded. And I think the responsibility for this unholy mess we are now in lies much more with him. She inherited an impossible situation; her predecessor resigning the day after he lost a vote he himself had called, having done absolutely no contingency planning for what was always quite a likely outcome. It was possibly the most irresponsible behaviour we have ever seen from a PM. Unforgiveable.
    Right about Cameron, wrong about May. David Cameron should have tasked a Royal Commission suitably stuffed with Eurosceptics to produce a viable blueprint for Brexit and then used their conclusion as the out-option in the referendum.

    But having inherited (and that is not quite the right word since she had to stand and fight for the leadership) Cameron's unholy mess, what on Earth possessed Theresa May to trigger Article 50 and start the countdown on her road to nowhere?
    Good point; two bad decisions. Triggering Article 50 and then calling the election. She’s lucky in that the leader of the Labour Party is not, by opinion formers at any rate, seen as PM material, and has a lot of problem in keeping his own party behind him. Meanwhile Vince Cable isn't playing his (admittedly poor) hand well, although Thursday might provide a boost.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,538

    Good morning, everyone.

    Be interesting just when, and how, May does eventually go.

    The only person not interested in finding that out is Theresa May herself.
    The other factor is that she may decide to call it a day herself if Brexit breaks down. That, and actuarial issues of health need to be allowed for by punters.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 4,999

    Some of the moderates should go ahead and send in letters. She'd probably win, and she'd be safe for a year and the hard-liners would lose all their leverage. They'd actually have negative leverage, because if they threatened her she could respond by cutting deal with MPs in other parties.

    This is analogous to Major's 1995 gambit. That did see him through to the 1997 general election, so it's not as bonkers an idea as it sounds to me.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 4,999
    Would Margaret Thatcher have survived to contest the 1992 general election with the current Tory leadership rules?
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 1,243
    A lot will depend on the fallout from yesterday’s meaningful vote fudge. If the government continues to brief that it made no real commitments other than to keep talking about the subject, against the rebels apparent belief that the PM personally asked them to trust her to adopt most of the Grieve points (definitely 5A/5B) I don’t see how May or her whips will be able to benefit from any further goodwill when it comes to trying to negotiate out of further rebellions. That will matter practically when trying to get the next couple of bills through and may lead to having to accept amendments wholesale rather than being able to buy time to agree compromises.

    Also if, as rumoured, No. 10 have only got through this by promising completely contradictory things to the rebels on one hand and the Brexit ultras on the other, there has to be a risk of whichever side is the loser when the Lords amendments return to the Commons voting wholesale against the government. Only the pro-EU rebels have the numbers to defeat May (with Labour support) but could her leadership survive a rebellion of >100 Tory MPs and reliance on the opposition?

    The absurdity of the situation is that it has felt like the point of no return, it-can’t-get-any-worse crisis has been reached almost everyday since July 2016 but May still staggers on... so really, who knows?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,183
    edited June 13
    'Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres'

    Time to take Voltaire's advice. She has no disruptive Remainers in Cabinet so if she wants to take control it's got to be Boris. With the looming figures of Corbyn and McDonnell waiting in the wings there's nowhere for the Uber-Leavers to go,



  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,198
    edited June 13
    Roger said:

    'Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres'

    Time to take Voltaire's advice. She has no disruptive Remainers in Cabinet so if she wants to take control it's got to be Boris. With the looming figures of Corbyn and McDonnel waiting in the wings there's nowhere for the Uber-Leavers to go,

    She has plenty of disruptive Remainers around and about and if she really wanted to follow Voltaire’s advice she should pick a Remainer at random. Philip Hammond, say.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,191
    Polruan said:



    Also if, as rumoured, No. 10 have only got through this by promising completely contradictory things to the rebels on one hand and the Brexit ultras on the other, there has to be a risk of whichever side is the loser when the Lords amendments return to the Commons voting wholesale against the government. Only the pro-EU rebels have the numbers to defeat May (with Labour support) but could her leadership survive a rebellion of >100 Tory MPs and reliance on the opposition?

    Yes, I know I’ve snipped.
    Making contradictory promises can never end well. Not only will both sides be suspicious of future promises but as both cannot be satisfied, one will be in revenge mode.
    One way forward would be to sack one of the promise-makers....... surely the Chief Whip couldn’t have said A to one group and a contradictory B to another !
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 1,952
    Fundamental constitutional crisis:
    1. No consensus possible in cabinet.
    2. No consensus possible in parliament
    3. FTPA and Tory MP cowardice/party before country means replacement PM highly unlikely
    4. Deadlock in the polls so new General Election likely to elect the same mess of MPs
    5. 3rd referendum - assuming it was passed by parliament as the ultimate "hail Mary" hospital pass back to the electorate - unlikely to change the "will of the people".

    Its perfectly possible to endure such a crisis - you just suspend government for a while. As we have had in Belgium, Italy and Spain. But uniquely we are on the clock, with the time ticking away towards the Article 50 deadline. And having triggered it we leave the EU at the end of March.

    Not getting a deal (or an agreement as to what deal we wanted) doesn't preclude our leaving with no deal and no transition period. We leave regardless unless the Commission and the UK agree to extend the 2 years. Even assuming the Commission decide to pity us and offer it, would this government and this parliament be able to agree to accept?

    The post about potential civil unrest is right. If we don't crash out the leavers will be out en masse demanding the head of MPs who blocked the "will of the people". If we do crash out the people losing their jobs, outraged at price rises and product shortages will be out en masse, demanding the head of MPs who lied to them as "where's the better deal we were promised"

    Fun times...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 5,700

    Polruan said:



    Also if, as rumoured, No. 10 have only got through this by promising completely contradictory things to the rebels on one hand and the Brexit ultras on the other, there has to be a risk of whichever side is the loser when the Lords amendments return to the Commons voting wholesale against the government. Only the pro-EU rebels have the numbers to defeat May (with Labour support) but could her leadership survive a rebellion of >100 Tory MPs and reliance on the opposition?

    Yes, I know I’ve snipped.
    Making contradictory promises can never end well. Not only will both sides be suspicious of future promises but as both cannot be satisfied, one will be in revenge mode.
    One way forward would be to sack one of the promise-makers....... surely the Chief Whip couldn’t have said A to one group and a contradictory B to another !
    In an excellent Spoonerism on R4 this morning, referred to as the Cheap Whiff...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,883
    I'd have said she won't go quickly because the Brexiteers at least have been leaking threats to resign and take her down for months, so are probably just all talk to keep her wary.

    But now she is deceiving her own MPs, which is far more serious than being weak. Leavers and remainers cannot trust what she says to them now..

    Perhaps the factional problems of the party will still see her survive for now, but it will be interesting to see what happens if the Lords send their amendments back again. Why would a potential rebel not rebel in that situation.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,755
    Polruan said:

    A lot will depend on the fallout from yesterday’s meaningful vote fudge. If the government continues to brief that it made no real commitments other than to keep talking about the subject, against the rebels apparent belief that the PM personally asked them to trust her to adopt most of the Grieve points (definitely 5A/5B) I don’t see how May or her whips will be able to benefit from any further goodwill when it comes to trying to negotiate out of further rebellions. That will matter practically when trying to get the next couple of bills through and may lead to having to accept amendments wholesale rather than being able to buy time to agree compromises.

    Also if, as rumoured, No. 10 have only got through this by promising completely contradictory things to the rebels on one hand and the Brexit ultras on the other, there has to be a risk of whichever side is the loser when the Lords amendments return to the Commons voting wholesale against the government. Only the pro-EU rebels have the numbers to defeat May (with Labour support) but could her leadership survive a rebellion of >100 Tory MPs and reliance on the opposition?

    The absurdity of the situation is that it has felt like the point of no return, it-can’t-get-any-worse crisis has been reached almost everyday since July 2016 but May still staggers on... so really, who knows?

    "But the real lesson of yesterday is precisely the other way round. In the morning, Ministers said they would resist Grieve’s amendment. In the afternoon, they caved in. Grieve and his band have already defeated the Government once in the Commons. Yesterday, they showed that they have the capacity to do so again, and force Ministers to climb down."

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/06/the-water-gets-hotter-the-frog-sinks-lower.html
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,231

    But having inherited (and that is not quite the right word since she had to stand and fight for the leadership) Cameron's unholy mess, what on Earth possessed Theresa May to trigger Article 50 and start the countdown on her road to nowhere?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/26/eu-may-refuse-informal-brexit-talks-until-uk-triggers-article-50
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,202
    edited June 13

    It’s almost as though she’s another in the Cameron mould; stood for PM because she thought she’d be rather good at it.
    TBH, when Cameron lost the referendum and ran away there wasn’t anyone else in the cabinet except GO who could have realistically stood..... yes I know Leadsom did........ everyone else would have been too divisive, and, in retrospect, for a few months she was 'just about managing’.
    It was changing her moind about last year’s election which really did for her.

    To be fair to her I don't think she displays the kind of arrogance that Cameron exuded. And I think the responsibility for this unholy mess we are now in lies much more with him. She inherited an impossible situation; her predecessor resigning the day after he lost a vote he himself had called, having done absolutely no contingency planning for what was always quite a likely outcome. It was possibly the most irresponsible behaviour we have ever seen from a PM. Unforgiveable.
    Right about Cameron, wrong about May. David Cameron should have tasked a Royal Commission suitably stuffed with Eurosceptics to produce a viable blueprint for Brexit and then used their conclusion as the out-option in the referendum.

    But having inherited (and that is not quite the right word since she had to stand and fight for the leadership) Cameron's unholy mess, what on Earth possessed Theresa May to trigger Article 50 and start the countdown on her road to nowhere?
    Good point; two bad decisions. Triggering Article 50 and then calling the election. She’s lucky in that the leader of the Labour Party is not, by opinion formers at any rate, seen as PM material, and has a lot of problem in keeping his own party behind him. Meanwhile Vince Cable isn't playing his (admittedly poor) hand well, although Thursday might provide a boost.
    That's a thought. Will Lewisham East change things? If the pb bets on LibDems coming second are landed, how will Conservative MPs react? Publicly they will blame Brexiteers or Remainers in their own party, but in private how many would interpret a shellacking as proof that Theresa May has no electoral appeal and therefore must go.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,191
    Taking Mr Pioneers point, if we get to March 29th next year......only nine months away...... without any agreement whatsoever what WILL happen?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,183
    TOPPING said:

    Roger said:

    'Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres'

    Time to take Voltaire's advice. She has no disruptive Remainers in Cabinet so if she wants to take control it's got to be Boris. With the looming figures of Corbyn and McDonnel waiting in the wings there's nowhere for the Uber-Leavers to go,

    She has plenty of disruptive Remainers around and about and if she really wanted to follow Voltaire’s advice she should pick a Remainer at random. Philip Hammond, say.
    What difference will getting rid of Hammond make? No one will even notice. If it did anything it would gird the loins of the few Remain backbenchers who are willing to stick to their principles.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,883
    I think Nigelb's point that at the moment we appear to just be running out the clock anyway is pretty key. We don't seem to be achieving much of the disputed issues, there's not really time to change direction if we need to, so not much additional harm to be found in taking may down.

    No deal or no Brexit I put as the most likely scenario, the former much more likely than the latter, but the latter more probable than any deal.
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,489

    Fundamental constitutional crisis:
    1. No consensus possible in cabinet.
    2. No consensus possible in parliament
    3. FTPA and Tory MP cowardice/party before country means replacement PM highly unlikely
    4. Deadlock in the polls so new General Election likely to elect the same mess of MPs
    5. 3rd referendum - assuming it was passed by parliament as the ultimate "hail Mary" hospital pass back to the electorate - unlikely to change the "will of the people".

    Its perfectly possible to endure such a crisis - you just suspend government for a while. As we have had in Belgium, Italy and Spain. But uniquely we are on the clock, with the time ticking away towards the Article 50 deadline. And having triggered it we leave the EU at the end of March.

    Not getting a deal (or an agreement as to what deal we wanted) doesn't preclude our leaving with no deal and no transition period. We leave regardless unless the Commission and the UK agree to extend the 2 years. Even assuming the Commission decide to pity us and offer it, would this government and this parliament be able to agree to accept?

    The post about potential civil unrest is right. If we don't crash out the leavers will be out en masse demanding the head of MPs who blocked the "will of the people". If we do crash out the people losing their jobs, outraged at price rises and product shortages will be out en masse, demanding the head of MPs who lied to them as "where's the better deal we were promised"

    Fun times...

    Civil unrest is most certainly justified if the referendum result is blocked / overturned. We are a long way from that though. The vote wasn’t about the flavour of Brexit, but that we would be leaving. The rest is up to parliament / government to decide.

    The House of Lords has not just been trying to get its flavour of Brexit, it’s being trying to block it. Their legitimacy to exist and pass laws on our behalf is getting thinner.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,755
    Ridiculously complex stuff, but I strongly suspect that we can surmise this morning that: Nothing Has Changed!

    May bought a few days of time by, it appears, persuading Grieve rebels that they could trust her to do something meaningful with amendments. The Brexiteers seem to believe otherwise. The Lords will probably stick their stuff back in anyway.

    We will be back in the HoC next week for a rerun.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,231
    edited June 13

    Taking Mr Pioneers point, if we get to March 29th next year......only nine months away...... without any agreement whatsoever what WILL happen?

    We leave on WTO terms.

    The only thing that might cause the EU to hesitate about such a thing is there would be a significant negative impact for them as well. For a start, if they are serious about their threat on flights, any transatlantic flights in British airspace would have to be cancelled, and their banks would suddenly lose access to the London financial markets which might easily cause a bank run in Spain.

    They would also lose their however many billion and probably their Commission president (so some good news at least although his term ends next year anyway)!

    Otherwise, they seem blithely determined to plough on their merry way whatever the consequences.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 65,544
    ydoethur said:

    Taking Mr Pioneers point, if we get to March 29th next year......only nine months away...... without any agreement whatsoever what WILL happen?

    We leave on WTO terms.

    The only thing that might cause the EU to hesitate about such a thing is there would be a significant negative impact for them as well. For a start, if they are serious about their threat on flights, any transatlantic flights in British airspace would have to be cancelled, and their banks would suddenly lose access to the London financial markets which might easily cause a bank run in Spain.

    They would also lose their however many billion and probably their Commission president (so some good news at least although his term ends next year anyway)!

    Otherwise, they seem blithely determined to plough on their merry way whatever the consequences.
    The EU have concluded no deal is better than a bad deal.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,883

    Fundamental constitutional crisis:
    1. No consensus possible in cabinet.
    2. No consensus possible in parliament
    3. FTPA and Tory MP cowardice/party before country means replacement PM highly unlikely
    4. Deadlock in the polls so new General Election likely to elect the same mess of MPs
    5. 3rd referendum - assuming it was passed by parliament as the ultimate "hail Mary" hospital pass back to the electorate - unlikely to change the "will of the people".

    Its perfectly possible to endure such a crisis - you just suspend government for a while. As we have had in Belgium, Italy and Spain. But uniquely we are on the clock, with the time ticking away towards the Article 50 deadline. And having triggered it we leave the EU at the end of March.

    .

    It's a big mess. I think 5. Is the only one with potential to change in that depending on the question, and if lucky, it is possible that could resolve things at least enough that we leave with some kind of a deal or not at all. But 1-4 combine to make agreement to have a referendum unlikely too.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,846

    Fundamental constitutional crisis:
    1. No consensus possible in cabinet.
    2. No consensus possible in parliament
    3. FTPA and Tory MP cowardice/party before country means replacement PM highly unlikely
    4. Deadlock in the polls so new General Election likely to elect the same mess of MPs
    5. 3rd referendum - assuming it was passed by parliament as the ultimate "hail Mary" hospital pass back to the electorate - unlikely to change the "will of the people".

    Its perfectly possible to endure such a crisis - you just suspend government for a while. As we have had in Belgium, Italy and Spain. But uniquely we are on the clock, with the time ticking away towards the Article 50 deadline. And having triggered it we leave the EU at the end of March.

    Not getting a deal (or an agreement as to what deal we wanted) doesn't preclude our leaving with no deal and no transition period. We leave regardless unless the Commission and the UK agree to extend the 2 years. Even assuming the Commission decide to pity us and offer it, would this government and this parliament be able to agree to accept?

    The post about potential civil unrest is right. If we don't crash out the leavers will be out en masse demanding the head of MPs who blocked the "will of the people". If we do crash out the people losing their jobs, outraged at price rises and product shortages will be out en masse, demanding the head of MPs who lied to them as "where's the better deal we were promised"

    Fun times...

    For 5.
    The 'will of the people' doesn't need to change by much to give a completely different result. Now they'll know what they are voting for, which may well be:
    a. WTO crash out.
    b. BINO
    c. Stay in EU
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,883
    ydoethur said:

    But having inherited (and that is not quite the right word since she had to stand and fight for the leadership) Cameron's unholy mess, what on Earth possessed Theresa May to trigger Article 50 and start the countdown on her road to nowhere?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/26/eu-may-refuse-informal-brexit-talks-until-uk-triggers-article-50
    She could have waited until she had an idea what we'd ask for. That A50 was triggered seemed the clearest evidence she had resisted the evidence that a new election would aid her, as she needed to sort Brexit first, but turns out that was wrong.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,043
    Any thoughts on Lewisham turnout?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,075

    Taking Mr Pioneers point, if we get to March 29th next year......only nine months away...... without any agreement whatsoever what WILL happen?

    We leave the EU without a deal, which will cause a reasonable amount of disruption and uncertainty - which is probably what it’s going to take to get everyone around the table to work through the problems like adults.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,755
    kle4 said:

    Fundamental constitutional crisis:
    1. No consensus possible in cabinet.
    2. No consensus possible in parliament
    3. FTPA and Tory MP cowardice/party before country means replacement PM highly unlikely
    4. Deadlock in the polls so new General Election likely to elect the same mess of MPs
    5. 3rd referendum - assuming it was passed by parliament as the ultimate "hail Mary" hospital pass back to the electorate - unlikely to change the "will of the people".

    Its perfectly possible to endure such a crisis - you just suspend government for a while. As we have had in Belgium, Italy and Spain. But uniquely we are on the clock, with the time ticking away towards the Article 50 deadline. And having triggered it we leave the EU at the end of March.

    .

    It's a big mess. I think 5. Is the only one with potential to change in that depending on the question, and if lucky, it is possible that could resolve things at least enough that we leave with some kind of a deal or not at all. But 1-4 combine to make agreement to have a referendum unlikely too.
    It was utterly stupid and irresponsible for Parliament to agree to a Referendum when there was obviously no majority in the House, or likely to be, for leaving.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,883

    Ridiculously complex stuff, but I strongly suspect that we can surmise this morning that: Nothing Has Changed!

    May bought a few days of time by, it appears, persuading Grieve rebels that they could trust her to do something meaningful with amendments. The Brexiteers seem to believe otherwise. The Lords will probably stick their stuff back in anyway.

    We will be back in the HoC next week for a rerun.

    We probably will, but this does seem like things have changed. Mps are in essence briefing that outright misled them. Whether that is fair or not that is what they are apparently feeling happened. Surely they will therefore not accept any future fudges from May.

    She was weak and indecisive in the face of a very difficult situation before, but now she is accused of being one step removed from being an outright liar, and there is no way to square the circle between what the Remainer rebels think she promised and what the Brexiter agitators think.

    The latter were already saying she is toast so we're planning to oust her anyway, but the former now have little reason to fight that.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,183

    Taking Mr Pioneers point, if we get to March 29th next year......only nine months away...... without any agreement whatsoever what WILL happen?

    We'll stay in via some fudge or other and the nasty stain on the country's reputation which is Brexit will be quietly consigned to a footnote in the history books like voting in three separate elections for Thatcher
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,755

    Taking Mr Pioneers point, if we get to March 29th next year......only nine months away...... without any agreement whatsoever what WILL happen?

    Some thoughts:

    Parliament will ably assist May to kick the can down the road further by aborting A50.

    The EU may not agree or it may just kick the issue to the courts to decide the legality of delaying an already triggered A50.

    Brexiteers will go off the wall with rage and attempt to bring down the Gov and force a GE.

    I find it difficult to believe this morning that the Tories aren't heading rapidly to a Corn Laws style split. But then again they are almost always the ultimate power seekers and pragmatists, so maybe this is to overblow things.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 1,952
    Worth pointing out that crashing out to WTO terms isn't the same as planned orderly exit to WTO terms. Yes, we absolutely could trade undwr WTO. I dont think its the paradise many seem to think, bit it was always an option.

    The problem is that to do so we would need to set in place the physical and human infrastructure to have a hard border and then reconfigure our economy to cope with the logiatics delays / paperwork "red tape" explosion. And we dont have time.

    Which ultimately means a game of who blinks first. Yes a crash brexit would be disruptive to the EU. Or at least elements of it - but a lot of members wouldn't be drastically hit and they are a lot bigger tgan we are. The commission will have to balance this out against the threat to the whole project from other rebellions in other member states where rumblings about membership are already there.

    A crash brexit next March wouldn't be good for the EU. But it would be catastrophic for us. The people expecting a 23:59 blink from the EU are gambling a huge amount against a hunch. And doing so from the delusional position that their dogmatic position on how trade works is more informed than the fact based reality expressed by everyone who actually trades. Which from the supposed party of free enterprise and free trade is something to behold. When it transpires that the people who trade knew what they were talkinh about after all, how will the Tory party every rebuild its reputation? The ToryKIP wing of the party will be dead soon, but the damage will live longer...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,231
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    But having inherited (and that is not quite the right word since she had to stand and fight for the leadership) Cameron's unholy mess, what on Earth possessed Theresa May to trigger Article 50 and start the countdown on her road to nowhere?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/26/eu-may-refuse-informal-brexit-talks-until-uk-triggers-article-50
    She could have waited until she had an idea what we'd ask for. That A50 was triggered seemed the clearest evidence she had resisted the evidence that a new election would aid her, as she needed to sort Brexit first, but turns out that was wrong.
    She did. She was aiming for a Canada style deal, with financial services included and U.K. membership of some key agencies - she especially mentioned pharmaceuticals and security. But the EU, having refused to even look at or think about anything Brexit related until A50 was triggered, then told her this wasn't acceptable to them and she would have to think again.

    That's the key reason we're in this mess, and while May was unwise to not have a contingency plan it's somewhat unfair to blame her for the EU's persistent intransigence and failure to follow its own rules (although admittedly the latter could and should have been foreseen given that Juncker, Barnier and Selmayr were involved).
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,043
    F1: just had a look at the French circuit.

    Lots of straight lines. Power will be the prime determining factor. Most corners appear slow too with a few middling speed (I'd guess) in the third sector.

    Essentially, horsepower will pave the way to victory. However, worth noting that it may well be hard on brakes because of that. I wonder if that will cause problems for Leclerc. He had a brake failure in Monaco, and some problems in Canada.

    Overtaking should be possible, but we thought that'd be the case in Canada and cars ended up mostly with big gaps between them.

    Some time off, but the Marseilles forecast is for it to be totally dry and sunny.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,755
    kle4 said:

    Ridiculously complex stuff, but I strongly suspect that we can surmise this morning that: Nothing Has Changed!

    May bought a few days of time by, it appears, persuading Grieve rebels that they could trust her to do something meaningful with amendments. The Brexiteers seem to believe otherwise. The Lords will probably stick their stuff back in anyway.

    We will be back in the HoC next week for a rerun.

    We probably will, but this does seem like things have changed. Mps are in essence briefing that outright misled them. Whether that is fair or not that is what they are apparently feeling happened. Surely they will therefore not accept any future fudges from May.

    She was weak and indecisive in the face of a very difficult situation before, but now she is accused of being one step removed from being an outright liar, and there is no way to square the circle between what the Remainer rebels think she promised and what the Brexiter agitators think.

    The latter were already saying she is toast so we're planning to oust her anyway, but the former now have little reason to fight that.
    True. The personal trust has changed, even if the facts on the ground don't seem to have.

    It is very difficult to see how May can kick this can any further down the road next week.

    She will have to choose, unless we are missing some incredible rabbit out of a hat.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,231

    ydoethur said:

    Taking Mr Pioneers point, if we get to March 29th next year......only nine months away...... without any agreement whatsoever what WILL happen?

    We leave on WTO terms.

    The only thing that might cause the EU to hesitate about such a thing is there would be a significant negative impact for them as well. For a start, if they are serious about their threat on flights, any transatlantic flights in British airspace would have to be cancelled, and their banks would suddenly lose access to the London financial markets which might easily cause a bank run in Spain.

    They would also lose their however many billion and probably their Commission president (so some good news at least although his term ends next year anyway)!

    Otherwise, they seem blithely determined to plough on their merry way whatever the consequences.
    The EU have concluded no deal is better than a bad deal.
    Yes, and that's because in addition to being alcoholic their top people are basically stupid. They have really not thought through the consequences for the EU because they're so greedily aniticipating a punishment beating for the UK.

    Not that I want to see the Eurozone collapse but they're doing their damndest to make it happen.

    Anyway, I have to get to work. Have a good morning.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,883
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    But having inherited (and that is not quite the right word since she had to stand and fight for the leadership) Cameron's unholy mess, what on Earth possessed Theresa May to trigger Article 50 and start the countdown on her road to nowhere?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/26/eu-may-refuse-informal-brexit-talks-until-uk-triggers-article-50
    She could have waited until she had an idea what we'd ask for. That A50 was triggered seemed the clearest evidence she had resisted the evidence that a new election would aid her, as she needed to sort Brexit first, but turns out that was wrong.
    She did. She was aiming for a Canada style deal, with financial services included and U.K. membership of some key agencies - she especially mentioned pharmaceuticals and security. But the EU, having refused to even look at or think about anything Brexit related until A50 was triggered, then told her this wasn't acceptable to them and she would have to think again.

    That's the key reason we're in this mess, and while May was unwise to not have a contingency plan it's somewhat unfair to blame her for the EU's persistent intransigence and failure to follow its own rules (although admittedly the latter could and should have been foreseen given that Juncker, Barnier and Selmayr were involved).
    I don't blame her for EU intransigence but she needs to deal with the situation and come up with something. She still doesn't have her own cabinet behind her and has seemingly resorted to deceiving her own MPs to win votes. That's just not sustainable no matter how bad the options.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,043
    Mr. Borough, they were complacent, which was perhaps understandable (almost everyone thought Remain would walk it) but nevertheless stupid.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 13,198
    Good morning fellow patriots I have backed England to Remain (in the World Cup) until the final and indeed to go on and win that final.

    It is a price worth paying (£10) to reclaim our heritage.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,016
    notme said:

    Fundamental constitutional crisis:
    1. No consensus possible in cabinet.
    2. No consensus possible in parliament
    3. FTPA and Tory MP cowardice/party before country means replacement PM highly unlikely
    4. Deadlock in the polls so new General Election likely to elect the same mess of MPs
    5. 3rd referendum - assuming it was passed by parliament as the ultimate "hail Mary" hospital pass back to the electorate - unlikely to change the "will of the people".

    Its perfectly possible to endure such a crisis - you just suspend government for a while. As we have had in Belgium, Italy and Spain. But uniquely we are on the clock, with the time ticking away towards the Article 50 deadline. And having triggered it we leave the EU at the end of March.

    Not getting a deal (or an agreement as to what deal we wanted) doesn't preclude our leaving with no deal and no transition period. We leave regardless unless the Commission and the UK agree to extend the 2 years. Even assuming the Commission decide to pity us and offer it, would this government and this parliament be able to agree to accept?

    The post about potential civil unrest is right. If we don't crash out the leavers will be out en masse demanding the head of MPs who blocked the "will of the people". If we do crash out the people losing their jobs, outraged at price rises and product shortages will be out en masse, demanding the head of MPs who lied to them as "where's the better deal we were promised"

    Fun times...

    Civil unrest is most certainly justified if the referendum result is blocked / overturned. We are a long way from that though. The vote wasn’t about the flavour of Brexit, but that we would be leaving. The rest is up to parliament / government to decide.

    The House of Lords has not just been trying to get its flavour of Brexit, it’s being trying to block it. Their legitimacy to exist and pass laws on our behalf is getting thinner.
    If the referendum result is blocked I doubt that there will be serious civil unrest. There may well be demonstrations where people vent their feelings (like the large Remain demonstration planned for 23 June in London) but not widespread violence. It will leave many people disillusioned with politics (many are already) and voter turnout is likely to go down (why bother they'll say). And that will be that. Threats of civil unrest are empty.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,755
    While HoC remains hopelessly split, Project Reality/Fear rumbles on:

  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 8,406
    Another bleak day for those less than absorbed by Europe.... still there's an ODI to look forward to....
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 8,575
    DavidL said:


    For someone who shows so little idea of what they want she seems to upset a dangerous number of people.

    TBF there's no way of doing Brexit without upsetting a dangerous number of people. Potentially you're going to have to upset all of them, since the things they're hoping for don't mesh well with reality.

    One thing that's impressive is that May has managed to keep as many people in the tent as she has, particularly given she's dealing with people like David Davis who resigned over government policy when his part wasn't even in the government.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,075
    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    But having inherited (and that is not quite the right word since she had to stand and fight for the leadership) Cameron's unholy mess, what on Earth possessed Theresa May to trigger Article 50 and start the countdown on her road to nowhere?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/26/eu-may-refuse-informal-brexit-talks-until-uk-triggers-article-50
    She could have waited until she had an idea what we'd ask for. That A50 was triggered seemed the clearest evidence she had resisted the evidence that a new election would aid her, as she needed to sort Brexit first, but turns out that was wrong.
    She did. She was aiming for a Canada style deal, with financial services included and U.K. membership of some key agencies - she especially mentioned pharmaceuticals and security. But the EU, having refused to even look at or think about anything Brexit related until A50 was triggered, then told her this wasn't acceptable to them and she would have to think again.

    That's the key reason we're in this mess, and while May was unwise to not have a contingency plan it's somewhat unfair to blame her for the EU's persistent intransigence and failure to follow its own rules (although admittedly the latter could and should have been foreseen given that Juncker, Barnier and Selmayr were involved).
    I think the crunch will be the EU summit in a fortnight, it will be clear by then whether there’s any support from the EU for a sensible deal with sufficient time to plan for the outcome.

    If it’s clear that no such deal is possible, the UK Gov need to stop talking about Brexit and devote every resource to planning for it. Specifically things like aviation and food supplies, alongside politically popular ideas such as cutting VAT on fuel and tampons, with extended temporary government support for key industries using the £39bn we have to play with.

    Once we actually leave, we can then take stock of where we are, both sides can see the advantages and disadvantages of getting back around the table and things will likely progress in the spirit of co-operation - rather than the antagonistic approach being taken currently.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 1,952

    While HoC remains hopelessly split, Project Reality/Fear rumbles on:

    I am reassured by arch Brexiteers that such fears are nonsence. Global conglomerates like Honda or Nissan Renault will be more than happy to have a UK factory run in a method diametrically opposed to their means of doing business churning out the highest cost per unit vehicles on the globe.

    They'll probably open additional uk factories so that they can exploit our new trading deal with India
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,538
    TOPPING said:

    Good morning fellow patriots I have backed England to Remain (in the World Cup) until the final and indeed to go on and win that final.

    It is a price worth paying (£10) to reclaim our heritage.

    I believe that we will maintain our English tradition of going out in the Quarterfinal to the Germans.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,846
    Trump:
    Asked by a reporter what he’ll do if Kim “doesn’t follow through” on his promises, Trump openly admitted that he’ll never admit he was wrong, but will instead obfuscate.

    “Honestly, I think he’s going to do these things. I may be wrong,” Trump said. “I may stand before you in six months and say, ‘hey, I was wrong.’ I don’t know that I’ll admit that but I’ll find some kind of an excuse.”
    https://thinkprogress.org/trump-kim-jong-un-will-not-admit-he-was-wrong-north-korea-0ab585d8de91/?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,191
    I’m not sure one can ‘blame' the Commission for the situation. Look at it from their point of view.
    First, an influential section of the British opinion formers decided for whatever reason that the EU was a Bad Idea, and indeed demonised it..... straight bananas and so on.
    Then someone with, to be fair, a bit of charisma and the time and the money decided to ride a hobby horse about it. That gave an impetus to UKIP who were felt by many to be a sort of unholy alliance of the BNP and the 50’s League of Empire Loyalists, and at a time of economic difficulty were able, with the support of some parts of the press, to create a vision of 'being what we once were.’
    Add to that a gross mishandling of the right to Freedom of Movement by the Blair government and suddenly a number of people speaking East European languages appeared in many tiowns, often doing jobs that the .locals didn’t want but sometimes at lower rates, and dare I say it, more reliably than the locals. This was exacerbated by some large employers deliberately recruiting in East Europe to put pressure on British wages, and by a feeling that large parts of our Northern towns didn’t look English (used deliberately) any more.
    Then, as a result of this combination of circumstances the British elected as nasty a set of 'high on expenses’ layabouts as MEP’s from one party as could be imagined.
    Following that the British PM arrived, announcing that he’d promised a referendum, as Britain felt it wasn’t being treated right (or something) and wanted a renegotiation.

    This was after we’d been on the majority side in most EU decisions, obtained some pretty hefty grants to support various British activities, and been involved in one or two well-publicised spats.

    Why should ‘they' bend over backwards for us. I wouldn’t be surprised if in some quarters there isn’t a sense of relief that we’re off and this quarrelsome, disruptive nation won’t be a prt of the EU any more.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 5,511
    edited June 13
    it will be most interesting to look back after Brexit is achieved(or what ever the denouement turns out to be ) on the reams of of woe written on this site about forthcoming armageddon.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,874

    While HoC remains hopelessly split, Project Reality/Fear rumbles on:

    I am reassured by arch Brexiteers that such fears are nonsence. Global conglomerates like Honda or Nissan Renault will be more than happy to have a UK factory run in a method diametrically opposed to their means of doing business churning out the highest cost per unit vehicles on the globe.

    They'll probably open additional uk factories so that they can exploit our new trading deal with India
    There is nothing of the slightest bit reassuring about "arch Brexiteers".
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,043
    Dr. Foxy, a quarterfinal departure?

    Outrageous optimism. Project Complacency in full swing ;)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,348
    edited June 13
    I agree with Alistair, the ERG only have about 70 MPs and only about 130 Tory MPs voted Leave so even if the Brexiteers do force a vote of No Confidence they simply do not have the numbers to topple May who is almost as stubborn as Corbyn anyway in refusing to be budged.

    Coupled with the fact Rees Mogg consistently leads every Conservative Home poll as to who Tory members want to succeed May most Tory MPs will not remove nurse for fear of something worse especially as the Tories still lead most polls and there is no need to
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 14,636
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    Good morning fellow patriots I have backed England to Remain (in the World Cup) until the final and indeed to go on and win that final.

    It is a price worth paying (£10) to reclaim our heritage.

    I believe that we will maintain our English tradition of going out in the Quarterfinal to the Germans.
    Or Brazil if we finish second in the group. Either way the quarter finals seem like a pretty tough round for England. On the other hand if we manage to beat either of them, we'd be favourites for the tournament.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,222
    It’s a good article but it misses out one important factor that I think some non-Conservatives struggle to understand: Theresa May cares about the unity of the Conservative Party.

    She has been a loyal Conservative all her life. For her, a confidence vote being called would be a failure regardless of the outcome. I agree she’d very probably win it, but the last thing she wants to do is to use it to factionalise and isolate one wing of the Tories again and work with other parties in the house to pass Brexit. That’s not who she is or how she thinks, even if others around her do.

    Therefore, expect supreme efforts from her to keep everyone on board under all circumstances. Personally, I think she’d be happy to have as much detail as possible deferred to GE2022 so the Tory party can fight and win that in one piece. It’s only 4 years away, and a lot of the new customs and agriculture policies won’t take effect until afterward, so it’s not a fanciful goal either.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,883

    It’s a good article but it misses out one important factor that I think some non-Conservatives struggle to understand: Theresa May cares about the unity of the Conservative Party.

    She has been a loyal Conservative all her life. For her, a confidence vote being called would be a failure regardless of the outcome. I agree she’d very probably win it, but the last thing she wants to do is to use it to factionalise and isolate one wing of the Tories again and work with other parties in the house to pass Brexit. That’s not who she is or how she thinks, even if others around her do.

    Therefore, expect supreme efforts from her to keep everyone on board under all circumstances. Personally, I think she’d be happy to have as much detail as possible deferred to GE2022 so the Tory party can fight and win that in one piece. It’s only 4 years away, and a lot of the new customs and agriculture policies won’t take effect until afterward, so it’s not a fanciful goal either.

    Deceiving her mps ensures unity?
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,789

    While HoC remains hopelessly split, Project Reality/Fear rumbles on:

    I am reassured by arch Brexiteers that such fears are nonsence. Global conglomerates like Honda or Nissan Renault will be more than happy to have a UK factory run in a method diametrically opposed to their means of doing business churning out the highest cost per unit vehicles on the globe.

    They'll probably open additional uk factories so that they can exploit our new trading deal with India
    Nissan Sunderland is the most efficient car plant in Europe and possibly the world
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 65,544

    It’s a good article but it misses out one important factor that I think some non-Conservatives struggle to understand: Theresa May cares about the unity of the Conservative Party.

    She has been a loyal Conservative all her life. For her, a confidence vote being called would be a failure regardless of the outcome. I agree she’d very probably win it, but the last thing she wants to do is to use it to factionalise and isolate one wing of the Tories again and work with other parties in the house to pass Brexit. That’s not who she is or how she thinks, even if others around her do.

    Therefore, expect supreme efforts from her to keep everyone on board under all circumstances. Personally, I think she’d be happy to have as much detail as possible deferred to GE2022 so the Tory party can fight and win that in one piece. It’s only 4 years away, and a lot of the new customs and agriculture policies won’t take effect until afterward, so it’s not a fanciful goal either.

    No she doesn't care about the unity of the Tory Party.

    The moment she became PM what did she do, she fired four people who had clashed with her previously.

    Gove, Raab, Osborne, and Vaizey.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,594
    Polruan said:

    A lot will depend on the fallout from yesterday’s meaningful vote fudge. If the government continues to brief that it made no real commitments other than to keep talking about the subject, against the rebels apparent belief that the PM personally asked them to trust her to adopt most of the Grieve points (definitely 5A/5B) I don’t see how May or her whips will be able to benefit from any further goodwill when it comes to trying to negotiate out of further rebellions. That will matter practically when trying to get the next couple of bills through and may lead to having to accept amendments wholesale rather than being able to buy time to agree compromises.

    Also if, as rumoured, No. 10 have only got through this by promising completely contradictory things to the rebels on one hand and the Brexit ultras on the other, there has to be a risk of whichever side is the loser when the Lords amendments return to the Commons voting wholesale against the government. Only the pro-EU rebels have the numbers to defeat May (with Labour support) but could her leadership survive a rebellion of >100 Tory MPs and reliance on the opposition?

    The absurdity of the situation is that it has felt like the point of no return, it-can’t-get-any-worse crisis has been reached almost everyday since July 2016 but May still staggers on... so really, who knows?

    She didn’t lie.

    She told the Brexiteers she would make no commitments... and didn’t

    She told the Remainers that they would “continue discussions” but that they should “trust her” on the outcome

    Standard crappy management technique

    Only works if your subordinants don’t talk to each other (or the media)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,075
    edited June 13
    Why would anyone wish to contaminate their CV with such an impossible job? Being a Brexit negotiator or a government whip would be an easier role.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 65,544
    I shall be offering my World Cup tips this tournament.

    Last time my strategy returned a four figure profit.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,348
    edited June 13
    Barnesian said:

    notme said:

    Fundamental constitutional crisis:
    1. No consensus possible in cabinet.
    2. No consensus possible in parliament
    3. FTPA and Tory MP cowardice/party before country means replacement PM highly unlikely
    4. Deadlock in the polls so new General Election likely to elect the same mess of MPs
    5. 3rd referendum - assuming it was passed by parliament as the ultimate "hail Mary" hospital pass back to the electorate - unlikely to change the "will of the people".

    Its perfectly possible to endure such a crisis - you just suspend government for a while. As we have had in Belgium, Italy and Spain. But uniquely we are on the clock, with the time ticking away towards the Article 50 deadline. And having triggered it we leave the EU at the end of March.

    Not getting a deal (or an agreement as to what deal we wanted) doesn't preclude our leaving with no deal and no transition period. We leave regardless unless the Commission and the UK agree to extend the 2 years. Even assuming the Commission decide to pity us and offer it, would this government and this parliament be able to agree to accept?

    The post about potential civil unrest is right. If we don't crash out the leavers will be out en masse demanding the head of MPs who blocked the "will of the people". If we do crash out the people losing their jobs, outraged at price rises and product shortages will be out en masse, demanding the head of MPs who lied to them as "where's the better deal we were promised"

    Fun times...

    Civil unrest is most certainly justified if the referendum result is blocked / overturned. We are a long way from that though. The vote wasn’t about the flavour of Brexit, but that we would be leaving. The rest is up to parliament / government to decide.

    The House of Lords has not just been trying to get its flavour of Brexit, it’s being trying to block it. Their legitimacy to exist and pass laws on our behalf is getting thinner.
    If the referendum result is blocked I doubt that there will be serious civil unrest. There may well be demonstrations where people vent their feelings (like the large Remain demonstration planned for 23 June in London) but not widespread violence. It will leave many people disillusioned with politics (many are already) and voter turnout is likely to go down (why bother they'll say). And that will be that. Threats of civil unrest are empty.
    There won't be mass civil unrest if Brexit is cancelled, Farage would simply return as UKIP leader quicker than you can say 'Betrayal' and throw the next general election up in the air
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,594

    Ridiculously complex stuff, but I strongly suspect that we can surmise this morning that: Nothing Has Changed!

    May bought a few days of time by, it appears, persuading Grieve rebels that they could trust her to do something meaningful with amendments. The Brexiteers seem to believe otherwise. The Lords will probably stick their stuff back in anyway.

    We will be back in the HoC next week for a rerun.

    The Lords just reversing the Commons vote would be a direct challenge to the primacy of the lower house. It would be a mistake.

    They should back and/or tweak the government amendment but not directly frustrate the Commons will
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,883
    Charles said:

    Ridiculously complex stuff, but I strongly suspect that we can surmise this morning that: Nothing Has Changed!

    May bought a few days of time by, it appears, persuading Grieve rebels that they could trust her to do something meaningful with amendments. The Brexiteers seem to believe otherwise. The Lords will probably stick their stuff back in anyway.

    We will be back in the HoC next week for a rerun.

    The Lords just reversing the Commons vote would be a direct challenge to the primacy of the lower house. It would be a mistake.

    They should back and/or tweak the government amendment but not directly frustrate the Commons will
    They may believe that the Commons will choose not to reject all their amendments thus time. If may had pissed off some people enough they may be right and the Commons will agree.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 6,020
    HYUFD said:

    I agree with Alistair, the ERG only have about 70 MPs and only about 130 Tory MPs voted Leave so even if the Brexiteers do force a vote of No Confidence they simply do not have the numbers to topple May who is almost as stubborn as Corbyn anyway in refusing to be budged.

    Coupled with the fact Rees Mogg consistently leads every Conservative Home poll as to who Tory members want to succeed May most Tory MPs will not remove nurse for fear of something worse especially as the Tories still lead most polls and there is no need to

    Would be amusing to ponder if a political party has ever ditched their leader when still leading the opinion polls?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,075
    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    notme said:

    Fundamental constitutional crisis:
    1. No consensus possible in cabinet.
    2. No consensus possible in parliament
    3. FTPA and Tory MP cowardice/party before country means replacement PM highly unlikely
    4. Deadlock in the polls so new General Election likely to elect the same mess of MPs
    5. 3rd referendum - assuming it was passed by parliament as the ultimate "hail Mary" hospital pass back to the electorate - unlikely to change the "will of the people".

    Its perfectly possible to endure such a crisis - you just suspend government for a while. As we have had in Belgium, Italy and Spain. But uniquely we are on the clock, with the time ticking away towards the Article 50 deadline. And having triggered it we leave the EU at the end of March.

    Not getting a deal (or an agreement as to what deal we wanted) doesn't preclude our leaving with no deal and no transition period. We leave regardless unless the Commission and the UK agree to extend the 2 years. Even assuming the Commission decide to pity us and offer it, would this government and this parliament be able to agree to accept?

    The post about potential civil unrest is right. If we don't crash out the leavers will be out en masse demanding the head of MPs who blocked the "will of the people". If we do crash out the people losing their jobs, outraged at price rises and product shortages will be out en masse, demanding the head of MPs who lied to them as "where's the better deal we were promised"

    Fun times...

    Civil unrest is most certainly justified if the referendum result is blocked / overturned. We are a long way from that though. The vote wasn’t about the flavour of Brexit, but that we would be leaving. The rest is up to parliament / government to decide.

    The House of Lords has not just been trying to get its flavour of Brexit, it’s being trying to block it. Their legitimacy to exist and pass laws on our behalf is getting thinner.
    If the referendum result is blocked I doubt that there will be serious civil unrest. There may well be demonstrations where people vent their feelings (like the large Remain demonstration planned for 23 June in London) but not widespread violence. It will leave many people disillusioned with politics (many are already) and voter turnout is likely to go down (why bother they'll say). And that will be that. Threats of civil unrest are empty.
    There won't be mass civil unrest if Brexit is cancelled, Farage would simply return as UKIP leader quicker than you can say 'Betrayal' and throw the next general election up in the air
    With the potential of a Scotland 2015 result.

    I think everyone can agree that we really don’t want to see Farage back.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,594

    Worth pointing out that crashing out to WTO terms isn't the same as planned orderly exit to WTO terms. Yes, we absolutely could trade undwr WTO. I dont think its the paradise many seem to think, bit it was always an option.

    The problem is that to do so we would need to set in place the physical and human infrastructure to have a hard border and then reconfigure our economy to cope with the logiatics delays / paperwork "red tape" explosion. And we dont have time.

    Which ultimately means a game of who blinks first. Yes a crash brexit would be disruptive to the EU. Or at least elements of it - but a lot of members wouldn't be drastically hit and they are a lot bigger tgan we are. The commission will have to balance this out against the threat to the whole project from other rebellions in other member states where rumblings about membership are already there.

    A crash brexit next March wouldn't be good for the EU. But it would be catastrophic for us. The people expecting a 23:59 blink from the EU are gambling a huge amount against a hunch. And doing so from the delusional position that their dogmatic position on how trade works is more informed than the fact based reality expressed by everyone who actually trades. Which from the supposed party of free enterprise and free trade is something to behold. When it transpires that the people who trade knew what they were talkinh about after all, how will the Tory party every rebuild its reputation? The ToryKIP wing of the party will be dead soon, but the damage will live longer...

    The “gamble” is that the EU wouldn’t actively seek to harm a close ally.

    If they do then we shouldn’t be part of that organisation
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 30,883
    Charles said:

    Polruan said:

    A lot will depend on the fallout from yesterday’s meaningful vote fudge. If the government continues to brief that it made no real commitments other than to keep talking about the subject, against the rebels apparent belief that the PM personally asked them to trust her to adopt most of the Grieve points (definitely 5A/5B) I don’t see how May or her whips will be able to benefit from any further goodwill when it comes to trying to negotiate out of further rebellions. That will matter practically when trying to get the next couple of bills through and may lead to having to accept amendments wholesale rather than being able to buy time to agree compromises.

    Also if, as rumoured, No. 10 have only got through this by promising completely contradictory things to the rebels on one hand and the Brexit ultras on the other, there has to be a risk of whichever side is the loser when the Lords amendments return to the Commons voting wholesale against the government. Only the pro-EU rebels have the numbers to defeat May (with Labour support) but could her leadership survive a rebellion of >100 Tory MPs and reliance on the opposition?

    The absurdity of the situation is that it has felt like the point of no return, it-can’t-get-any-worse crisis has been reached almost everyday since July 2016 but May still staggers on... so really, who knows?

    She didn’t lie.

    She told the Brexiteers she would make no commitments... and didn’t

    She told the Remainers that they would “continue discussions” but that they should “trust her” on the outcome

    Standard crappy management technique

    Only works if your subordinants don’t talk to each other (or the media)
    Quite. If she didn't deceive them but they were all too dumb to notice she wasn't saying what they thought it doesn't help her at all - the outcome is the same as though she did outright deceive them in that they think she did, or will be angry at being manipulated at least and not trust another fudge.

    Very poor judgement.

    But now to work.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,348

    HYUFD said:

    I agree with Alistair, the ERG only have about 70 MPs and only about 130 Tory MPs voted Leave so even if the Brexiteers do force a vote of No Confidence they simply do not have the numbers to topple May who is almost as stubborn as Corbyn anyway in refusing to be budged.

    Coupled with the fact Rees Mogg consistently leads every Conservative Home poll as to who Tory members want to succeed May most Tory MPs will not remove nurse for fear of something worse especially as the Tories still lead most polls and there is no need to

    Would be amusing to ponder if a political party has ever ditched their leader when still leading the opinion polls?
    The Australian Labor Party ditched Kevin Rudd despite leading most polls in 2010 for Julia Gillard and the less said about how that turned out for them the better
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 65,544
    edited June 13

    HYUFD said:

    I agree with Alistair, the ERG only have about 70 MPs and only about 130 Tory MPs voted Leave so even if the Brexiteers do force a vote of No Confidence they simply do not have the numbers to topple May who is almost as stubborn as Corbyn anyway in refusing to be budged.

    Coupled with the fact Rees Mogg consistently leads every Conservative Home poll as to who Tory members want to succeed May most Tory MPs will not remove nurse for fear of something worse especially as the Tories still lead most polls and there is no need to

    Would be amusing to ponder if a political party has ever ditched their leader when still leading the opinion polls?
    I did some research back in 2016, David Cameron was the first PM to resign/go whilst leading in almost all of the polls.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,594
    Sandpit said:

    ydoethur said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    But having inherited (and that is not quite the right word since she had to stand and fight for the leadership) Cameron's unholy mess, what on Earth possessed Theresa May to trigger Article 50 and start the countdown on her road to nowhere?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/26/eu-may-refuse-informal-brexit-talks-until-uk-triggers-article-50
    She could have waited until she had an idea what we'd ask for. That A50 was triggered seemed the clearest evidence she had resisted the evidence that a new election would aid her, as she needed to sort Brexit first, but turns out that was wrong.
    She did. She was aiming for a Canada style deal, with financial services included and U.K. membership of some key agencies - she especially mentioned pharmaceuticals and security. But the EU, having refused to even look at or think about anything Brexit related until A50 was triggered, then told her this wasn't acceptable to them and she would have to think again.

    That's the key reason we're in this mess, and while May was unwise to not have a contingency plan it's somewhat unfair to blame her for the EU's persistent intransigence and failure to follow its own rules (although admittedly the latter could and should have been foreseen given that Juncker, Barnier and Selmayr were involved).
    I think the crunch will be the EU summit in a fortnight, it will be clear by then whether there’s any support from the EU for a sensible deal with sufficient time to plan for the outcome.

    If it’s clear that no such deal is possible, the UK Gov need to stop talking about Brexit and devote every resource to planning for it. Specifically things like aviation and food supplies, alongside politically popular ideas such as cutting VAT on fuel and tampons, with extended temporary government support for key industries using the £39bn we have to play with.

    Once we actually leave, we can then take stock of where we are, both sides can see the advantages and disadvantages of getting back around the table and things will likely progress in the spirit of co-operation - rather than the antagonistic approach being taken currently.
    There is stuff going on we are not hearing about

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/28/britain-open-skies-deal-us-due-summer-negotiators-agree-key/amp/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,348
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Barnesian said:

    notme said:

    Fundamental constitutional crisis:
    1. No consensus possible in cabinet.
    2. No consensus possible in parliament
    3. FTPA and Tory MP cowardice/party before country means replacement PM highly unlikely
    4. Deadlock in the polls so new General Election likely to elect the same mess of MPs
    5. 3rd referendum - assuming it was passed by parliament as the ultimate "hail Mary" hospital pass back to the electorate - unlikely to change the "will of the people".

    Its perfectly possible to endure such a crisis - you just suspend government for a while. As we have had in Belgium, Italy and Spain. But uniquely we are on the clock, with the time ticking away towards the Article 50 deadline. And having triggered duct shortages will be out en masse, demanding the head of MPs who lied to them as "where's the better deal we were promised"

    Fun times...

    Civil unrest is most certainly justified if the referendum result is blocked / overturned. We are a long way from that though. The vote wasn’t about the flavour of Brexit, but that we would be leaving. The rest is up to parliament / government to decide.

    The House of Lords has not just been trying to get its flavour of Brexit, it’s being trying to block it. Their legitimacy to exist and pass laws on our behalf is getting thinner.
    If the referendum result is blocked I doubt that there will be serious civil unrest. There may well be demonstrations where people vent their feelings (like the large Remain demonstration planned for 23 June in London) but not widespread violence. It will leave many people disillusioned with politics (many are already) and voter turnout is likely to go down (why bother they'll say). And that will be that. Threats of civil unrest are empty.
    There won't be mass civil unrest if Brexit is cancelled, Farage would simply return as UKIP leader quicker than you can say 'Betrayal' and throw the next general election up in the air
    With the potential of a Scotland 2015 result.

    I think everyone can agree that we really don’t want to see Farage back.
    Indeed UKIP could even win a majority on 35% under FPTP ie about the same as the SNP are on now let alone 2015 and remember in the 2014 European elections UKIP came first with 27% under Farage even before the Brexit vote let alone after a potential betrayal of it
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 3,016
    The tensions in Government and parliament are building relentlessly as the cliff edge approaches. The foreshocks are occurring more frequently as we head towards a major seismic event.

    What would be a major seismic event?

    1. Mrs May resigns - ill health or impossible position.
    2. Mrs May finally loses patience and shows decisive leadership, firing some members of her cabinet and revises her red lines.
    3. A number of Remain ministers resign and join a large cross party group (40+ Tories plus opposition parties) to form a temporary national government to avoid the cliff edge.
    4. Any other possible game changing event?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 8,202
    Football matters. This World Cup someone commented there did not seem to be the usual array of branded goods in the supermarket, and I've not seen a single flag. Whence the boost to national harmony and GDP?
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 835

    Fundamental constitutional crisis:
    1. No consensus possible in cabinet.
    2. No consensus possible in parliament
    3. FTPA and Tory MP cowardice/party before country means replacement PM highly unlikely
    4. Deadlock in the polls so new General Election likely to elect the same mess of MPs
    5. 3rd referendum - assuming it was passed by parliament as the ultimate "hail Mary" hospital pass back to the electorate - unlikely to change the "will of the people".

    Its perfectly possible to endure such a crisis - you just suspend government for a while. As we have had in Belgium, Italy and Spain. But uniquely we are on the clock, with the time ticking away towards the Article 50 deadline. And having triggered it we leave the EU at the end of March.

    Not getting a deal (or an agreement as to what deal we wanted) doesn't preclude our leaving with no deal and no transition period. We leave regardless unless the Commission and the UK agree to extend the 2 years. Even assuming the Commission decide to pity us and offer it, would this government and this parliament be able to agree to accept?

    The post about potential civil unrest is right. If we don't crash out the leavers will be out en masse demanding the head of MPs who blocked the "will of the people". If we do crash out the people losing their jobs, outraged at price rises and product shortages will be out en masse, demanding the head of MPs who lied to them as "where's the better deal we were promised"

    Fun times...

    For 5.
    The 'will of the people' doesn't need to change by much to give a completely different result. Now they'll know what they are voting for, which may well be:
    a. WTO crash out.
    b. BINO
    c. Stay in EU
    One way through would be to take the referendum problem to its logical conclusion. This would be one of them.
    I would also suggest each side make the negatives of their preferred option very very clear as well, if this was followed, because the thing about winning is you have to take the consequences.
    And if you lie to win, you will be caught in your lie.

    Referendum 1:
    Now that the potential Brexit destinations are more clear, and there is no time to pursue a bespoke deal, what should the UK pursue?
    - Exit to WTO
    - Exit to EEA
    - Remain in EU

    If no option gets over 50%, there is a follow-up referendum with only the top two options.

    The key to doing this (and the reason it will never happen) is for every side to be more honest - otherwise we get the issue that the electorate isn't responsible for the consequences as those who were responsible lied to them. Again.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 16,789

    HYUFD said:

    I agree with Alistair, the ERG only have about 70 MPs and only about 130 Tory MPs voted Leave so even if the Brexiteers do force a vote of No Confidence they simply do not have the numbers to topple May who is almost as stubborn as Corbyn anyway in refusing to be budged.

    Coupled with the fact Rees Mogg consistently leads every Conservative Home poll as to who Tory members want to succeed May most Tory MPs will not remove nurse for fear of something worse especially as the Tories still lead most polls and there is no need to

    Would be amusing to ponder if a political party has ever ditched their leader when still leading the opinion polls?
    I did some research back in 2016, David Cameron was the first PM to resign/go whilst leading in almost all of the polls.
    resign\go\flounce\hissyfit
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,222

    It’s a good article but it misses out one important factor that I think some non-Conservatives struggle to understand: Theresa May cares about the unity of the Conservative Party.

    She has been a loyal Conservative all her life. For her, a confidence vote being called would be a failure regardless of the outcome. I agree she’d very probably win it, but the last thing she wants to do is to use it to factionalise and isolate one wing of the Tories again and work with other parties in the house to pass Brexit. That’s not who she is or how she thinks, even if others around her do.

    Therefore, expect supreme efforts from her to keep everyone on board under all circumstances. Personally, I think she’d be happy to have as much detail as possible deferred to GE2022 so the Tory party can fight and win that in one piece. It’s only 4 years away, and a lot of the new customs and agriculture policies won’t take effect until afterward, so it’s not a fanciful goal either.

    No she doesn't care about the unity of the Tory Party.

    The moment she became PM what did she do, she fired four people who had clashed with her previously.

    Gove, Raab, Osborne, and Vaizey.
    She wanted to be in control and make her own hires.

    That’s not the same thing as wanting to isolate a whole wing of the party.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,222
    kle4 said:

    It’s a good article but it misses out one important factor that I think some non-Conservatives struggle to understand: Theresa May cares about the unity of the Conservative Party.

    She has been a loyal Conservative all her life. For her, a confidence vote being called would be a failure regardless of the outcome. I agree she’d very probably win it, but the last thing she wants to do is to use it to factionalise and isolate one wing of the Tories again and work with other parties in the house to pass Brexit. That’s not who she is or how she thinks, even if others around her do.

    Therefore, expect supreme efforts from her to keep everyone on board under all circumstances. Personally, I think she’d be happy to have as much detail as possible deferred to GE2022 so the Tory party can fight and win that in one piece. It’s only 4 years away, and a lot of the new customs and agriculture policies won’t take effect until afterward, so it’s not a fanciful goal either.

    Deceiving her mps ensures unity?
    She isn’t actively thinking of deception, she’s trying to square the circle as best she can.

    She isn’t Osborne.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 65,544

    It’s a good article but it misses out one important factor that I think some non-Conservatives struggle to understand: Theresa May cares about the unity of the Conservative Party.

    She has been a loyal Conservative all her life. For her, a confidence vote being called would be a failure regardless of the outcome. I agree she’d very probably win it, but the last thing she wants to do is to use it to factionalise and isolate one wing of the Tories again and work with other parties in the house to pass Brexit. That’s not who she is or how she thinks, even if others around her do.

    Therefore, expect supreme efforts from her to keep everyone on board under all circumstances. Personally, I think she’d be happy to have as much detail as possible deferred to GE2022 so the Tory party can fight and win that in one piece. It’s only 4 years away, and a lot of the new customs and agriculture policies won’t take effect until afterward, so it’s not a fanciful goal either.

    No she doesn't care about the unity of the Tory Party.

    The moment she became PM what did she do, she fired four people who had clashed with her previously.

    Gove, Raab, Osborne, and Vaizey.
    She wanted to be in control and make her own hires.

    That’s not the same thing as wanting to isolate a whole wing of the party.
    Yet she found roles for David Davis and the disgraced Liam Fox.

    You and I both know Brexit would be going a lot better if she had made Michael Gove Brexit Secretary.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,391
    Mr Barnesian.

    "It will leave many people disillusioned with politics (many are already) and voter turnout is likely to go down (why bother they'll say). And that will be that. Threats of civil unrest are empty."

    You don't continue, but if you did, I hear a hint of "a price worth paying." I hope that isn't the case. Trust removed doesn't return easily or quickly. And I fear you may be underestimating the consequences. Farage would be the least of your problems.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 3,407
    Barnesian said:

    The tensions in Government and parliament are building relentlessly as the cliff edge approaches. The foreshocks are occurring more frequently as we head towards a major seismic event.

    What would be a major seismic event?

    1. Mrs May resigns - ill health or impossible position.
    2. Mrs May finally loses patience and shows decisive leadership, firing some members of her cabinet and revises her red lines.
    3. A number of Remain ministers resign and join a large cross party group (40+ Tories plus opposition parties) to form a temporary national government to avoid the cliff edge.
    4. Any other possible game changing event?

    How about the one that was mentioned on here a lot last week - one or more senior Leave cabinet minsters resign, provoking a leadership challenge?
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 2,252
    edited June 13

    it will be most interesting to look back after Brexit is achieved(or what ever the denouement turns out to be ) on the reams of of woe written on this site about forthcoming armageddon.

    It’ll be the Brexiteers’ vision of cake and eating it that will be what’s being compared to reality
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 6,020
    Barnesian said:

    The tensions in Government and parliament are building relentlessly as the cliff edge approaches. The foreshocks are occurring more frequently as we head towards a major seismic event.

    3. A number of Remain ministers resign and join a large cross party group (40+ Tories plus opposition parties) to form a temporary national government to avoid the cliff edge.

    No Tory is going to want to make Corbyn PM.

    Brexit is not the Alpha and Omega of UK politics.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 4,999
    edited June 13

    I find it difficult to believe this morning that the Tories aren't heading rapidly to a Corn Laws style split. But then again they are almost always the ultimate power seekers and pragmatists, so maybe this is to overblow things.

    Contrary to the hyperbole of the Sunday newspapers I think it's the case that the majority of Tory MPs supported their leader (Cameron) when he said Remain and support their leader now (May) when she says Leave Everything [Customs Union, Single Market, ECJ jurisdiction].

    Could you tell me what the actual Remain/Leave split was in the Parliamentary Party, as opposed to the loyalty to the incumbent leader?

    I think most Tory MPs simply want the issue to go away. They're not going to split the party over it.
This discussion has been closed.