Jeremy Corbyn missed a vote last night on an amendment placed in his own name to the Finance Bill. This was an amendment which potentially could have defeated the Government as eight DUP MPs voted with Labour, the SNP, Lib Dems, and Plaid Cymru. Senior Labour MPs are furious that party lost the vote when a tighter whipping operation could have defeated the Government.
What was the amendment about?
I can see on the Parliament website a whole bunch of amendment votes, but it's as clear as mud what they relate to without ploughing through the Finance Bill. I can't find a story about this that explains it. Is there one anywhere?
Jeremy Corbyn missed a vote last night on an amendment placed in his own name to the Finance Bill. This was an amendment which potentially could have defeated the Government as eight DUP MPs voted with Labour, the SNP, Lib Dems, and Plaid Cymru. Senior Labour MPs are furious that party lost the vote when a tighter whipping operation could have defeated the Government.
What was the amendment about?
I can see on the Parliament website a whole bunch of amendment votes, but it's as clear as mud what they relate to without ploughing through the Finance Bill. I can't find a story about this that explains it. Is there one anywhere?
"They now divide to vote on Labour's new clause 2, which asks for an impact analysis of changes to personal tax allowance on child poverty and equality within six months."
Jeremy Corbyn missed a vote last night on an amendment placed in his own name to the Finance Bill. This was an amendment which potentially could have defeated the Government as eight DUP MPs voted with Labour, the SNP, Lib Dems, and Plaid Cymru. Senior Labour MPs are furious that party lost the vote when a tighter whipping operation could have defeated the Government.
What was the amendment about?
I can see on the Parliament website a whole bunch of amendment votes, but it's as clear as mud what they relate to without ploughing through the Finance Bill. I can't find a story about this that explains it. Is there one anywhere?
Embarrassment for Corbyn as he skips Commons vote on his own Budget amendment that Government wins by just FIVE after DUP revolt
On one amendment about child poverty - tabled by the Labour leader himself ...
Now this is interesting - Sarah Wollaston and Paul Williams will be proposing a referendum amendment to the exit deal vote:
"The best way to give legal weight for a referendum on the final deal would be through amending the approval motion to make this conditional on a referendum. If the motion is approved without amendment, there are no binding mechanisms to introduce a “people’s vote” at a later stage. It is highly risky to rely on collapsing the government or forcing a No Deal Brexit as preconditions for supporting a referendum. The reality of the Parliamentary arithmetic is that there can be no referendum unless Labour supports one. Most Labour members do, but unequivocal front bench support for the “informed consent” amendment will be needed for it to pass."
- It will force Labour to make a choice on this, and it's likely to be a choice where the leadership is at odds with members and MPs
- It will focus the attention of MPs on the two sides of the debate on what happens if the deal is voted down. At the moment they can just say they don't like the deal, but at some point they are going to have to agree what they'd like instead, or put up with it.
Now this is interesting - Sarah Wollaston and Paul Williams will be proposing a referendum amendment to the exit deal vote:
"The best way to give legal weight for a referendum on the final deal would be through amending the approval motion to make this conditional on a referendum. If the motion is approved without amendment, there are no binding mechanisms to introduce a “people’s vote” at a later stage. It is highly risky to rely on collapsing the government or forcing a No Deal Brexit as preconditions for supporting a referendum. The reality of the Parliamentary arithmetic is that there can be no referendum unless Labour supports one. Most Labour members do, but unequivocal front bench support for the “informed consent” amendment will be needed for it to pass."
- It will force Labour to make a choice on this, and it's likely to be a choice where the leadership is at odds with members and MPs
- It will focus the attention of MPs on the two sides of the debate on what happens if the deal is voted down. At the moment they can just say they don't like the deal, but at some point they are going to have to agree what they'd like instead, or put up with it.
This will have the Gov't, ERG and DUP against. Can the opposition (Soubry and Chuka) find enough remainers; will Corbyn support the motion...
Now this is interesting - Sarah Wollaston and Paul Williams will be proposing a referendum amendment to the exit deal vote:
"The best way to give legal weight for a referendum on the final deal would be through amending the approval motion to make this conditional on a referendum. If the motion is approved without amendment, there are no binding mechanisms to introduce a “people’s vote” at a later stage. It is highly risky to rely on collapsing the government or forcing a No Deal Brexit as preconditions for supporting a referendum. The reality of the Parliamentary arithmetic is that there can be no referendum unless Labour supports one. Most Labour members do, but unequivocal front bench support for the “informed consent” amendment will be needed for it to pass."
- It will force Labour to make a choice on this, and it's likely to be a choice where the leadership is at odds with members and MPs
- It will focus the attention of MPs on the two sides of the debate on what happens if the deal is voted down. At the moment they can just say they don't like the deal, but at some point they are going to have to agree what they'd like instead, or put up with it.
The ERG are going to have to put their money where their mouth is on the 'May's Brexit is worse than No Brexit' line....
Now this is interesting - Sarah Wollaston and Paul Williams will be proposing a referendum amendment to the exit deal vote:
"The best way to give legal weight for a referendum on the final deal would be through amending the approval motion to make this conditional on a referendum. If the motion is approved without amendment, there are no binding mechanisms to introduce a “people’s vote” at a later stage. It is highly risky to rely on collapsing the government or forcing a No Deal Brexit as preconditions for supporting a referendum. The reality of the Parliamentary arithmetic is that there can be no referendum unless Labour supports one. Most Labour members do, but unequivocal front bench support for the “informed consent” amendment will be needed for it to pass."
- It will force Labour to make a choice on this, and it's likely to be a choice where the leadership is at odds with members and MPs
- It will focus the attention of MPs on the two sides of the debate on what happens if the deal is voted down. At the moment they can just say they don't like the deal, but at some point they are going to have to agree what they'd like instead, or put up with it.
This will have the Gov't, ERG and DUP against. Can the opposition (Soubry and Chuka) find enough Tory remainers ?
I think it will probably fail, although it's hard to be sure. If I'm right and it does fail, that's going to change the landscape somewhat (and conversely if it passes, in a different way).
Now this is interesting - Sarah Wollaston and Paul Williams will be proposing a referendum amendment to the exit deal vote:
"The best way to give legal weight for a referendum on the final deal would be through amending the approval motion to make this conditional on a referendum. If the motion is approved without amendment, there are no binding mechanisms to introduce a “people’s vote” at a later stage. It is highly risky to rely on collapsing the government or forcing a No Deal Brexit as preconditions for supporting a referendum. The reality of the Parliamentary arithmetic is that there can be no referendum unless Labour supports one. Most Labour members do, but unequivocal front bench support for the “informed consent” amendment will be needed for it to pass."
- It will force Labour to make a choice on this, and it's likely to be a choice where the leadership is at odds with members and MPs
- It will focus the attention of MPs on the two sides of the debate on what happens if the deal is voted down. At the moment they can just say they don't like the deal, but at some point they are going to have to agree what they'd like instead, or put up with it.
That's been their plan for a while. It's almost as if they've thought it through.
Jeremy Corbyn missed a vote last night on an amendment placed in his own name to the Finance Bill. This was an amendment which potentially could have defeated the Government as eight DUP MPs voted with Labour, the SNP, Lib Dems, and Plaid Cymru. Senior Labour MPs are furious that party lost the vote when a tighter whipping operation could have defeated the Government.
What was the amendment about?
I can see on the Parliament website a whole bunch of amendment votes, but it's as clear as mud what they relate to without ploughing through the Finance Bill. I can't find a story about this that explains it. Is there one anywhere?
"They now divide to vote on Labour's new clause 2, which asks for an impact analysis of changes to personal tax allowance on child poverty and equality within six months."
Thanks. So sounds like something they expected to be defeated, didn't really care if it passed, but just wanted to be able to do something for appearances sake.
YOU'VE MADE JEREMY CORBYN LOOK LIKE A PLAUSIBLE PRIME MINISTER
YOU'RE GIVING A PALEO-LENINIST A MAJORITY YOU HONKING GREAT BERK
Look what you've done. I hope you're happy.
not aged well....
tbf, a poll like that is entirely plausible to happen soon...
It is genuinely bewildering that a government that is falling apart, on its 3rd Brexit Secretary in as many months and seems to have lost its coalition partner/majority is still marginally leading in the polls. If Labour were not on a different planet they would be giving this some serious thought.
On the most recent polls Jezza will be PM
The latest EMA including the two weekend polls has:
Con 39.3% Lab 38.5% LD 8.4%
Combining this with the latest Scottish GE poll and using Electoral Calculus gives:
Con 302 Lab 270 LD 16 SNP 40 Grn 1 PC 3 UKIP 0 NI 18
Tories 24 short of an overall majority.
Minority Labour government with support of SNP and LDs (and PC and Green).
Minority Conservative government with support of LDs and DUP (who propped up the Tories last time and this, respectively).
YOU'VE MADE JEREMY CORBYN LOOK LIKE A PLAUSIBLE PRIME MINISTER
YOU'RE GIVING A PALEO-LENINIST A MAJORITY YOU HONKING GREAT BERK
Look what you've done. I hope you're happy.
not aged well....
tbf, a poll like that is entirely plausible to happen soon...
It is genuinely bewildering that a government that is falling apart, on its 3rd Brexit Secretary in as many months and seems to have lost its coalition partner/majority is still marginally leading in the polls. If Labour were not on a different planet they would be giving this some serious thought.
On the most recent polls Jezza will be PM
The latest EMA including the two weekend polls has:
Con 39.3% Lab 38.5% LD 8.4%
Combining this with the latest Scottish GE poll and using Electoral Calculus gives:
Con 302 Lab 270 LD 16 SNP 40 Grn 1 PC 3 UKIP 0 NI 18
Tories 24 short of an overall majority.
Minority Labour government with support of SNP and LDs (and PC and Green).
Minority Conservative government with support of LDs and DUP (who propped up the Tories last time and this, respectively).
Now this is interesting - Sarah Wollaston and Paul Williams will be proposing a referendum amendment to the exit deal vote:
"The best way to give legal weight for a referendum on the final deal would be through amending the approval motion to make this conditional on a referendum. If the motion is approved without amendment, there are no binding mechanisms to introduce a “people’s vote” at a later stage. It is highly risky to rely on collapsing the government or forcing a No Deal Brexit as preconditions for supporting a referendum. The reality of the Parliamentary arithmetic is that there can be no referendum unless Labour supports one. Most Labour members do, but unequivocal front bench support for the “informed consent” amendment will be needed for it to pass."
- It will force Labour to make a choice on this, and it's likely to be a choice where the leadership is at odds with members and MPs
- It will focus the attention of MPs on the two sides of the debate on what happens if the deal is voted down. At the moment they can just say they don't like the deal, but at some point they are going to have to agree what they'd like instead, or put up with it.
The ERG are going to have to put their money where their mouth is on the 'May's Brexit is worse than No Brexit' line....
I think they would - given they don't appear to have the positive numbers for anything, the only conclusion I can reach for their actions is it is not at all tactical, they really mean it.
They really are setting themselves up for epic disappointment if they assume so automatically that a second vote will go their way. The chances look pretty good in those circumstances, but it gives the lie to the idea it is actually about asking the people, but instead about asking the people...because they think the people will make the right choice this time.
Now this is interesting - Sarah Wollaston and Paul Williams will be proposing a referendum amendment to the exit deal vote:
"The best way to give legal weight for a referendum on the final deal would be through amending the approval motion to make this conditional on a referendum. If the motion is approved without amendment, there are no binding mechanisms to introduce a “people’s vote” at a later stage. It is highly risky to rely on collapsing the government or forcing a No Deal Brexit as preconditions for supporting a referendum. The reality of the Parliamentary arithmetic is that there can be no referendum unless Labour supports one. Most Labour members do, but unequivocal front bench support for the “informed consent” amendment will be needed for it to pass."
- It will force Labour to make a choice on this, and it's likely to be a choice where the leadership is at odds with members and MPs
- It will focus the attention of MPs on the two sides of the debate on what happens if the deal is voted down. At the moment they can just say they don't like the deal, but at some point they are going to have to agree what they'd like instead, or put up with it.
That's been their plan for a while. It's almost as if they've thought it through.
Have they clarified what the 'Other' option(s) should be in the referendum? It's surely going down first time, so it'll just be a show of support at this stage.
I actually wonder if we might end up with the following:
1) Meaningful vote comes to Commons early Dec, voted down heavily.
2) Further negotiations over Christmas, some small tweaks made (possibly around backstop reviews?) and enough to put back to Commons a second time. Voted down narrowly with some Labour rebels coming out of the woodwork but Tory Brexiteers still against.
3) markets go haywire, Labour put confidence vote/general election vote down in Commons - defeated. Labour then back 2nd referendum (as GE proven as not possible) and Theresa May allows Labour to bring meaningful vote subject to referendum forward, facing a Tory confidence vote and voting against, but it squeaks through.
Even if it was true that the EU suffered most, that would be pretty cold comfort for us. No deal hurts everyone.
Indeed. It shouldn't be a contest to see who is harmed the most. Moreover that is irrelevant since it is about what people believe, and the EU don't believe that and won't act as though it is true anyway.
Now this is interesting - Sarah Wollaston and Paul Williams will be proposing a referendum amendment to the exit deal vote:
"The best way to give legal weight for a referendum on the final deal would be through amending the approval motion to make this conditional on a referendum. If the motion is approved without amendment, there are no binding mechanisms to introduce a “people’s vote” at a later stage. It is highly risky to rely on collapsing the government or forcing a No Deal Brexit as preconditions for supporting a referendum. The reality of the Parliamentary arithmetic is that there can be no referendum unless Labour supports one. Most Labour members do, but unequivocal front bench support for the “informed consent” amendment will be needed for it to pass."
- It will force Labour to make a choice on this, and it's likely to be a choice where the leadership is at odds with members and MPs
- It will focus the attention of MPs on the two sides of the debate on what happens if the deal is voted down. At the moment they can just say they don't like the deal, but at some point they are going to have to agree what they'd like instead, or put up with it.
That's been their plan for a while. It's almost as if they've thought it through.
Have they clarified what the 'Other' option(s) should be in the referendum? It's surely going down first time, so it'll just be a show of support at this stage.
The Tories need to do a deal with May where they a) Get her deal over the line (2nd ref or No Deal Brexit are both complete disasters for them) in exchange for her going once the deal is over the line.
I don't think that requires much of a deal, as it were - I think it would be near inevitable as she would not have a functioning government anyway. It's still massively frustrating if people are willing to support the deal but allowing dislike of May going on and on to affect their vote, but how can she even give private assurances without it immediately leaking?
Now this is interesting - Sarah Wollaston and Paul Williams will be proposing a referendum amendment to the exit deal vote:
"The best way to give legal weight for a referendum on the final deal would be through amending the approval motion to make this conditional on a referendum. If the motion is approved without amendment, there are no binding mechanisms to introduce a “people’s vote” at a later stage. It is highly risky to rely on collapsing the government or forcing a No Deal Brexit as preconditions for supporting a referendum. The reality of the Parliamentary arithmetic is that there can be no referendum unless Labour supports one. Most Labour members do, but unequivocal front bench support for the “informed consent” amendment will be needed for it to pass."
- It will force Labour to make a choice on this, and it's likely to be a choice where the leadership is at odds with members and MPs
- It will focus the attention of MPs on the two sides of the debate on what happens if the deal is voted down. At the moment they can just say they don't like the deal, but at some point they are going to have to agree what they'd like instead, or put up with it.
The ERG are going to have to put their money where their mouth is on the 'May's Brexit is worse than No Brexit' line....
I think they would - given they don't appear to have the positive numbers for anything, the only conclusion I can reach for their actions is it is not at all tactical, they really mean it.
Or they're just idealogically stupid and blinkered, and will go down screaming 'but but respect the referendum' whilst it slips from them.
Now this is interesting - Sarah Wollaston and Paul Williams will be proposing a referendum amendment to the exit deal vote:
"The best way to give legal weight for a referendum on the final deal would be through amending the approval motion to make this conditional on a referendum. If the motion is approved without amendment, there are no binding mechanisms to introduce a “people’s vote” at a later stage. It is highly risky to rely on collapsing the government or forcing a No Deal Brexit as preconditions for supporting a referendum. The reality of the Parliamentary arithmetic is that there can be no referendum unless Labour supports one. Most Labour members do, but unequivocal front bench support for the “informed consent” amendment will be needed for it to pass."
- It will force Labour to make a choice on this, and it's likely to be a choice where the leadership is at odds with members and MPs
- It will focus the attention of MPs on the two sides of the debate on what happens if the deal is voted down. At the moment they can just say they don't like the deal, but at some point they are going to have to agree what they'd like instead, or put up with it.
The ERG are going to have to put their money where their mouth is on the 'May's Brexit is worse than No Brexit' line....
I think they would - given they don't appear to have the positive numbers for anything, the only conclusion I can reach for their actions is it is not at all tactical, they really mean it.
Or they're just idealogically stupid and blinkered, and will go down screaming 'but but respect the referendum' whilst it slips from them.
I don't know that our points are contradictory in the slightest. In fact, if your is correct it only increases the chance that they will indeed follow through despite the consequences.
Now this is interesting - Sarah Wollaston and Paul Williams will be proposing a referendum amendment to the exit deal vote:
"The best way to give legal weight for a referendum on the final deal would be through amending the approval motion to make this conditional on a referendum. If the motion is approved without amendment, there are no binding mechanisms to introduce a “people’s vote” at a later stage. It is highly risky to rely on collapsing the government or forcing a No Deal Brexit as preconditions for supporting a referendum. The reality of the Parliamentary arithmetic is that there can be no referendum unless Labour supports one. Most Labour members do, but unequivocal front bench support for the “informed consent” amendment will be needed for it to pass."
- It will force Labour to make a choice on this, and it's likely to be a choice where the leadership is at odds with members and MPs
- It will focus the attention of MPs on the two sides of the debate on what happens if the deal is voted down. At the moment they can just say they don't like the deal, but at some point they are going to have to agree what they'd like instead, or put up with it.
That's been their plan for a while. It's almost as if they've thought it through.
Have they clarified what the 'Other' option(s) should be in the referendum? It's surely going down first time, so it'll just be a show of support at this stage.
I actually wonder if we might end up with the following:
1) Meaningful vote comes to Commons early Dec, voted down heavily.
2) Further negotiations over Christmas, some small tweaks made (possibly around backstop reviews?) and enough to put back to Commons a second time. Voted down narrowly with some Labour rebels coming out of the woodwork but Tory Brexiteers still against.
3) markets go haywire, Labour put confidence vote/general election vote down in Commons - defeated. Labour then back 2nd referendum (as GE proven as not possible) and Theresa May allows Labour to bring meaningful vote subject to referendum forward, facing a Tory confidence vote and voting against, but it squeaks through.
Which seems plausible .But what if it doesn't squeak thtough?
@pmdfoster Follow Follow @pmdfoster More Wow. Amazing....suddenly, after all these months of negotiating it seems like Number 10 has put it's hand down the back of the sofa and found a 'fix' for the border issue that has bedevilled these talks for all this time.
"RECALLING the Union's and the United Kingdom's intention to replace the backstop solution on Northern Ireland by a subsequent agreement that establishes alternative arrangements for ensuring the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland on a permanent footing;"
@pmdfoster Follow Follow @pmdfoster More Wow. Amazing....suddenly, after all these months of negotiating it seems like Number 10 has put it's hand down the back of the sofa and found a 'fix' for the border issue that has bedevilled these talks for all this time.
Suddenly? I thought that was always the position.
As part of the Long Term Economic Plan Future Partnership, yes. As an alternative protocol on NI (to replace the current protocol), not so much.
In other words, we can replace the backstop with another backstop during the transition.
Now this is interesting - Sarah Wollaston and Paul Williams will be proposing a referendum amendment to the exit deal vote:
"The best way to give legal weight for a referendum on the final deal would be through amending the approval motion to make this conditional on a referendum. If the motion is approved without amendment, there are no binding mechanisms to introduce a “people’s vote” at a later stage. It is highly risky to rely on collapsing the government or forcing a No Deal Brexit as preconditions for supporting a referendum. The reality of the Parliamentary arithmetic is that there can be no referendum unless Labour supports one. Most Labour members do, but unequivocal front bench support for the “informed consent” amendment will be needed for it to pass."
- It will force Labour to make a choice on this, and it's likely to be a choice where the leadership is at odds with members and MPs
- It will focus the attention of MPs on the two sides of the debate on what happens if the deal is voted down. At the moment they can just say they don't like the deal, but at some point they are going to have to agree what they'd like instead, or put up with it.
This will have the Gov't, ERG and DUP against. Can the opposition (Soubry and Chuka) find enough remainers; will Corbyn support the motion...
I have predicted this for a while. That is why I referred to a tweet a couple of days ago naming 18 labour mps who will vote down a second referendum and Corbyn and McDonnell were not on the list
If they do vote against it will fall leaving deal or no deal
Now this is interesting - Sarah Wollaston and Paul Williams will be proposing a referendum amendment to the exit deal vote:
"The best way to give legal weight for a referendum on the final deal would be through amending the approval motion to make this conditional on a referendum. If the motion is approved without amendment, there are no binding mechanisms to introduce a “people’s vote” at a later stage. It is highly risky to rely on collapsing the government or forcing a No Deal Brexit as preconditions for supporting a referendum. The reality of the Parliamentary arithmetic is that there can be no referendum unless Labour supports one. Most Labour members do, but unequivocal front bench support for the “informed consent” amendment will be needed for it to pass."
- It will force Labour to make a choice on this, and it's likely to be a choice where the leadership is at odds with members and MPs
- It will focus the attention of MPs on the two sides of the debate on what happens if the deal is voted down. At the moment they can just say they don't like the deal, but at some point they are going to have to agree what they'd like instead, or put up with it.
That's been their plan for a while. It's almost as if they've thought it through.
Have they clarified what the 'Other' option(s) should be in the referendum? It's surely going down first time, so it'll just be a show of support at this stage.
@pmdfoster Follow Follow @pmdfoster More Wow. Amazing....suddenly, after all these months of negotiating it seems like Number 10 has put it's hand down the back of the sofa and found a 'fix' for the border issue that has bedevilled these talks for all this time.
Suddenly? I thought that was always the position.
As part of the Long Term Economic Plan Future Partnership, yes. As an alternative protocol on NI (to replace the current protocol), not so much.
In other words, we can replace the backstop with another backstop during the transition.
Is there provision to replace the backstop (Should an alternative backstop become mutually acceptable) within the Withdrawal Agreement ?
The NI Committee were told end of last week by the head of the port of Rotterdam - Europes larget importer - that the Irish border problem is a fiction and can be solved by existing technology in under 2 years
Now this is interesting - Sarah Wollaston and Paul Williams will be proposing a referendum amendment to the exit deal vote:
"The best way to gierendum unless Labour supports one. Most Labour members do, but unequivocal front bench support for the “informed consent” amendment will be needed for it to pass."
- It will force Labour to make a choice on this, and it's likely to be a choice where the leadership is at odds with members and MPs
- It will focus the attention of MPs on the two sides of the debate on what happens if the deal is voted down. At the moment they can just say they don't like the deal, but at some point they are going to have to agree what they'd like instead, or put up with it.
That's been their plan for a while. It's almost as if they've thought it through.
Have they clarified what the 'Other' option(s) should be in the referendum? It's surely going down first time, so it'll just be a show of support at this stage.
I actually wonder if we might end up with the following:
1) Meaningful vote comes to Commons early Dec, voted down heavily.
2) Further negotiations over Christmas, some small tweaks made (possibly around backstop reviews?) and enough to put back to Commons a second time. Voted down narrowly with some Labour rebels coming out of the woodwork but Tory Brexiteers still against.
3) markets go haywire, Labour put confidence vote/general election vote down in Commons - defeated. Labour then back 2nd referendum (as GE proven as not possible) and Theresa May allows Labour to bring meaningful vote subject to referendum forward, facing a Tory confidence vote and voting against, but it squeaks through.
Which seems plausible .But what if it doesn't squeak thtough?
My guess is that if we got there, Theresa May is successfully no-confidenced, and a new Tory leader applies for an emergency A50 extension to set up the bilateral treaties to keep medicines flights and nuclear isotopes moving. High stakes to say the least. Who really knows?
Now this is interesting - Sarah Wollaston and Paul Williams will be proposing a referendum amendment to the exit deal vote:
"The best way to give legal weight for a referendum on the final deal would be through amending the approval motion to make this conditional on a referendum. If the motion is approved without amendment, there are no binding mechanisms to introduce a “people’s vote” at a later stage. It is highly risky to rely on collapsing the government or forcing a No Deal Brexit as preconditions for supporting a referendum. The reality of the Parliamentary arithmetic is that there can be no referendum unless Labour supports one. Most Labour members do, but unequivocal front bench support for the “informed consent” amendment will be needed for it to pass."
- It will force Labour to make a choice on this, and it's likely to be a choice where the leadership is at odds with members and MPs
- It will focus the attention of MPs on the two sides of the debate on what happens if the deal is voted down. At the moment they can just say they don't like the deal, but at some point they are going to have to agree what they'd like instead, or put up with it.
This will have the Gov't, ERG and DUP against. Can the opposition (Soubry and Chuka) find enough remainers; will Corbyn support the motion...
I have predicted this for a while. That is why I referred to a tweet a couple of days ago naming 18 labour mps who will vote down a second referendum and Corbyn and McDonnell were not on the list
If they do vote against it will fall leaving deal or no deal
How many Tories though? Several are publically in favour .
@pmdfoster Follow Follow @pmdfoster More Wow. Amazing....suddenly, after all these months of negotiating it seems like Number 10 has put it's hand down the back of the sofa and found a 'fix' for the border issue that has bedevilled these talks for all this time.
Suddenly? I thought that was always the position.
As part of the Long Term Economic Plan Future Partnership, yes. As an alternative protocol on NI (to replace the current protocol), not so much.
In other words, we can replace the backstop with another backstop during the transition.
Is there provision to replace the backstop (Should an alternative backstop become mutually acceptable) within the Withdrawal Agreement ?
"The provisions of this Protocol are therefore intended to apply only temporarily, taking into account the commitments of the Parties set out in Article 2(1). The provisions of this Protocol shall apply unless and until they are superseded, in whole or in part, by a subsequent agreement."
That could be the future partnership, or it could be an alternative backstop.
- It is not the case that the UK could have prepared for 'no deal', it is simply not possible for us unilaterally to avoid the disastrous consequences. It is a blame-shifting fantasy to say it's all Theresa May's fault for not planning for no deal.
Following on from that, I think the EU have over-reached by insisting on the Irish backstop, with potentially disastrous consequence for both sides, but I don't think they will back down on this.
Utter nonsense. Most of the world doesn't have a 'deal'.
If I remember Robert's YouTube video about this then this is an inevitable consequence of tight oil producers in the US reacting to higher prices some months ago. The oil price is roughly where it was a year ago. While geopolitical factors - like sabre-rattling with Iran - might temporarily push the price up the fundamentals of the market will always drag the price back down to the marginal cost of production of tight oil in the US.
@pmdfoster Follow Follow @pmdfoster More Wow. Amazing....suddenly, after all these months of negotiating it seems like Number 10 has put it's hand down the back of the sofa and found a 'fix' for the border issue that has bedevilled these talks for all this time.
Suddenly? I thought that was always the position.
As part of the Long Term Economic Plan Future Partnership, yes. As an alternative protocol on NI (to replace the current protocol), not so much.
In other words, we can replace the backstop with another backstop during the transition.
Is there provision to replace the backstop (Should an alternative backstop become mutually acceptable) within the Withdrawal Agreement ?
"The provisions of this Protocol are therefore intended to apply only temporarily, taking into account the commitments of the Parties set out in Article 2(1). The provisions of this Protocol shall apply unless and until they are superseded, in whole or in part, by a subsequent agreement."
That could be the future partnership, or it could be an alternative backstop.
Seems like May and Barnier really did think of everything
The NI Committee were told end of last week by the head of the port of Rotterdam - Europes larget importer - that the Irish border problem is a fiction and can be solved by existing technology in under 2 years
In order for something like this deal to pass, somebody is going to negotiate away the godforsaken backstop.
It doesn't make any sense to ask the woman whose deep and enduring incompetence ensured it made it in the first place, to be the person responsible for negotiating it away again.
What would you have in place of the backstop?
An agreement that neither of us would implement a hard border, an agreement to work together on solutions to avoid it and an agreement to co-operate and punish to the full extent of the law any criminals who break the law and don't pay their taxes which is all customs duties are.
And you don't think Theresa May, Olly Robbins, David Davis, or Dominic Raab have suggested such a deal to the EU?
I think David Davis and Raab did suggest it. I think the EU tried their luck and May and Robbins fell apart like first two little pigs houses getting blown down by the big bad wolf. If May wasn't so desparate to get results after her disastrous election she could have said no to the backstop when they proposed it.
Why would she do that? She actually wants to get this through parliament.
Really, this idea that Theresa May screwed up the negotiations by not being tough enough is the most ludicrous nonsense. I actually agree that the backstop is daft, but the idea that the EU could be persuaded to drop it if only we'd shouted louder is off-the-wall raving bonkers.
If we’d threatened to walk away they may have. If you must do a deal you’ve little leverage
And if (/when) the answer is 'fine, come back when you're ready', what then ?
Then we walk away and take to the air to win hearts and minds. Insist that we are prepared to respect the indivisibility of the EU, that we want to keep an open border, but they need to respect the indivisibility of the UK and we're ready to talk when they are.
If we'd sacrificed a month or two saying "we have nothing more to say, the UK can not be divided any more than the EU can" then we could have potentially moved on.
Now this is interesting - Sarah Wollaston and Paul Williams will be proposing a referendum amendment to the exit deal vote:
"The best way to gierendum unless Labour supports one. Most Labour members do, but unequivocal front bench support for the “informed consent” amendment will be needed for it to pass."
Have they clarified what the 'Other' option(s) should be in the referendum? It's surely going down first time, so it'll just be a show of support at this stage.
I actually wonder if we might end up with the following:
1) Meaningful vote comes to Commons early Dec, voted down heavily.
2) Further negotiations over Christmas, some small tweaks made (possibly around backstop reviews?) and enough to put back to Commons a second time. Voted down narrowly with some Labour rebels coming out of the woodwork but Tory Brexiteers still against.
3) markets go haywire, Labour put confidence vote/general election vote down in Commons - defeated. Labour then back 2nd referendum (as GE proven as not possible) and Theresa May allows Labour to bring meaningful vote subject to referendum forward, facing a Tory confidence vote and voting against, but it squeaks through.
Which seems plausible .But what if it doesn't squeak thtough?
My guess is that if we got there, Theresa May is successfully no-confidenced, and a new Tory leader applies for an emergency A50 extension to set up the bilateral treaties to keep medicines flights and nuclear isotopes moving. High stakes to say the least. Who really knows?
No - if that gets through it becomes mandated and it does not matter who is PM a referendum has to be legislated for and enacted. I always thought this would happen but as long as it is taken before the vote on the deal there must be a high risk it is defeated and deal or no deal become default
The EU have said they would suspend A50 for a referendum or GE but not the deal
- It is not the case that the UK could have prepared for 'no deal', it is simply not possible for us unilaterally to avoid the disastrous consequences. It is a blame-shifting fantasy to say it's all Theresa May's fault for not planning for no deal.
Following on from that, I think the EU have over-reached by insisting on the Irish backstop, with potentially disastrous consequence for both sides, but I don't think they will back down on this.
Utter nonsense. Most of the world doesn't have a 'deal'.
But the rest of the world has been trading on 'No Deal' terms for 40 years - and doesn't have to transition to them overnight.
- It is not the case that the UK could have prepared for 'no deal', it is simply not possible for us unilaterally to avoid the disastrous consequences. It is a blame-shifting fantasy to say it's all Theresa May's fault for not planning for no deal.
Following on from that, I think the EU have over-reached by insisting on the Irish backstop, with potentially disastrous consequence for both sides, but I don't think they will back down on this.
Utter nonsense. Most of the world doesn't have a 'deal'.
You can't restructure the whole economy to operate under 'no deal' conditions with the EU overnight.
In order for something like this deal to pass, somebody is going to negotiate away the godforsaken backstop.
It doesn't make any sense to ask the woman whose deep and enduring incompetence ensured it made it in the first place, to be the person responsible for negotiating it away again.
What would you have in place of the backstop?
An agreement that neither of us would implement a hard border, an agreement to work together on solutions to avoid it and an agreement to co-operate and punish to the full extent of the law any criminals who break the law and don't pay their taxes which is all customs duties are.
And you don't think Theresa May, Olly Robbins, David Davis, or Dominic Raab have suggested such a deal to the EU?
I think David Davis and Raab did suggest it. I think the EU tried their luck and May and Robbins fell apart like first two little pigs houses getting blown down by the big bad wolf. If May wasn't so desparate to get results after her disastrous election she could have said no to the backstop when they proposed it.
Why would she do that? She actually wants to get this through parliament.
Really, this idea that Theresa May screwed up the negotiations by not being tough enough is the most ludicrous nonsense. I actually agree that the backstop is daft, but the idea that the EU could be persuaded to drop it if only we'd shouted louder is off-the-wall raving bonkers.
If we’d threatened to walk away they may have. If you must do a deal you’ve little leverage
And if (/when) the answer is 'fine, come back when you're ready', what then ?
Then we walk away and take to the air to win hearts and minds. Insist that we are prepared to respect the indivisibility of the EU, that we want to keep an open border, but they need to respect the indivisibility of the UK and we're ready to talk when they are.
If we'd sacrificed a month or two saying "we have nothing more to say, the UK can not be divided any more than the EU can" then we could have potentially moved on.
Instead we folded.
The 'indivisibility' of the EU is not quite true, citizens from the Republic of Ireland will retain Freedom of Movement with the UK to a degree that simply won't be available to other EU nationals.
Now this is interesting - Sarah Wollaston and Paul Williams will be proposing a referendum amendment to the exit deal vote:
"The best way to give legal weight for a referendum on the final deal would be through amending the approval motion to make this conditional on a referendum. If the motion is approved without amendment, there are no binding mechanisms to introduce a “people’s vote” at a later stage. It is highly risky to rely on collapsing the government or forcing a No Deal Brexit as preconditions for supporting a referendum. The reality of the Parliamentary arithmetic is that there can be no referendum unless Labour supports one. Most Labour members do, but unequivocal front bench support for the “informed consent” amendment will be needed for it to pass."
- It will force Labour to make a choice on this, and it's likely to be a choice where the leadership is at odds with members and MPs
- It will focus the attention of MPs on the two sides of the debate on what happens if the deal is voted down. At the moment they can just say they don't like the deal, but at some point they are going to have to agree what they'd like instead, or put up with it.
This will have the Gov't, ERG and DUP against. Can the opposition (Soubry and Chuka) find enough remainers; will Corbyn support the motion...
I have predicted this for a while. That is why I referred to a tweet a couple of days ago naming 18 labour mps who will vote down a second referendum and Corbyn and McDonnell were not on the list
If they do vote against it will fall leaving deal or no deal
How many Tories though? Several are publically in favour .
Interesting question. There must be a dozen or more but the labour numbers may be higher at the vote. The named labour mps are in the main from leave voting areas
- It is not the case that the UK could have prepared for 'no deal', it is simply not possible for us unilaterally to avoid the disastrous consequences. It is a blame-shifting fantasy to say it's all Theresa May's fault for not planning for no deal.
Following on from that, I think the EU have over-reached by insisting on the Irish backstop, with potentially disastrous consequence for both sides, but I don't think they will back down on this.
Utter nonsense. Most of the world doesn't have a 'deal'.
True. That's because they've not had 40+ years of entwining their economies, regulatory structures, trade deals and supply chains with the EU, all of which would come to a grinding halt on March 30th next year if there's no deal.
This really shouldn't be hard to understand - 'no deal' is NOT the same as 'an orderly agreed transition deal to get us to WTO terms'. Yet, for some Leavers, it seems to be completely impossible to understand the distinction.
No - if that gets through it becomes mandated and it does not matter who is PM a referendum has to be legislated for and enacted. I always thought this would happen but as long as it is taken before the vote on the deal there must be a high risk it is defeated and deal or no deal become default
The EU have said they would suspend A50 for a referendum or GE but not the deal
It takes more than one vote for anything to go through. It needs to get through the Commons and the Lords and through to Third Reading and Royal Assent.
What the EU have said before a change of PM is neither here nor there if we actually have one (though its funny how until recently you were ignoring what they had said pending negotiations and the negotiations have resulted in exactly what they said). If we have a change of government the EU would need to react accordingly.
- It is not the case that the UK could have prepared for 'no deal', it is simply not possible for us unilaterally to avoid the disastrous consequences. It is a blame-shifting fantasy to say it's all Theresa May's fault for not planning for no deal.
Following on from that, I think the EU have over-reached by insisting on the Irish backstop, with potentially disastrous consequence for both sides, but I don't think they will back down on this.
Utter nonsense. Most of the world doesn't have a 'deal'.
But the rest of the world has been trading on 'No Deal' terms for 40 years - and doesn't have to transition to them overnight.
Therein lies the madness of Brexit, people who voted for it forgot that for the past 40 years we have been signing treaties on how we trade with the EU, and they think that by leaving we can continue to trade with the EU as if nothing has happened, and the EU would be delighted to offer us that facility because they need us.
The NI Committee were told end of last week by the head of the port of Rotterdam - Europes larget importer - that the Irish border problem is a fiction and can be solved by existing technology in under 2 years
Have they clarified what the 'Other' option(s) should be in the referendum? It's surely going down first time, so it'll just be a show of support at this stage.
I actually wonder if we might end up with the following:
1) Meaningful vote comes to Commons early Dec, voted down heavily.
2) Further negotiations over Christmas, some small tweaks made (possibly around backstop reviews?) and enough to put back to Commons a second time. Voted down narrowly with some Labour rebels coming out of the woodwork but Tory Brexiteers still against.
3) markets go haywire, Labour put confidence vote/general election vote down in Commons - defeated. Labour then back 2nd referendum (as GE proven as not possible) and Theresa May allows Labour to bring meaningful vote subject to referendum forward, facing a Tory confidence vote and voting against, but it squeaks through.
Which seems plausible .But what if it doesn't squeak thtough?
My guess is that if we got there, Theresa May is successfully no-confidenced, and a new Tory leader applies for an emergency A50 extension to set up the bilateral treaties to keep medicines flights and nuclear isotopes moving. High stakes to say the least. Who really knows?
No - if that gets through it becomes mandated and it does not matter who is PM a referendum has to be legislated for and enacted. I always thought this would happen but as long as it is taken before the vote on the deal there must be a high risk it is defeated and deal or no deal become default
The EU have said they would suspend A50 for a referendum or GE but not the deal
Agreed Big G, however I think the question was about what happened if the third vote failed - so nothing at all had been agreed. I really wouldn't like to guess how that would play out.
If 'ratify subject to referendum approval' was passed in the Commons, I'd expect a Tory vote of no confidence, either way the PM would have to bring forward legislation for the referendum and apply for A50 delay, unless it's a new Tory leader elected on a 'sod the Commons vote' platform and then it's popcorn time.
- It is not the case that the UK could have prepared for 'no deal', it is simply not possible for us unilaterally to avoid the disastrous consequences. It is a blame-shifting fantasy to say it's all Theresa May's fault for not planning for no deal.
Following on from that, I think the EU have over-reached by insisting on the Irish backstop, with potentially disastrous consequence for both sides, but I don't think they will back down on this.
Utter nonsense. Most of the world doesn't have a 'deal'.
True. That's because they've not had 40+ years of entwining their economies, regulatory structures, trade deals and supply chains with the EU, all of which would come to a grinding halt on March 30th next year if there's no deal.
This really shouldn't be hard to understand - 'no deal' is NOT the same as 'an orderly agreed transition deal to get us to WTO terms'. Yet, for some Leavers, it seems to be completely impossible to understand the distinction.
Because for some Remainers there is no alternative to a soft-Brexit deal and thus everything else is portrayed as 'no deal'.
Very few people have said they want 'no deal', just an 'an orderly agreed transition deal to get us to WTO terms' [which is less extreme than even ERG are asking for] is portrayed by others as 'no deal'.
ERG are proposing 'an orderly agreed transition deal to get to Canada terms (but OK with transitioning to WTO if a Canada style deal can't be agreed)'
The NI Committee were told end of last week by the head of the port of Rotterdam - Europes larget importer - that the Irish border problem is a fiction and can be solved by existing technology in under 2 years
He needs to convince Michel Barnier and Leo Varadkar, not the UK.
All that's needed is to convince Barnier and Varadkar is that we are serious, which requires May to be ousted.
Barnier's original proposals didn't have the backstop in them and Varadkar's predecessor was working on a technological solution. This whole thing is an imaginary mess which we should never have allowed ourselves to agree to.
- It is not the case that the UK could have prepared for 'no deal', it is simply not possible for us unilaterally to avoid the disastrous consequences. It is a blame-shifting fantasy to say it's all Theresa May's fault for not planning for no deal.
Following on from that, I think the EU have over-reached by insisting on the Irish backstop, with potentially disastrous consequence for both sides, but I don't think they will back down on this.
Utter nonsense. Most of the world doesn't have a 'deal'.
You can't restructure the whole economy to operate under 'no deal' conditions with the EU overnight.
Yes yes, trains will be delayed. Hospitals will miss their targets. Prices at the pumps will go up. Mars bars will get smaller. Normal day in other words.
Because for some Remainers there is no alternative to a soft-Brexit deal and thus everything else is portrayed as 'no deal'.
Very few people have said they want 'no deal', just an 'an orderly agreed transition deal to get us to WTO terms' [which is less extreme than even ERG are asking for] is portrayed by others as 'no deal'.
ERG are proposing 'an orderly agreed transition deal to get to Canada terms (but OK with transitioning to WTO if a Canada style deal can't be agreed)'
Remarkably enough May's deal allows for all of this, the future trading partnership has not been agreed beyond a few platitudes so far as I can tell.
Because for some Remainers there is no alternative to a soft-Brexit deal and thus everything else is portrayed as 'no deal'.
Very few people have said they want 'no deal', just an 'an orderly agreed transition deal to get us to WTO terms' [which is less extreme than even ERG are asking for] is portrayed by others as 'no deal'.
Under WTO terms, where will the customs border with Ireland be, and when do you expect the cutover date to be?
Because for some Remainers there is no alternative to a soft-Brexit deal and thus everything else is portrayed as 'no deal'.
Very few people have said they want 'no deal', just an 'an orderly agreed transition deal to get us to WTO terms' [which is less extreme than even ERG are asking for] is portrayed by others as 'no deal'.
ERG are proposing 'an orderly agreed transition deal to get to Canada terms (but OK with transitioning to WTO if a Canada style deal can't be agreed)'
Remarkably enough May's deal allows for all of this, the future trading partnership has not been agreed beyond a few platitudes so far as I can tell.
I have no qualms with May's transition, except for the permanent issues we've conceded like the backstop. If the backstop wasn't there I'd think it was a reasonable deal, because of the backstop I think it is unacceptable.
If we’d threatened to walk away they may have. If you must do a deal you’ve little leverage
Indeed. That's why they've got the leverage. We can't credibly threaten to walk away.
Yes. I would have played the whole thing differently
But we’ve ended up in an ok place
And for the backstop, if they try to enforce, I’d repudiate it.
They won't try to enforce it, Charles, they don't want it. A dispute may be brought, if we are operating under WTO terms, by a fellow WTO member under MFN which could either force us to put up a border or force us to drop any tariffs for goods from any other country that aren't applied to RoI goods.
We’ve discussed this before.
Tariffs will be applied, just the monitoring will be done in a different way. But it will be done in the same way as all U.K. land borders*
(* except Gibraltar, but don’t worry Spain that’s not really part of the UK)
We have discussed this before and yet people refuse to face reality.
Your solution would be the mystical techno-phyto-mythological doesn't yet exist plan I imagine.
Trusted traveller does
You don't need to check the ones you trust, it is the ones you don't trust that need checking.
If you rely on the magic technology who checks the rest who just wander across.
The vast bulk of trade is by a few small groups.
Yes but that is not the point is it. By that logic we might as well just take away customs checks everywhere. The purpose of customs checks is to ensure people and organisations comply with the rules. Any magic electronic checks ensures those that would comply do comply and those that don't won't. Pointless!
Here is a real time example that I have mentioned before. I used to have to fill in carnets when taking demo equipment to France. I now don't. In future I will. Presumably instead of using paper and pen I will now do it online.
But it doesn't make one iota of difference if I do it on paper or online unless there is a man at customs to spot check me or do you propose this high tech solution involves robots that ask to look in my boot and check the contents comply with their computer screen. The whole thing is pointless. I might as well just drive through without checks at the border.
And it is worth pointing out that although I have only done this 3 times prior to it being unnecessary I was checked on all occasions.
The NI Committee were told end of last week by the head of the port of Rotterdam - Europes larget importer - that the Irish border problem is a fiction and can be solved by existing technology in under 2 years
He needs to convince Michel Barnier and Leo Varadkar, not the UK.
All that's needed is to convince Barnier and Varadkar is that we are serious, which requires May to be ousted.
Barnier's original proposals didn't have the backstop in them and Varadkar's predecessor was working on a technological solution. This whole thing is an imaginary mess which we should never have allowed ourselves to agree to.
We're not serious. That's because the threat of walking away is so mad that it ain't gonna happen, and everyone knows that.
I agree that the whole thing is largely an imaginary mess, and would go away if we had the trade deal we want, but it's not me you need to convince, it's Barnier, Varadkar and the rest of the EU.
No - if that gets through it becomes mandated and it does not matter who is PM a referendum has to be legislated for and enacted. I always thought this would happen but as long as it is taken before the vote on the deal there must be a high risk it is defeated and deal or no deal become default
The EU have said they would suspend A50 for a referendum or GE but not the deal
It takes more than one vote for anything to go through. It needs to get through the Commons and the Lords and through to Third Reading and Royal Assent.
What the EU have said before a change of PM is neither here nor there if we actually have one (though its funny how until recently you were ignoring what they had said pending negotiations and the negotiations have resulted in exactly what they said). If we have a change of government the EU would need to react accordingly.
You are wrong. If the amendment passes, and then the deal is voted for including the amendment that is then the meaningful vote and a referendum becomes law.
As far as process is concerned it can be rushed quickly through the HOC and no problem with the HOL of course.
You do need to hope the amendment falls or referendum it is
As far as the EU is concerned they have only said in the last few days they will give time for a referendum
Next stop no doubt is to become actively hostile on stuff they don't care about until they get what they want. DUP voting with the opposition regularly would be a gamechanger.
No - if that gets through it becomes mandated and it does not matter who is PM a referendum has to be legislated for and enacted. I always thought this would happen but as long as it is taken before the vote on the deal there must be a high risk it is defeated and deal or no deal become default
The EU have said they would suspend A50 for a referendum or GE but not the deal
It takes more than one vote for anything to go through. It needs to get through the Commons and the Lords and through to Third Reading and Royal Assent.
What the EU have said before a change of PM is neither here nor there if we actually have one (though its funny how until recently you were ignoring what they had said pending negotiations and the negotiations have resulted in exactly what they said). If we have a change of government the EU would need to react accordingly.
You are wrong. If the amendment passes, and then is deal is voted for including the amendment that is then the meaningful vote and a referendum becomes law.
As far as process is concerned it can be rushed quickly through the HOC and no problem with the HOL of course.
You do need to hope the amendment falls or referendum it is
How can the amendment become law without third reading etc?
If an amendment passes, then a vote of no confidence happens before third reading then it won't be law yet.
- It is not the case that the UK could have prepared for 'no deal', it is simply not possible for us unilaterally to avoid the disastrous consequences. It is a blame-shifting fantasy to say it's all Theresa May's fault for not planning for no deal.
Following on from that, I think the EU have over-reached by insisting on the Irish backstop, with potentially disastrous consequence for both sides, but I don't think they will back down on this.
Utter nonsense. Most of the world doesn't have a 'deal'.
it seems to be completely impossible to understand the distinction.
Given one of their leading lights thinks "No Deal" involves a "Transition" that shouldn't be too surprising....
If we’d threatened to walk away they may have. If you must do a deal you’ve little leverage
Indeed. That's why they've got the leverage. We can't credibly threaten to walk away.
Yes. I would have played the whole thing differently
But we’ve ended up in an ok place
And for the backstop, if they try to enforce, I’d repudiate it.
They won't try to enforce it, Charles, they don't want it. A dispute may be brought, if we are operating under WTO terms, by a fellow WTO member under MFN which could either force us to put up a border or force us to drop any tariffs for goods from any other country that aren't applied to RoI goods.
We’ve discussed this before.
Tariffs will be applied, just the monitoring will be done in a different way. But it will be done in the same way as all U.K. land borders*
(* except Gibraltar, but don’t worry Spain that’s not really part of the UK)
We have discussed this before and yet people refuse to face reality.
Your solution would be the mystical techno-phyto-mythological doesn't yet exist plan I imagine.
Trusted traveller does
You don't need to check the ones you trust, it is the ones you don't trust that need checking.
If you rely on the magic technology who checks the rest who just wander across.
The vast bulk of trade is by a few small groups.
The vast amount of a fall off a cliff won't hurt you.
Don’t be facile
If you have a small group of major companies doing the trade they have a lot to lose from lying
- It is not the case that the UK could have prepared for 'no deal', it is simply not possible for us unilaterally to avoid the disastrous consequences. It is a blame-shifting fantasy to say it's all Theresa May's fault for not planning for no deal.
Following on from that, I think the EU have over-reached by insisting on the Irish backstop, with potentially disastrous consequence for both sides, but I don't think they will back down on this.
Utter nonsense. Most of the world doesn't have a 'deal'.
True. That's because they've not had 40+ years of entwining their economies, regulatory structures, trade deals and supply chains with the EU, all of which would come to a grinding halt on March 30th next year if there's no deal.
This really shouldn't be hard to understand - 'no deal' is NOT the same as 'an orderly agreed transition deal to get us to WTO terms'. Yet, for some Leavers, it seems to be completely impossible to understand the distinction.
ERG are proposing 'an orderly agreed transition deal to get to Canada terms (but OK with transitioning to WTO if a Canada style deal can't be agreed)'
Then they need a withdrawal agreement. And the counterparty has said 'Canada' for GB only, not UK.
No - if that gets through it becomes mandated and it does not matter who is PM a referendum has to be legislated for and enacted. I always thought this would happen but as long as it is taken before the vote on the deal there must be a high risk it is defeated and deal or no deal become default
The EU have said they would suspend A50 for a referendum or GE but not the deal
It takes more than one vote for anything to go through. It needs to get through the Commons and the Lords and through to Third Reading and Royal Assent.
What the EU have said before a change of PM is neither here nor there if we actually have one (though its funny how until recently you were ignoring what they had said pending negotiations and the negotiations have resulted in exactly what they said). If we have a change of government the EU would need to react accordingly.
You are wrong. If the amendment passes, and then is deal is voted for including the amendment that is then the meaningful vote and a referendum becomes law.
As far as process is concerned it can be rushed quickly through the HOC and no problem with the HOL of course.
You do need to hope the amendment falls or referendum it is
How can the amendment become law without third reading etc?
If an amendment passes, then a vote of no confidence happens before third reading then it won't be law yet.
If we’d threatened to walk away they may have. If you must do a deal you’ve little leverage
Indeed. That's why they've got the leverage. We can't credibly threaten to walk away.
Yes. I would have played the whole thing differently
But we’ve ended up in an ok place
And for the backstop, if they try to enforce, I’d repudiate it.
They won't try to enforce it, Charles, they don't want it. A dispute may be brought, if we are operating under WTO terms, by a fellow WTO member under MFN which could either force us to put up a border or force us to drop any tariffs for goods from any other country that aren't applied to RoI goods.
We’ve discussed this before.
Tariffs will be applied, just the monitoring will be done in a different way. But it will be done in the same way as all U.K. land borders*
(* except Gibraltar, but don’t worry Spain that’s not really part of the UK)
We have discussed this before and yet people refuse to face reality.
Your solution would be the mystical techno-phyto-mythological doesn't yet exist plan I imagine.
Trusted traveller does
You don't need to check the ones you trust, it is the ones you don't trust that need checking.
If you rely on the magic technology who checks the rest who just wander across.
The vast bulk of trade is by a few small groups.
The vast amount of a fall off a cliff won't hurt you.
Don’t be facile
If you have a small group of major companies doing the trade they have a lot to lose from lying
Oh for goodness sake why do you think we have customs checks? It doesn't matter what percentage or how big the honest ones are. It is the dishonest ones you are catching (or the mistakes). An electronic border catches precisely none!
If we’d threatened to walk away they may have. If you must do a deal you’ve little leverage
Indeed. That's why they've got the leverage. We can't credibly threaten to walk away.
Yes. I would have played the whole thing differently
But we’ve ended up in an ok place
And for the backstop, if they try to enforce, I’d repudiate it.
They won't try to enforce it, Charles, they don't want it. A dispute may be brought, if we are operating under WTO terms, by a fellow WTO member under MFN which could either force us to put up a border or force us to drop any tariffs for goods from any other country that aren't applied to RoI goods.
We’ve discussed this before.
Tariffs will be applied, just the monitoring will be done in a different way. But it will be done in the same way as all U.K. land borders*
(* except Gibraltar, but don’t worry Spain that’s not really part of the UK)
We have discussed this before and yet people refuse to face reality.
Your solution would be the mystical techno-phyto-mythological doesn't yet exist plan I imagine.
Trusted traveller does
You don't need to check the ones you trust, it is the ones you don't trust that need checking.
If you rely on the magic technology who checks the rest who just wander across.
The vast bulk of trade is by a few small groups.
The vast amount of a fall off a cliff won't hurt you.
Don’t be facile
If you have a small group of major companies doing the trade they have a lot to lose from lying
Can you explain why in future I should fill in a carnet when crossing an electronic border (other than being honest)?
If we’d threatened to walk away they may have. If you must do a deal you’ve little leverage
Indeed. That's why they've got the leverage. We can't credibly threaten to walk away.
Yes. I would have played the whole thing differently
But we’ve ended up in an ok place
And for the backstop, if they try to enforce, I’d repudiate it.
They won't try to enforce it, Charles, they don't want it. A dispute may be brought, if we are operating under WTO terms, by a fellow WTO member under MFN which could either force us to put up a border or force us to drop any tariffs for goods from any other country that aren't applied to RoI goods.
We’ve discussed this before.
Tariffs will be applied, just the monitoring will be done in a different way. But it will be done in the same way as all U.K. land borders*
(* except Gibraltar, but don’t worry Spain that’s not really part of the UK)
We have discussed this before and yet people refuse to face reality.
Your solution would be the mystical techno-phyto-mythological doesn't yet exist plan I imagine.
Trusted traveller does
You don't need to check the ones you trust, it is the ones you don't trust that need checking.
If you rely on the magic technology who checks the rest who just wander across.
The vast bulk of trade is by a few small groups.
The vast amount of a fall off a cliff won't hurt you.
Don’t be facile
If you have a small group of major companies doing the trade they have a lot to lose from lying
Can you explain why in future I should fill in a carnet when crossing an electronic border (other than being honest)?
Comments
I can see on the Parliament website a whole bunch of amendment votes, but it's as clear as mud what they relate to without ploughing through the Finance Bill. I can't find a story about this that explains it. Is there one anywhere?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-parliaments-46261924/page/4
On one amendment about child poverty - tabled by the Labour leader himself ...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6409955/Embarrassment-Corbyn-skips-Commons-vote-Budget-amendment.html
"The best way to give legal weight for a referendum on the final deal would be through amending the approval motion to make this conditional on a referendum. If the motion is approved without amendment, there are no binding mechanisms to introduce a “people’s vote” at a later stage. It is highly risky to rely on collapsing the government or forcing a No Deal Brexit as preconditions for supporting a referendum. The reality of the Parliamentary arithmetic is that there can be no referendum unless Labour supports one. Most Labour members do, but unequivocal front bench support for the “informed consent” amendment will be needed for it to pass."
15:55 http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/11/20/if-the-erg-plotters-get-their-48-letters-today-and-tmay-loses-the-vote-shell-likely-still-be-there-at-the-end-of-the-year/
It's interesting for a number of reasons IMO:
- It will force Labour to make a choice on this, and it's likely to be a choice where the leadership is at odds with members and MPs
- It will focus the attention of MPs on the two sides of the debate on what happens if the deal is voted down. At the moment they can just say they don't like the deal, but at some point they are going to have to agree what they'd like instead, or put up with it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/27/jeremy-corbyn-second-brexit-vote-commons-amendment
https://uk.ambafrance.org/Europe-must-become-a-peaceful-empire-says-Minister
Full text here as opposed to edit highlights from Guido or similar
I actually wonder if we might end up with the following:
1) Meaningful vote comes to Commons early Dec, voted down heavily.
2) Further negotiations over Christmas, some small tweaks made (possibly around backstop reviews?) and enough to put back to Commons a second time. Voted down narrowly with some Labour rebels coming out of the woodwork but Tory Brexiteers still against.
3) markets go haywire, Labour put confidence vote/general election vote down in Commons - defeated. Labour then back 2nd referendum (as GE proven as not possible) and Theresa May allows Labour to bring meaningful vote subject to referendum forward, facing a Tory confidence vote and voting against, but it squeaks through.
Verified account
@pmdfoster
Follow Follow @pmdfoster
More
Wow. Amazing....suddenly, after all these months of negotiating it seems like Number 10 has put it's hand down the back of the sofa and found a 'fix' for the border issue that has bedevilled these talks for all this time.
Suddenly? I thought that was always the position.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/nov/15/can-you-get-mays-brexit-deal-through-parliament?CMP=share_btn_tw
"RECALLING the Union's and the United Kingdom's intention to replace the backstop solution on Northern Ireland by a subsequent agreement that establishes alternative arrangements for ensuring the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland on a permanent footing;"
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/draft_withdrawal_agreement_0.pdf
In other words, we can replace the backstop with another backstop during the transition.
If they do vote against it will fall leaving deal or no deal
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/border-a-ficticious-problem-dutch-expert-tells-mps-1-8706484
That could be the future partnership, or it could be an alternative backstop.
If we'd sacrificed a month or two saying "we have nothing more to say, the UK can not be divided any more than the EU can" then we could have potentially moved on.
Instead we folded.
The EU have said they would suspend A50 for a referendum or GE but not the deal
This really shouldn't be hard to understand - 'no deal' is NOT the same as 'an orderly agreed transition deal to get us to WTO terms'. Yet, for some Leavers, it seems to be completely impossible to understand the distinction.
What the EU have said before a change of PM is neither here nor there if we actually have one (though its funny how until recently you were ignoring what they had said pending negotiations and the negotiations have resulted in exactly what they said). If we have a change of government the EU would need to react accordingly.
If 'ratify subject to referendum approval' was passed in the Commons, I'd expect a Tory vote of no confidence, either way the PM would have to bring forward legislation for the referendum and apply for A50 delay, unless it's a new Tory leader elected on a 'sod the Commons vote' platform and then it's popcorn time.
Very few people have said they want 'no deal', just an 'an orderly agreed transition deal to get us to WTO terms' [which is less extreme than even ERG are asking for] is portrayed by others as 'no deal'.
ERG are proposing 'an orderly agreed transition deal to get to Canada terms (but OK with transitioning to WTO if a Canada style deal can't be agreed)'
Barnier's original proposals didn't have the backstop in them and Varadkar's predecessor was working on a technological solution. This whole thing is an imaginary mess which we should never have allowed ourselves to agree to.
Here is a real time example that I have mentioned before. I used to have to fill in carnets when taking demo equipment to France. I now don't. In future I will. Presumably instead of using paper and pen I will now do it online.
But it doesn't make one iota of difference if I do it on paper or online unless there is a man at customs to spot check me or do you propose this high tech solution involves robots that ask to look in my boot and check the contents comply with their computer screen. The whole thing is pointless. I might as well just drive through without checks at the border.
And it is worth pointing out that although I have only done this 3 times prior to it being unnecessary I was checked on all occasions.
I agree that the whole thing is largely an imaginary mess, and would go away if we had the trade deal we want, but it's not me you need to convince, it's Barnier, Varadkar and the rest of the EU.
As far as process is concerned it can be rushed quickly through the HOC and no problem with the HOL of course.
You do need to hope the amendment falls or referendum it is
As far as the EU is concerned they have only said in the last few days they will give time for a referendum
If an amendment passes, then a vote of no confidence happens before third reading then it won't be law yet.
If you have a small group of major companies doing the trade they have a lot to lose from lying
DUP voting with "United Ireland, friend of the IRA Sinn Fein Corbyn?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/20/clement-attlee-child-refugee-paul-willer-fled-nazis-1939
NEW THREAD