So, if and when the government loses the meaningful vote, what is there left for Theresa May to do?
Announce the plan is to go for Norway (or whatever) but that she is not the best person to attempt it, so she will ask the party to choose a temporary leader to negotiate that position and when that person is selected she will stand down as PM.
But “Norway” or whatever, would be a post transition period situation. It isn’t even ruled out by May’s deal, since it would be a solution for the future trading arrangements which aren’t part of the deal.
Oh, and it probably wouldn’t meet the EU’s redlines on the Irish border...
That's why I said 'or whatever' since it's mostly just about which unicorn solution she might announce.
Well, Norway+ would require re-opening the withdrawal agreement to make the CU permanent and remove the most troubling aspects of the backstop. Which, we have been told is Completely Impossible(tm).
Assuming that May's plan is defeated, this means: (1) May does have to bring proposals as otherwise we have a superhard Brexit (planes grounded and everything) (2) Parliament has to decide what it actually wants. Options on the table seem to be New Referendum or Go Away and Renegotiate, the latter possibly with some steer like "accepting a customs union" or "analogous with Norway". Some hard thinking all round needed. (3) The ERG and May loyalists might vote against all proposals, in the hope that May can say that Parliament has failed to agree any alternative so May's plan needs to be reconsidered. Or the ERG could roll the dice on a Remain vs hard Brexit referendum.
What the hell does “accepting a customs union” and “analogous with Norway mean”? (assuming you meant them to be contradictory? ) Permanent payments to the EU? No voting rights in perpetuity? Complete freedom of movement?
I’m not sure enough MPs even understand the various issues to come to a consensus view on them.
Quite. 'Norway' is a considerably harder (Save for freedom of movement) Brexit than that proposed by May.
You surely mean softer ie least unlike what we have at the moment....
Senators have emerged from a classified briefing by CIA director, Gina Haspel, saying they are certain that the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, ordered the murder of Washington Post columnist, Jamal Khashoggi.
“If the crown prince went in front of a jury he would be convicted in thirty minutes,” Bob Corker, the Republican chair of the Senate foreign relations committee told journalists immediately after the Haspel meeting.
A handful of leading senators from both parties attended the secure briefing from Haspel, who flew to Turkey to hear tapes of the 2 October killing from Turkish intelligence intercepts.
The senators were not allow to disclose details of what they were told, but their reaction reinforced reports that the CIA had accumulated substantial evidence that the crown prince was behind the murder.
The Trump administration has said that there is no “direct evidence” of the prince’s culpability, with the defence secretary James Mattis, insisting there was no “smoking gun”.
After Tuesday’s Haspel briefing, Republican senator Lindsey Graham said: “There’s not a smoking gun, there’s a smoking saw
So, if and when the government loses the meaningful vote, what is there left for Theresa May to do?
Announce the plan is to go for Norway (or whatever) but that she is not the best person to attempt it, so she will ask the party to choose a temporary leader to negotiate that position and when that person is selected she will stand down as PM.
But “Norway” or whatever, would be a post transition period situation. It isn’t even ruled out by May’s deal, since it would be a solution for the future trading arrangements which aren’t part of the deal.
Oh, and it probably wouldn’t meet the EU’s redlines on the Irish border...
That's why I said 'or whatever' since it's mostly just about which unicorn solution she might announce.
Well, Norway+ would require re-opening the withdrawal agreement to make the CU permanent and remove the most troubling aspects of the backstop. Which, we have been told is Completely Impossible(tm).
Until next week when it is not.
What are “the most troubling aspects of the backstop” other than the argument that it might allow the EU to prevent us leaving the customs union?
So, if and when the government loses the meaningful vote, what is there left for Theresa May to do?
Announce the plan is to go for Norway (or whatever) but that she is not the best person to attempt it, so she will ask the party to choose a temporary leader to negotiate that position and when that person is selected she will stand down as PM.
But “Norway” or whatever, would be a post transition period situation. It isn’t even ruled out by May’s deal, since it would be a solution for the future trading arrangements which aren’t part of the deal.
Oh, and it probably wouldn’t meet the EU’s redlines on the Irish border...
That's why I said 'or whatever' since it's mostly just about which unicorn solution she might announce.
Well, Norway+ would require re-opening the withdrawal agreement to make the CU permanent and remove the most troubling aspects of the backstop. Which, we have been told is Completely Impossible(tm).
Until next week when it is not.
Norway+ Customs Union is now the most likely Brexit outcome if May's Deal is rejected and Parliament takes over.
Though as it is EU in all but name bar leaving the CFP with full free movement and the UK unable to do free trade deals most Leave voters will be furious and UKIP or a new Farage/Bannon party will probably be on 20 to 25%+ of the vote within 6 months
So the Adv Gen says we can revoke Art 50 unilateraly ( which I find astonishing) The government is in contempt and has to publish the legal advice which will probably show that May has been lying about the consequences of her deal. The Grieve amendment has been passed which is a fairly heavy round into the head of the dodo ( already dead) of May’s deal.
I think strategic planning for this government is getting to Friday. Probably over ambitious too.
May's deal is stone dead even though we're less than an hour into a 5 day "debate" No Deal Brexit is stone dead following the Grieve amendment The government folding its arms and saying "shan't" to MPs is stone dead having been found in contempt Government authority itself is dead.
Which is great. Take Back Control restores (apparently) sovereignty to Parliament. Who have binned off the deal, not doing a deal, and the notion of the government saying screw you then.
Watch and learn boys and girls. When you elect your MP, you elect someone with actual power.
I don't entirely disagree, but I cannot say I'm much of fan of using the 'take back control' 'restore sovereignty' argument when the government is defeated in these matters, since parliament will have been exercising control if the vote had gone the other way as well.
I enjoy quoting things back to put them in the correct context. To the "ugh why haven't we just said sod off to Europe and left" brigade, what is going on now is betrayal. Imagine if Dacre was still running the Daily Blackshirt the kind of headlines would be on page 1.
If take back control meant anything it meant control by Parliament. That Parliament is smashing the deal to bits and governmental authority with it is just added value.
On an unrelated point, I am increasingly reminded of his late father every time Hillary Benn speaks.
Norway+ Customs Union is now the most likely Brexit outcome if May's Deal is rejected and Parliament takes over.
Though as it is EU in all but name with full free movement and the UK unable to do free trade deals most Leave voters will be furious and UKIP will probably be on 20 to 25%+ of the vote within 6 months
May's deal is stone dead even though we're less than an hour into a 5 day "debate" No Deal Brexit is stone dead following the Grieve amendment The government folding its arms and saying "shan't" to MPs is stone dead having been found in contempt Government authority itself is dead.
Which is great. Take Back Control restores (apparently) sovereignty to Parliament. Who have binned off the deal, not doing a deal, and the notion of the government saying screw you then.
Watch and learn boys and girls. When you elect your MP, you elect someone with actual power.
I don't entirely disagree, but I cannot say I'm much of fan of using the 'take back control' 'restore sovereignty' argument when the government is defeated in these matters, since parliament will have been exercising control if the vote had gone the other way as well.
I enjoy quoting things back to put them in the correct context. To the "ugh why haven't we just said sod off to Europe and left" brigade, what is going on now is betrayal. Imagine if Dacre was still running the Daily Blackshirt the kind of headlines would be on page 1.
If take back control meant anything it meant control by Parliament. That Parliament is smashing the deal to bits and governmental authority with it is just added value.
On an unrelated point, I am increasingly reminded of his late father every time Hillary Benn speaks.
You mean Tony Benn who fought against UK membership of the EEC/EU consistently for his whole political career? If only Hillary was 1000th of the man Tony was.
May's deal is stone dead even though we're less than an hour into a 5 day "debate" No Deal Brexit is stone dead following the Grieve amendment The government folding its arms and saying "shan't" to MPs is stone dead having been found in contempt Government authority itself is dead.
Which is great. Take Back Control restores (apparently) sovereignty to Parliament. Who have binned off the deal, not doing a deal, and the notion of the government saying screw you then.
Watch and learn boys and girls. When you elect your MP, you elect someone with actual power.
I don't entirely disagree, but I cannot say I'm much of fan of using the 'take back control' 'restore sovereignty' argument when the government is defeated in these matters, since parliament will have been exercising control if the vote had gone the other way as well.
I enjoy quoting things back to put them in the correct context. To the "ugh why haven't we just said sod off to Europe and left" brigade, what is going on now is betrayal. Imagine if Dacre was still running the Daily Blackshirt the kind of headlines would be on page 1.
If take back control meant anything it meant control by Parliament. That Parliament is smashing the deal to bits and governmental authority with it is just added value.
On an unrelated point, I am increasingly reminded of his late father every time Hillary Benn speaks.
Not as clever or as articulate as his father but somewhat closer to the real world.
There's too much rancour and division over EU affairs that the gap appears unbridgeable.
Labour should split too, Blairite Remainers like Umunna and Bradshaw have virtually nothing in common with Corbyn and McDonnell
That won’t happen. They would lose union funding and they like their HoC perks and benefits more than they despise Corbyn. The only way they are going is iftheir associationsditch them
So, if and when the government loses the meaningful vote, what is there left for Theresa May to do?
Announce the plan is to go for Norway (or whatever) but that she is not the best person to attempt it, so she will ask the party to choose a temporary leader to negotiate that position and when that person is selected she will stand down as PM.
But “Norway” or whatever, would be a post transition period situation. It isn’t even ruled out by May’s deal, since it would be a solution for the future trading arrangements which aren’t part of the deal.
Oh, and it probably wouldn’t meet the EU’s redlines on the Irish border...
That's why I said 'or whatever' since it's mostly just about which unicorn solution she might announce.
Well, Norway+ would require re-opening the withdrawal agreement to make the CU permanent and remove the most troubling aspects of the backstop. Which, we have been told is Completely Impossible(tm).
Until next week when it is not.
Norway+ Customs Union is now the most likely Brexit outcome if May's Deal is rejected and Parliament takes over.
Though as it is EU in all but name bar leaving the CFP with full free movement and the UK unable to do free trade deals most Leave voters will be furious and UKIP or a new Farage/Bannon party will probably be on 20 to 25%+ of the vote within 6 months
Fab. Known in the business as snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.
So, if and when the government loses the meaningful vote, what is there left for Theresa May to do?
Announce the plan is to go for Norway (or whatever) but that she is not the best person to attempt it, so she will ask the party to choose a temporary leader to negotiate that position and when that person is selected she will stand down as PM.
But “Norway” or whatever, would be a post transition period situation. It isn’t even ruled out by May’s deal, since it would be a solution for the future trading arrangements which aren’t part of the deal.
Oh, and it probably wouldn’t meet the EU’s redlines on the Irish border...
Barnier will require Norway plus Customs Union as the Northern Ireland backstop
So, if and when the government loses the meaningful vote, what is there left for Theresa May to do?
Announce the plan is to go for Norway (or whatever) but that she is not the best person to attempt it, so she will ask the party to choose a temporary leader to negotiate that position and when that person is selected she will stand down as PM.
But “Norway” or whatever, would be a post transition period situation. It isn’t even ruled out by May’s deal, since it would be a solution for the future trading arrangements which aren’t part of the deal.
Oh, and it probably wouldn’t meet the EU’s redlines on the Irish border...
That's why I said 'or whatever' since it's mostly just about which unicorn solution she might announce.
Well, Norway+ would require re-opening the withdrawal agreement to make the CU permanent and remove the most troubling aspects of the backstop. Which, we have been told is Completely Impossible(tm).
Until next week when it is not.
Norway+ Customs Union is now the most likely Brexit outcome if May's Deal is rejected and Parliament takes over.
Though as it is EU in all but name with full free movement and the UK unable to do free trade deals most Leave voters will be furious and UKIP or a new Farage/Bannon party will probably be on 20 to 25%+ of the vote within 6 months
Does that not kind of ignore the fact that there would probably have to be a completely new EEA treaty agreed by both the EU and EFTA with unanimity from every country. That should take a couple of years at least. And who is going to support it when it is effectively the backstop in perpetuity?
There's too much rancour and division over EU affairs that the gap appears unbridgeable.
Just need to hope that Labour split at the same time!
Mind you, the good news is that the previous UKIP vote is going to be split between UKIP-BNP and UKIP-FarageEgo. And maybe a few more splinters as well.
You mean Tony Benn who fought against UK membership of the EEC/EU consistently for his whole political career? If only Hillary was 1000th of the man Tony was.
Hillary is his own man with his own opinions. His father defended him fiercely when it was suggested that Hillary shamed Tony. Remember that the 2nd Viscount Stansgate went on his own significant journey with an evolution of views.
Norway+ Customs Union is now the most likely Brexit outcome if May's Deal is rejected and Parliament takes over.
Though as it is EU in all but name with full free movement and the UK unable to do free trade deals most Leave voters will be furious and UKIP will probably be on 20 to 25%+ of the vote within 6 months
Sounds like a nearly perfect outcome.
Drinks all round!
Well Farage will certainly be offering them with a free pint for every punter shouting 'betrayal!' when he launches his new party
I'm looking forward to the analysis of today in terms of Parliamentary sovereignty where people earnestly explain that the executive is sovereign on governmental matters.
Even though this all makes Brexit less likely I am pleased with these two results. Any argument about negotiation by Parliament being a bad idea (which might at least have had some measure of validity) was ended once the Deal was agreed. From now on it should be Parliament not the Executive that have the final say on these things.
That said they should also be prepared for the consequences if they betray the electorate.
As an aside I still don't see how they get around the deadline issue. If the Government simply chooses not to bring any further legislation forward, how in practice do Parliament force No Deal off the table?
Yes it all rather gives the lie to the piles of steaming garbage that the likes of @Mortimer and @Charles have been serving up on the matter.
May's deal is stone dead even though we're less than an hour into a 5 day "debate" No Deal Brexit is stone dead following the Grieve amendment The government folding its arms and saying "shan't" to MPs is stone dead having been found in contempt Government authority itself is dead.
Which is great. Take Back Control restores (apparently) sovereignty to Parliament. Who have binned off the deal, not doing a deal, and the notion of the government saying screw you then.
Watch and learn boys and girls. When you elect your MP, you elect someone with actual power.
I don't entirely disagree, but I cannot say I'm much of fan of using the 'take back control' 'restore sovereignty' argument when the government is defeated in these matters, since parliament will have been exercising control if the vote had gone the other way as well.
I enjoy quoting things back to put them in the correct context. To the "ugh why haven't we just said sod off to Europe and left" brigade, what is going on now is betrayal. Imagine if Dacre was still running the Daily Blackshirt the kind of headlines would be on page 1.
If take back control meant anything it meant control by Parliament. That Parliament is smashing the deal to bits and governmental authority with it is just added value.
On an unrelated point, I am increasingly reminded of his late father every time Hillary Benn speaks.
You mean Tony Benn who fought against UK membership of the EEC/EU consistently for his whole political career? If only Hillary was 1000th of the man Tony was.
You mean Tony Benn who fought against UK membership of the EEC/EU consistently for his whole political career? If only Hillary was 1000th of the man Tony was.
Hillary is his own man with his own opinions. His father defended him fiercely when it was suggested that Hillary shamed Tony. Remember that the 2nd Viscount Stansgate went on his own significant journey with an evolution of views.
Tony was articulate, hugely intelligent and principled. None of those qualities were passed on to his son.
There's too much rancour and division over EU affairs that the gap appears unbridgeable.
Labour should split too, Blairite Remainers like Umunna and Bradshaw have virtually nothing in common with Corbyn and McDonnell
That won’t happen. They would lose union funding and they like their HoC perks and benefits more than they despise Corbyn. The only way they are going is iftheir associationsditch them
So, if and when the government loses the meaningful vote, what is there left for Theresa May to do?
Announce the plan is to go for Norway (or whatever) but that she is not the best person to attempt it, so she will ask the party to choose a temporary leader to negotiate that position and when that person is selected she will stand down as PM.
But “Norway” or whatever, would be a post transition period situation. It isn’t even ruled out by May’s deal, since it would be a solution for the future trading arrangements which aren’t part of the deal.
Oh, and it probably wouldn’t meet the EU’s redlines on the Irish border...
That's why I said 'or whatever' since it's mostly just about which unicorn solution she might announce.
Well, Norway+ would require re-opening the withdrawal agreement to make the CU permanent and remove the most troubling aspects of the backstop. Which, we have been told is Completely Impossible(tm).
Until next week when it is not.
Norway+ Customs Union is now the most likely Brexit outcome if May's Deal is rejected and Parliament takes over.
Though as it is EU in all but name bar leaving the CFP with full free movement and the UK unable to do free trade deals most Leave voters will be furious and UKIP or a new Farage/Bannon party will probably be on 20 to 25%+ of the vote within 6 months
Fab. Known in the business as snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.
It would be a BINO Brexit that pleases Remainers more than Leavers ironically
I'm looking forward to the analysis of today in terms of Parliamentary sovereignty where people earnestly explain that the executive is sovereign on governmental matters.
Even though this all makes Brexit less likely I am pleased with these two results. Any argument about negotiation by Parliament being a bad idea (which might at least have had some measure of validity) was ended once the Deal was agreed. From now on it should be Parliament not the Executive that have the final say on these things.
That said they should also be prepared for the consequences if they betray the electorate.
As an aside I still don't see how they get around the deadline issue. If the Government simply chooses not to bring any further legislation forward, how in practice do Parliament force No Deal off the table?
Yes it all rather gives the lie to the piles of steaming garbage that the likes of @Mortimer and @Charles have been serving up on the matter.
I’m looking forward to your explanation of how parliament can negotiate a deal with a third party.
You mean Tony Benn who fought against UK membership of the EEC/EU consistently for his whole political career? If only Hillary was 1000th of the man Tony was.
Hillary is his own man with his own opinions. His father defended him fiercely when it was suggested that Hillary shamed Tony. Remember that the 2nd Viscount Stansgate went on his own significant journey with an evolution of views.
Tony was articulate, hugely intelligent and principled. None of those qualities were passed on to his son.
Yet Tony Benn would vehemently disagree with you if you ever said that to him.
Norway+ Customs Union is now the most likely Brexit outcome if May's Deal is rejected and Parliament takes over.
Though as it is EU in all but name with full free movement and the UK unable to do free trade deals most Leave voters will be furious and UKIP will probably be on 20 to 25%+ of the vote within 6 months
Sounds like a nearly perfect outcome.
Drinks all round!
Well Farage will certainly be offering them with a free pint for every punter shouting 'betrayal!' when he launches his new party
Narcissist flouncing out of UKIP to form a new party?
Veritas is a good name for a political party. And its available...
May's deal is stone dead even though we're less than an hour into a 5 day "debate" No Deal Brexit is stone dead following the Grieve amendment The government folding its arms and saying "shan't" to MPs is stone dead having been found in contempt Government authority itself is dead.
Which is great. Take Back Control restores (apparently) sovereignty to Parliament. Who have binned off the deal, not doing a deal, and the notion of the government saying screw you then.
Watch and learn boys and girls. When you elect your MP, you elect someone with actual power.
I don't entirely disagree, but I cannot say I'm much of fan of using the 'take back control' 'restore sovereignty' argument when the government is defeated in these matters, since parliament will have been exercising control if the vote had gone the other way as well.
I enjoy quoting things back to put them in the correct context. To the "ugh why haven't we just said sod off to Europe and left" brigade, what is going on now is betrayal. Imagine if Dacre was still running the Daily Blackshirt the kind of headlines would be on page 1.
If take back control meant anything it meant control by Parliament. That Parliament is smashing the deal to bits and governmental authority with it is just added value.
On an unrelated point, I am increasingly reminded of his late father every time Hillary Benn speaks.
You mean Tony Benn who fought against UK membership of the EEC/EU consistently for his whole political career? If only Hillary was 1000th of the man Tony was.
Ridiculous even by your recent standards
Go back to defending misogynists Roger. Its about all you are good for.
Norway+ just seems like a dream outcome. Decouples us from ever closer union, the Euro, the CAP and CFP whilst leaving us in the single market. Resolves the NI border issue. Puts a stop to Tories endless nonsensical love affair with chlorinated American chickens.
It crushes our ERG enemies, sees them driven before us, and to hear the lamentation of their women. Sends the gammons incandescent with rage, splitting off the reactionary half of the Tory vote to vote for Tommy Robinson's UKIP, leaving the Tories a ranting, gammon-Mogg filled rump trapped in opposition forever.
I'm looking forward to the analysis of today in terms of Parliamentary sovereignty where people earnestly explain that the executive is sovereign on governmental matters.
Even though this all makes Brexit less likely I am pleased with these two results. Any argument about negotiation by Parliament being a bad idea (which might at least have had some measure of validity) was ended once the Deal was agreed. From now on it should be Parliament not the Executive that have the final say on these things.
That said they should also be prepared for the consequences if they betray the electorate.
As an aside I still don't see how they get around the deadline issue. If the Government simply chooses not to bring any further legislation forward, how in practice do Parliament force No Deal off the table?
Yes it all rather gives the lie to the piles of steaming garbage that the likes of @Mortimer and @Charles have been serving up on the matter.
I’m looking forward to your explanation of how parliament can negotiate a deal with a third party.
It creates a committee of safety to negotiate with a third party.
So, if and when the government loses the meaningful vote, what is there left for Theresa May to do?
Announce the plan is to go for Norway (or whatever) but that she is not the best person to attempt it, so she will ask the party to choose a temporary leader to negotiate that position and when that person is selected she will stand down as PM.
But “Norway” or whatever, would be a post transition period situation. It isn’t even ruled out by May’s deal, since it would be a solution for the future trading arrangements which aren’t part of the deal.
Oh, and it probably wouldn’t meet the EU’s redlines on the Irish border...
That's why I said 'or whatever' since it's mostly just about which unicorn solution she might announce.
Well, Norway+ would require re-opening the withdrawal agreement to make the CU permanent and remove the most troubling aspects of the backstop. Which, we have been told is Completely Impossible(tm).
Until next week when it is not.
Norway+ Customs Union is now the most likely Brexit outcome if May's Deal is rejected and Parliament takes over.
Though as it is EU in all but name with full free movement and the UK unable to do free trade deals most Leave voters will be furious and UKIP or a new Farage/Bannon party will probably be on 20 to 25%+ of the vote within 6 months
Does that not kind of ignore the fact that there would probably have to be a completely new EEA treaty agreed by both the EU and EFTA with unanimity from every country. That should take a couple of years at least. And who is going to support it when it is effectively the backstop in perpetuity?
Ultimately yes but that could be worked out in the future relationship talks, the UK would be committing to signing up to all single market and customs union rules. Bar the ERG Tories and Corbynistas and Field, Mann, Hoey and Stringer and the DUP I would expect most Labour and Tory MPs and all LD and SNP MPs and Lucas and Hermon to back SM and CU over the risk of No Deal if May's Deal is rejected
Well, it's a televised interview, so the source isn't really relevant. Dodds is hinting that the DUP might prefer Corbyn to May, since he's solid on Good Friday and not proposing any different in Northern Ireland (because Labour doesn't need the backstop as they favour permanent customs union and trade alignment). I've no doubt that the DUP are taking that position to strengthen their negotiating hand, but it's interesting - I said last month thsat it's not clear why they'd refuse to accept Corbyn because he's friendly to Irish unity, so long as he doesn't propose to do anything about it, when they actually formed a government with Sinn Fein.
You mean Tony Benn who fought against UK membership of the EEC/EU consistently for his whole political career? If only Hillary was 1000th of the man Tony was.
Hillary is his own man with his own opinions. His father defended him fiercely when it was suggested that Hillary shamed Tony. Remember that the 2nd Viscount Stansgate went on his own significant journey with an evolution of views.
Tony was articulate, hugely intelligent and principled. None of those qualities were passed on to his son.
Yet Tony Benn would vehemently disagree with you if you ever said that to him.
As I pointed out above. I've met both Benns. Tony was a grand old man and an amazing orator. Hillary was funny and personable and wonderful with my small children.
Norway+ just seems like a dream outcome. Decouples us from ever closer union, the Euro, the CAP and CFP whilst leaving us in the single market. Resolves the NI border issue. Puts a stop to Tories endless nonsensical love affair with chlorinated American chickens.
It crushes our ERG your enemies, sees them driven before us, and to hear the lamentation of their women. Sends the gammons incandescent with rage, splitting off the reactionary half of Tory vote to vote for Tommy Robinson's UKIP, leaving the Tories a ranting, gammon-Mogg filled rump trapped in opposition forever.
I see zero downsides.
I largely agree.
But somebody is going to have to step up and be honest with the British people and tell them that getting the above requires allowing freedom of movement, and that on balance that is a decent deal to accept.
I'm looking forward to the analysis of today in terms of Parliamentary sovereignty where people earnestly explain that the executive is sovereign on governmental matters.
Even though this all makes Brexit less likely I am pleased with these two results. Any argument about negotiation by Parliament being a bad idea (which might at least have had some measure of validity) was ended once the Deal was agreed. From now on it should be Parliament not the Executive that have the final say on these things.
That said they should also be prepared for the consequences if they betray the electorate.
As an aside I still don't see how they get around the deadline issue. If the Government simply chooses not to bring any further legislation forward, how in practice do Parliament force No Deal off the table?
Yes it all rather gives the lie to the piles of steaming garbage that the likes of @Mortimer and @Charles have been serving up on the matter.
I’m looking forward to your explanation of how parliament can negotiate a deal with a third party.
It creates a committee of safety to negotiate with a third party.
That wouldn’t be anything like the one that Robespiere set up would it?
Norway+ just seems like a dream outcome. Decouples us from ever closer union, the Euro, the CAP and CFP whilst leaving us in the single market. Resolves the NI border issue. Puts a stop to Tories endless nonsensical love affair with chlorinated American chickens.
It crushes our ERG enemies, sees them driven before us, and to hear the lamentation of their women. Sends the gammons incandescent with rage, splitting off the reactionary half of the Tory vote to vote for Tommy Robinson's UKIP, leaving the Tories a ranting, gammon-Mogg filled rump trapped in opposition forever.
I see zero downsides.
Plenty of Labour working class voters would also switch to UKIP2 if BINO as 2015 proved
I'm looking forward to the analysis of today in terms of Parliamentary sovereignty where people earnestly explain that the executive is sovereign on governmental matters.
Even though this all makes Brexit less likely I am pleased with these two results. Any argument about negotiation by Parliament being a bad idea (which might at least have had some measure of validity) was ended once the Deal was agreed. From now on it should be Parliament not the Executive that have the final say on these things.
That said they should also be prepared for the consequences if they betray the electorate.
As an aside I still don't see how they get around the deadline issue. If the Government simply chooses not to bring any further legislation forward, how in practice do Parliament force No Deal off the table?
Yes it all rather gives the lie to the piles of steaming garbage that the likes of @Mortimer and @Charles have been serving up on the matter.
I’m looking forward to your explanation of how parliament can negotiate a deal with a third party.
It creates a committee of safety to negotiate with a third party.
That wouldn’t be anything like the one that Robespiere set up would it?
I'm taking inspiration from the English Civil War.
So, if and when the government loses the meaningful vote, what is there left for Theresa May to do?
Announce the plan is to go for Norway (or whatever) but that she is not the best person to attempt it, so she will ask the party to choose a temporary leader to negotiate that position and when that person is selected she will stand down as PM.
But “Norway” or whatever, would be a post transition period situation. It isn’t even ruled out by May’s deal, since it would be a solution for the future trading arrangements which aren’t part of the deal.
Oh, and it probably wouldn’t meet the EU’s redlines on the Irish border...
That's why I said 'or whatever' since it's mostly just about which unicorn solution she might announce.
Well, Norway+ would require re-opening the withdrawal agreement to make the CU permanent and remove the most troubling aspects of the backstop. Which, we have been told is Completely Impossible(tm).
Until next week when it is not.
Norway+ Customs Union is now the most likely Brexit outcome if May's Deal is rejected and Parliament takes over.
Though as it is EU in all but name bar leaving the CFP with full free movement and the UK unable to do free trade deals most Leave voters will be furious and UKIP or a new Farage/Bannon party will probably be on 20 to 25%+ of the vote within 6 months
Fab. Known in the business as snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.
It would be a BINO Brexit that pleases Remainers more than Leavers ironically
Indeed. And by the far the best brand of Brexit for business, employees and the nation. Anyone involved in commerce other than flogging dusty old books will surely rejoice at this news.
I'm looking forward to the analysis of today in terms of Parliamentary sovereignty where people earnestly explain that the executive is sovereign on governmental matters.
Even though this all makes Brexit less likely I am pleased with these two results. Any argument about negotiation by Parliament being a bad idea (which might at least have had some measure of validity) was ended once the Deal was agreed. From now on it should be Parliament not the Executive that have the final say on these things.
That said they should also be prepared for the consequences if they betray the electorate.
As an aside I still don't see how they get around the deadline issue. If the Government simply chooses not to bring any further legislation forward, how in practice do Parliament force No Deal off the table?
Yes it all rather gives the lie to the piles of steaming garbage that the likes of @Mortimer and @Charles have been serving up on the matter.
I’m looking forward to your explanation of how parliament can negotiate a deal with a third party.
It creates a committee of safety to negotiate with a third party.
That wouldn’t be anything like the one that Robespiere set up would it?
More like the one that ran the Parliamentary side of the Civil War I should think.
We should probably be paying attention to Farage at this point too - resigning from UKIP simply has to be the prelude to something else:he's not the type to just go and grow tomatoes.
You mean Tony Benn who fought against UK membership of the EEC/EU consistently for his whole political career? If only Hillary was 1000th of the man Tony was.
Hillary is his own man with his own opinions. His father defended him fiercely when it was suggested that Hillary shamed Tony. Remember that the 2nd Viscount Stansgate went on his own significant journey with an evolution of views.
Tony was articulate, hugely intelligent and principled. None of those qualities were passed on to his son.
Yet Tony Benn would vehemently disagree with you if you ever said that to him.
Of course he would. It was his son. That doesn't mean he would be right.
Norway+ just seems like a dream outcome. Decouples us from ever closer union, the Euro, the CAP and CFP whilst leaving us in the single market. Resolves the NI border issue. Puts a stop to Tories endless nonsensical love affair with chlorinated American chickens.
It crushes our ERG your enemies, sees them driven before us, and to hear the lamentation of their women. Sends the gammons incandescent with rage, splitting off the reactionary half of Tory vote to vote for Tommy Robinson's UKIP, leaving the Tories a ranting, gammon-Mogg filled rump trapped in opposition forever.
I see zero downsides.
I largely agree.
But somebody is going to have to step up and be honest with the British people and tell them that getting the above requires allowing freedom of movement, and that on balance that is a decent deal to accept.
This Parliament won’t pass the deal, which only the executive can negotiate. A new one is required.
Indeed. The whole point about the legislature firmly taking control from a floundering and powerless executive is that no government can function as a government if it does not have the support of the House.
The scenario is there for all to see. Tory MPs voting down every measure proposed by the Tory government. Then voting confidence in the government, sustaining in office a government removed from power by their votes.
So, the government bound to avoid hard Brexit refusing to do so. An election - regardless of what the result may be - would be the ONLY solution. It is increasingly inevitable.
I'm looking forward to the analysis of today in terms of Parliamentary sovereignty where people earnestly explain that the executive is sovereign on governmental matters.
Even though this all makes Brexit less likely I am pleased with these two results. Any argument about negotiation by Parliament being a bad idea (which might at least have had some measure of validity) was ended once the Deal was agreed. From now on it should be Parliament not the Executive that have the final say on these things.
That said they should also be prepared for the consequences if they betray the electorate.
As an aside I still don't see how they get around the deadline issue. If the Government simply chooses not to bring any further legislation forward, how in practice do Parliament force No Deal off the table?
Yes it all rather gives the lie to the piles of steaming garbage that the likes of @Mortimer and @Charles have been serving up on the matter.
I’m looking forward to your explanation of how parliament can negotiate a deal with a third party.
It creates a committee of safety to negotiate with a third party.
That wouldn’t be anything like the one that Robespiere set up would it?
I'm taking inspiration from the English Civil War.
Give me a plain russet coated PBer who knows what he posts for and loves what he knows.
I'm looking forward to the analysis of today in terms of Parliamentary sovereignty where people earnestly explain that the executive is sovereign on governmental matters.
Even though this all makes Brexit less likely I am pleased with these two results. Any argument about negotiation by Parliament being a bad idea (which might at least have had some measure of validity) was ended once the Deal was agreed. From now on it should be Parliament not the Executive that have the final say on these things.
That said they should also be prepared for the consequences if they betray the electorate.
As an aside I still don't see how they get around the deadline issue. If the Government simply chooses not to bring any further legislation forward, how in practice do Parliament force No Deal off the table?
Yes it all rather gives the lie to the piles of steaming garbage that the likes of @Mortimer and @Charles have been serving up on the matter.
I’m looking forward to your explanation of how parliament can negotiate a deal with a third party.
It creates a committee of safety to negotiate with a third party.
That wouldn’t be anything like the one that Robespiere set up would it?
Now there was a man who knew how to achieve a majority.
Norway+ just seems like a dream outcome. Decouples us from ever closer union, the Euro, the CAP and CFP whilst leaving us in the single market. Resolves the NI border issue. Puts a stop to Tories endless nonsensical love affair with chlorinated American chickens.
It crushes our ERG your enemies, sees them driven before us, and to hear the lamentation of their women. Sends the gammons incandescent with rage, splitting off the reactionary half of Tory vote to vote for Tommy Robinson's UKIP, leaving the Tories a ranting, gammon-Mogg filled rump trapped in opposition forever.
I see zero downsides.
I largely agree.
But somebody is going to have to step up and be honest with the British people and tell them that getting the above requires allowing freedom of movement, and that on balance that is a decent deal to accept.
And ongoing large payments into the EU coffers...
And no “voice at the table”
I mean, let's be honest. Recent events have rather proven why our voice should not be at the table.
That said: that isn't how the EEA works, nor the Swiss bilateral organs.
We should probably be paying attention to Farage at this point too - resigning from UKIP simply has to be the prelude to something else:he's not the type to just go and grow tomatoes.
He's starting a new party, surely? "There's a huge space for a Brexit party in British politics, but it won't be filled by UKIP".
We should probably be paying attention to Farage at this point too - resigning from UKIP simply has to be the prelude to something else:he's not the type to just go and grow tomatoes.
He's starting a new party, surely? "There's a huge space for a Brexit party in British politics, but it won't be filled by UKIP".
This Parliament won’t pass the deal, which only the executive can negotiate. A new one is required.
Indeed. The whole point about the legislature firmly taking control from a floundering and powerless executive is that no government can function as a government if it does not have the support of the House.
The scenario is there for all to see. Tory MPs voting down every measure proposed by the Tory government. Then voting confidence in the government, sustaining in office a government removed from power by their votes.
So, the government bound to avoid hard Brexit refusing to do so. An election - regardless of what the result may be - would be the ONLY solution. It is increasingly inevitable.
Not just refusing, but unable to.
Legislation means we leave on 29th March. Something else needs to be passed to prevent that.
Of course the spanner in the works is that Tory MPs can block an election, too.
I'm looking forward to the analysis of today in terms of Parliamentary sovereignty where people earnestly explain that the executive is sovereign on governmental matters.
Even though this all makes Brexit less likely I am pleased with these two results. Any argument about negotiation by Parliament being a bad idea (which might at least have had some measure of validity) was ended once the Deal was agreed. From now on it should be Parliament not the Executive that have the final say on these things.
That said they should also be prepared for the consequences if they betray the electorate.
As an aside I still don't see how they get around the deadline issue. If the Government simply chooses not to bring any further legislation forward, how in practice do Parliament force No Deal off the table?
Yes it all rather gives the lie to the piles of steaming garbage that the likes of @Mortimer and @Charles have been serving up on the matter.
I’m looking forward to your explanation of how parliament can negotiate a deal with a third party.
It creates a committee of safety to negotiate with a third party.
That wouldn’t be anything like the one that Robespiere set up would it?
I'm taking inspiration from the English Civil War.
Give me a plain russet coated PBer who knows what he posts for and loves what he knows.
A great quote, suitable for the Irish question too.
We should probably be paying attention to Farage at this point too - resigning from UKIP simply has to be the prelude to something else:he's not the type to just go and grow tomatoes.
He's starting a new party, surely? "There's a huge space for a Brexit party in British politics, but it won't be filled by UKIP".
Norway+ just seems like a dream outcome. Decouples us from ever closer union, the Euro, the CAP and CFP whilst leaving us in the single market. Resolves the NI border issue. Puts a stop to Tories endless nonsensical love affair with chlorinated American chickens.
It crushes our ERG enemies, sees them driven before us, and to hear the lamentation of their women. Sends the gammons incandescent with rage, splitting off the reactionary half of the Tory vote to vote for Tommy Robinson's UKIP, leaving the Tories a ranting, gammon-Mogg filled rump trapped in opposition forever.
I see zero downsides.
The big problem is it gives us no say in decision making (especially when it comes to financial services) and will leave us vulnerable to hostile rule making by the rest of the EU. Camerons deal would have been a better outcome.
We should probably be paying attention to Farage at this point too - resigning from UKIP simply has to be the prelude to something else:he's not the type to just go and grow tomatoes.
A well-informed source has suggested to me that there may be a reverse takeover about to take place of the previously moribund SDP. Patrick O’Flynn may be the scout.
A lot of the comments on “overwhelming opposition to May’s deal”, Parliament will coalesce around an alternative, rather bypass the fact that a large chunk of Labour opposition is based on nothing more than the fact that they didn’t negotiate it.
We should probably be paying attention to Farage at this point too - resigning from UKIP simply has to be the prelude to something else:he's not the type to just go and grow tomatoes.
A well-informed source has suggested to me that there may be a reverse takeover about to take place of the previously moribund SDP. Patrick O’Flynn may be the scout.
This Parliament won’t pass the deal, which only the executive can negotiate. A new one is required.
Indeed. The whole point about the legislature firmly taking control from a floundering and powerless executive is that no government can function as a government if it does not have the support of the House.
The scenario is there for all to see. Tory MPs voting down every measure proposed by the Tory government. Then voting confidence in the government, sustaining in office a government removed from power by their votes.
So, the government bound to avoid hard Brexit refusing to do so. An election - regardless of what the result may be - would be the ONLY solution. It is increasingly inevitable.
Not just refusing, but unable to.
Legislation means we leave on 29th March. Something else needs to be passed to prevent that.
Of course the spanner in the works is that Tory MPs can block an election, too.
Surely, after todays ruling Parliament could vote to withdraw A50, while we put our thinking caps on.
So, if and when the government loses the meaningful vote, what is there left for Theresa May to do?
Announce the plan is to go for Norway (or whatever) but that she is not the best person to attempt it, so she will ask the party to choose a temporary leader to negotiate that position and when that person is selected she will stand down as PM.
But “Norway” or whatever, would be a post transition period situation. It isn’t even ruled out by May’s deal, since it would be a solution for the future trading arrangements which aren’t part of the deal.
Oh, and it probably wouldn’t meet the EU’s redlines on the Irish border...
That's why I said 'or whatever' since it's mostly just about which unicorn solution she might announce.
Well, Norway+ would require re-opening the withdrawal agreement to make the CU permanent and remove the most troubling aspects of the backstop. Which, we have been told is Completely Impossible(tm).
Until next week when it is not.
Norway+ Customs Union is now the most likely Brexit outcome if May's Deal is rejected and Parliament takes over.
Though as it is EU in all but name with full free movement and the UK unable to do free trade deals most Leave voters will be furious and UKIP or a new Farage/Bannon party will probably be on 20 to 25%+ of the vote within 6 months
Does that not kind of ignore the fact that there would probably have to be a completely new EEA treaty agreed by both the EU and EFTA with unanimity from every country. That should take a couple of years at least. And who is going to support it when it is effectively the backstop in perpetuity?
Ultimately yes but that could be worked out in the future relationship talks, the UK would be committing to signing up to all single market and customs union rules. Bar the ERG Tories and Corbynistas and Field, Mann, Hoey and Stringer and the DUP I would expect most Labour and Tory MPs and all LD and SNP MPs and Lucas and Hermon to back SM and CU over the risk of No Deal if May's Deal is rejected
So how do you get all that agreed in a couple of months? I am not entirely opposed to it although the customs union idea is deeply dumb and will be a millstone round our necks. But I just don't see how you get to that position from here.
Comments
Until next week when it is not.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/28/the-norway-option-what-is-it-and-what-does-it-mean-for-britain
Dominic Grieve and Jacob Rees-Mogg aren't in the same party in any way that matters at this point.
Senators have emerged from a classified briefing by CIA director, Gina Haspel, saying they are certain that the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, ordered the murder of Washington Post columnist, Jamal Khashoggi.
“If the crown prince went in front of a jury he would be convicted in thirty minutes,” Bob Corker, the Republican chair of the Senate foreign relations committee told journalists immediately after the Haspel meeting.
A handful of leading senators from both parties attended the secure briefing from Haspel, who flew to Turkey to hear tapes of the 2 October killing from Turkish intelligence intercepts.
The senators were not allow to disclose details of what they were told, but their reaction reinforced reports that the CIA had accumulated substantial evidence that the crown prince was behind the murder.
The Trump administration has said that there is no “direct evidence” of the prince’s culpability, with the defence secretary James Mattis, insisting there was no “smoking gun”.
After Tuesday’s Haspel briefing, Republican senator Lindsey Graham said: “There’s not a smoking gun, there’s a smoking saw
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/04/jamal-khashoggi-saudi-crown-prince-senators-cia-briefing?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
You're not calling her a liar are you, asks Bercow.
No, I'm just requesting that she starts telling us the truth says Cooper
Though as it is EU in all but name bar leaving the CFP with full free movement and the UK unable to do free trade deals most Leave voters will be furious and UKIP or a new Farage/Bannon party will probably be on 20 to 25%+ of the vote within 6 months
The government is in contempt and has to publish the legal advice which will probably show that May has been lying about the consequences of her deal.
The Grieve amendment has been passed which is a fairly heavy round into the head of the dodo ( already dead) of May’s deal.
I think strategic planning for this government is getting to Friday. Probably over ambitious too.
If take back control meant anything it meant control by Parliament. That Parliament is smashing the deal to bits and governmental authority with it is just added value.
On an unrelated point, I am increasingly reminded of his late father every time Hillary Benn speaks.
Drinks all round!
Mind you, the good news is that the previous UKIP vote is going to be split between UKIP-BNP and UKIP-FarageEgo. And maybe a few more splinters as well.
This Parliament won’t pass the deal, which only the executive can negotiate. A new one is required.
Veritas is a good name for a political party. And its available...
It crushes our ERG enemies, sees them driven before us, and to hear the lamentation of their women. Sends the gammons incandescent with rage, splitting off the reactionary half of the Tory vote to vote for Tommy Robinson's UKIP, leaving the Tories a ranting, gammon-Mogg filled rump trapped in opposition forever.
I see zero downsides.
But somebody is going to have to step up and be honest with the British people and tell them that getting the above requires allowing freedom of movement, and that on balance that is a decent deal to accept.
And no “voice at the table”
The scenario is there for all to see. Tory MPs voting down every measure proposed by the Tory government. Then voting confidence in the government, sustaining in office a government removed from power by their votes.
So, the government bound to avoid hard Brexit refusing to do so. An election - regardless of what the result may be - would be the ONLY solution. It is increasingly inevitable.
1) Extending Article 50
2) Revoking Article 50
3) Norway
That said: that isn't how the EEA works, nor the Swiss bilateral organs.
Everything old is new again.
Legislation means we leave on 29th March. Something else needs to be passed to prevent that.
Of course the spanner in the works is that Tory MPs can block an election, too.
Only the ERG claim to want it, and most of those will probably crumble when they have to actually put it to the test.