Parliament can amend the motion all they like, it doesn't change the fact that there is only one deal on the table and, absent it being agreed, we are leaving with No Deal on the 29th March.
The only way to change those facts is to pass new legislation (or take the risk of revoking A50 without an Act of Parliament; I can't see how that case could be decided other than in line with Miller).
The minutes and hours after the fall of the MV is going to be fascinating. We're going to see political aligments shift at a speed never before observed, as everyone vies to be in commanding position to drive Parliament's attempts to come to a settled view on what to do next.
Some of the following will happen. Labour will move a VONC, and the DUP will either abstain or vote against, letting the government survive. At that point they will shift to supporting one of:
* A second referendum on deal-vs-remain. * The Norway+ pivot
But which way will Labour jump? It could go either way, but I think it depends a lot on exactly what happens in those all-important hours after the fall of the Meaningful Vote.
Interesting, but does 'they' in 'they will shift to supporting one of...' refer to the DUP or the government?
Either way. one difficulty is that a pivot to Norway+ doesn't get round the backstop dead-end.
Norway+ will certainly require both an extension to A50 and a significant renegotiation of both the WA and PD. Would be a seriously big ask of the EU27 unless they believe our pivot is genuine.
But they'd still insist on the backstop, because the whole point of the backstop is as an insurance policy in case the political declaration doesn't lead into a final state where it's not needed. So an outline agreement that we're aiming for a Norway-ish final state makes zero difference in this respect (although it might bring more MPs on board from opposition parties).
Parliament can amend the motion all they like, it doesn't change the fact that there is only one deal on the table and, absent it being agreed, we are leaving with No Deal on the 29th March.
The only way to change those facts is to pass new legislation (or take the risk of revoking A50 without an Act of Parliament; I can't see how that case could be decided other than in line with Miller).
The minutes and hours after the fall of the MV is going to be fascinating. We're going to see political aligments shift at a speed never before observed, as everyone vies to be in commanding position to drive Parliament's attempts to come to a settled view on what to do next.
Some of the following will happen. Labour will move a VONC, and the DUP will either abstain or vote against, letting the government survive. At that point they will shift to supporting one of:
* A second referendum on deal-vs-remain. * The Norway+ pivot
But which way will Labour jump? It could go either way, but I think it depends a lot on exactly what happens in those all-important hours after the fall of the Meaningful Vote.
You may be right but other 'products are available' !!!
Unless of course TM pulls the vote
Have a bad cold, but I thought I heard a vote would be needed to withdraw the vote? Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Parliament can amend the motion all they like, it doesn't change the fact that there is only one deal on the table and, absent it being agreed, we are leaving with No Deal on the 29th March.
The only way to change those facts is to pass new legislation (or take the risk of revoking A50 without an Act of Parliament; I can't see how that case could be decided other than in line with Miller).
The minutes and hours after the fall of the MV is going to be fascinating. We're going to see political aligments shift at a speed never before observed, as everyone vies to be in commanding position to drive Parliament's attempts to come to a settled view on what to do next.
Some of the following will happen. Labour will move a VONC, and the DUP will either abstain or vote against, letting the government survive. At that point they will shift to supporting one of:
* A second referendum on deal-vs-remain. * The Norway+ pivot
But which way will Labour jump? It could go either way, but I think it depends a lot on exactly what happens in those all-important hours after the fall of the Meaningful Vote.
Surely we MUST have 48 letters then, too. Which means the Conservative Party tectonic plates will buckle. In which case any potential new PM is going to have to get off the fence and outline an at least plausible way forward.*
*Boris, Rees Mogg excepted, natch.
What time on Tuesday can we expect the vote?
Just looking to plan my evening accordingly - the aftermath could be more exciting than a GE.
Difficult. The vote has been scheduled by a program motion. To remove it would require the house passing another program motion. Government program motions are rarely pushed to a vote, but if Mrs Leadsom were to try to move a PM to postpone the MV I think she'd find herself on the losing end of a division.
We did. We told them it would only work with someone who understood and believed in Brexit in charge.
Another unicorn
Theresa May demonstrates more understanding of Brexit than any one of the Brexiteers
Rubbish. She understands Brexit as well as you do and to be frank I often wonder how you manage to tie your own shoelaces in the morning.
Then you shouldn’t have gone ahead with it until you were absolutely certain that one of The Enlightened would be running it, if it was so obvious that a non-Enlightened in control would bring about this disaster.
You need to read what Melvyn King said - this government has been criminally negligent in its preparations for Brexit.
Negligence or a deliberate cynical act to get us to this place where our options are quite frankly shit so she hopes we have to say "we better stay" you decide.
Stephen Lloyd is entirely implicitly correct, the sensible path is to support May's deal then go for another referendum if it fails thereafter. A point of nuance lost on Strong and Cable.
Parliament can amend the motion all they like, it doesn't change the fact that there is only one deal on the table and, absent it being agreed, we are leaving with No Deal on the 29th March.
The only way to change those facts is to pass new legislation (or take the risk of revoking A50 without an Act of Parliament; I can't see how that case could be decided other than in line with Miller).
The minutes and hours after the fall of the MV is going to be fascinating. We're going to see political aligments shift at a speed never before observed, as everyone vies to be in commanding position to drive Parliament's attempts to come to a settled view on what to do next.
Some of the following will happen. Labour will move a VONC, and the DUP will either abstain or vote against, letting the government survive. At that point they will shift to supporting one of:
* A second referendum on deal-vs-remain. * The Norway+ pivot
But which way will Labour jump? It could go either way, but I think it depends a lot on exactly what happens in those all-important hours after the fall of the Meaningful Vote.
You may be right but other 'products are available' !!!
Unless of course TM pulls the vote
Have a bad cold, but I thought I heard a vote would be needed to withdraw the vote? Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Every time a Brexiteer speaks they prove they know less than the PM.
Yes, but they believe in Brexit.
And belief is apparently what matters. Forget the complexities caused by reality; if they scrunch their eyes up really hard, cross their fingers and mutter prayers beneath their breath to Saint Farage of Brussels, they can achieve anything! Their righteousness means that their evil foes will give in to any of their wishes!
Great article Alastair - you should really be writing a regular column for a national broadsheet!
One quibble: Did you mean: "Hardline Leavers must surely want a Brexit more than a perfect Brexit" or should that be: "Hardline Leavers must surely want an imperfect Brexit more than no Brexit"?
Indeed. The quality of several regular OP posters puts the national press to shame. Factual and well-balanced. Able to discern the posters personal views without having them front and centre.
Stephen Lloyd is entirely implicitly correct, the sensible path is to support May's deal then go for another referendum if it fails thereafter. A point of nuance lost on Strong and Cable.
Nice to see there's still a few prepared to die in the ditch with Theresa.
She's produced a poor deal which many seem to think isn't worth supporting and because she refused to allow for the contingency planning of No Deal, what might have been an orderly and managed departure from the EU without an agreement risks turning into a national economic disaster.
Is that the latest spin from the fantasy world of Brexitland? The missed chances of the perfect no-deal Brexit that would have had us immediately better off, if only we had been properly prepared. Yes, I can just see Boris trying to sell that to his monumentally thick following. It would be quite hilarious if it were not so shockingly serious.
Parliament can amend the motion all they like, it doesn't change the fact that there is only one deal on the table and, absent it being agreed, we are leaving with No Deal on the 29th March.
The only way to change those facts is to pass new legislation (or take the risk of revoking A50 without an Act of Parliament; I can't see how that case could be decided other than in line with Miller).
The minutes and hours after the fall of the MV is going to be fascinating. We're going to see political aligments shift at a speed never before observed, as everyone vies to be in commanding position to drive Parliament's attempts to come to a settled view on what to do next.
Some of the following will happen. Labour will move a VONC, and the DUP will either abstain or vote against, letting the government survive. At that point they will shift to supporting one of:
* A second referendum on deal-vs-remain. * The Norway+ pivot
But which way will Labour jump? It could go either way, but I think it depends a lot on exactly what happens in those all-important hours after the fall of the Meaningful Vote.
You may be right but other 'products are available' !!!
Unless of course TM pulls the vote
Have a bad cold, but I thought I heard a vote would be needed to withdraw the vote? Can anyone confirm or deny this?
There are some nasty bugs around. My good lady and I have only just recovered from a respiratory infection lasting 8 weeks.
TM can postpone the vote and the media in the last hour or so think it is increasingly likely
Barnier lecturing us today that this is the deal and without it no deal, is only going to anger many more. He should keep quiet until after the vote if it takes place
Parliament can amend the motion all they like, it doesn't change the fact that there is only one deal on the table and, absent it being agreed, we are leaving with No Deal on the 29th March.
The only way to change those facts is to pass new legislation (or take the risk of revoking A50 without an Act of Parliament; I can't see how that case could be decided other than in line with Miller).
The minutes and hours after the fall of the MV is going to be fascinating. We're going to see political aligments shift at a speed never before observed, as everyone vies to be in commanding position to drive Parliament's attempts to come to a settled view on what to do next.
Some of the following will happen. Labour will move a VONC, and the DUP will either abstain or vote against, letting the government survive. At that point they will shift to supporting one of:
* A second referendum on deal-vs-remain. * The Norway+ pivot
But which way will Labour jump? It could go either way, but I think it depends a lot on exactly what happens in those all-important hours after the fall of the Meaningful Vote.
Surely we MUST have 48 letters then, too. Which means the Conservative Party tectonic plates will buckle. In which case any potential new PM is going to have to get off the fence and outline an at least plausible way forward.*
*Boris, Rees Mogg excepted, natch.
What time on Tuesday can we expect the vote?
Just looking to plan my evening accordingly - the aftermath could be more exciting than a GE.
Good article. She isn't going to resign, however, as the only option is her deal. It's not like Dave in June 2016 leaving it to someone else to negotiate the deal because as you say, there is no time for a new prospectus from the Cons.
The only option is that if the deal fails, and I continue to believe that it won't, then she goes back again the following week with something that would look and sound like a compromise but would likely be a kick into the medium-length grass. Something like an "endeavour to revisit the backstop..." type clause which will buy off the rebels.
Put simply, it is her deal or no deal and it is not going to be no deal.
You're forgetting your own usual logic. Why would Labour vote for it?
There isn't going to be any deal acceptable to the DUP, and even in the best case scenario for the government there will be Tory rebels.
Labour might abstain at the price of a general election, ideally post-March 29th. Seek to "win the peace" and all that. Quite how that bargain could be struck is beyond me at the moment (obviously there is a NoCon route to one).
That would mean Labour would own this, betray their members and then even if they win the GE they’ll be consumed by further Brexit negotiations.
Well, there'll be further Brexit negotiations in any case [even under Remain, one suspects]. If it really comes down to Deal vs No Deal, then letting the Deal through with a GE attached isn't a bad result for Labour.
I suspect that if they abstain young members desperate to remain European citizens will leave in droves (and in tears).
There was a comment on BBC World Service that if we leave the trade negotiations could be up to 27x as complex as 2016-18. All member states have a say. It's not a 'simple' series of bilateral talks between Davis/Raab/whoever and Barnier.
Surely Labour realise this? Winning an election is only relatively problem-free for them if a) we've voted to stay in or b) parliament has decided it for us.
Every time a Brexiteer speaks they prove they know less than the PM.
Yes but we need to be careful not to go too far the other way. Theresa May's impressive grasp of detail of what she has negotiated does not necessarily mean it is a good deal, still less the best that can have been negotiated.
Difficult. The vote has been scheduled by a program motion. To remove it would require the house passing another program motion. Government program motions are rarely pushed to a vote, but if Mrs Leadsom were to try to move a PM to postpone the MV I think she'd find herself on the losing end of a division.
Every time a Brexiteer speaks they prove they know less than the PM.
Yes but we need to be careful not to go too far the other way. Theresa May's impressive grasp of detail of what she has negotiated does not necessarily mean it is a good deal, still less the best that can have been negotiated.
May in charge of Brexit is up there in the daft stakes with Blair being made middle east peace envoy.
Can I please ask a question for any leavers who believe the backstop is a price worth paying to ensure Brexit ... of whom there are a few here, Casino, Sean F and Richard T I believe ... would you say that still if instead of being for Northern Ireland it instead applied to England and Scotland?
If we were being told that upon exit England and Scotland would still in perpetuity be subjected to EU regulations, would in perpetuity be stuck in the customs area . . . And that we would have no MEPs etc to change that and we could never unilaterally end this arrangement, it would take EU permission to change anything and that might never come ...
... if the backstop applies to us would you still think it was a price worth paying?
If at the same time, we were making no financial contributions to the EU, and were exempt from FOM, I would accept that the backstop was mutually uncomfortable, and that each side had good reason to compromise in future negotiations.
I don't understand this logic.
We will be in a position where we have free trade but on Europes terms and subject to Europes rules and customs. No say in rules or customs and no money or free movement as you say.
Now what is going to change? Unless we are going to restore paying money to them, or going to restore free movement then what do they gain from a free trade deal which isn't entirely written by them to suit them? Unless we are planning to end free trade, start paying or start free movement it looks like the only variable to be changed is to restore control from them to us but what do they gain from that?
Can you explain how the UK can export into the EU without their requirements on standards and regulations
I'm not suggesting we could.
But we will need to maintain their regulations on what we import to the UK from outside the EU and not just what we export.
Great article Alastair - you should really be writing a regular column for a national broadsheet!
One quibble: Did you mean: "Hardline Leavers must surely want a Brexit more than a perfect Brexit" or should that be: "Hardline Leavers must surely want an imperfect Brexit more than no Brexit"?
Indeed. The quality of several regular OP posters puts the national press to shame. Factual and well-balanced. Able to discern the posters personal views without having them front and centre.
Yes agreed. Many of the PB thread header writers are very good - well done boys and girls!
PS: Editing of the headers sometimes leaves a bit to be desired though - I assume that's down to TSE, whom I excuse on the basis he lacks a grammar school education.
Interestingly the use of Program Motions only became standard practice during the Blair era. Before the use of Program Motions became standard practice, government business was subject to filibustering. And governments would then have to use guillotine motions to bring debate to a close and force a vote.
After Tony Blair's unexpectedly enormous 1997 landslide, Labour whips were uncertain they could maintain discipline in such a large PLP full of young, new people they knew little about.
So the Program Motion began its march to ascendancy. Now almost all government business is covered by PMs, and they're widely regarded as being a much more civil, British way of conducting ourselves than all of that nasty messing about with filibusters and guillotines.
But in this case, there is one side effect: once something is scheduled by a vote of the house, it can also only be unscheduled by another vote of the house.
Which at this time it is unlikely to be minded to do.
Presumably when hardcore Leavers moan that there hasn't been enough preparation for No Deal, they means things like slaughtering the beef herds ready for the market being closed off on 29th March, scrapping the fishing fleets for the same reason, beginning the five-to-ten year project to transform Dover from a RoRo frictionless port to partially LoLo and partially customs-checking port, invading Calais so we can do the same at the other end, that sort of thing. Criminally negligent not to have done all that, natch.
Presumably when hardcore Leavers moan that there hasn't been enough preparation for No Deal, they means things like slaughtering the beef herds ready for the market being closed off on 29th March, scrapping the fishing fleets for the same reason, beginning the five-to-ten year project to transform Dover from a RoRo frictionless port to partially LoLo and partially customs-checking port, invading Calais so we can do the same at the other end, that sort of thing. Criminally negligent not to have done all that, natch.
What is the collective noun for a group of strawmen ?
Well somehow I am thinking that the Cons will come round. If not on first vote, then on second.
Once more for those at the back:
The passing of the Grieve amendment has permanently stripped May of any opportunity to ask Parliament to vote again. Whatever Plan B she wants is now irrelevant, because Parliament will salami-slice and amend it into whatever they want.
May has one *and only one* chance to prevent Parliament from Taking Back Control, and that's win the Meaningful Vote.
And may god have mercy on her soul.
If the first vote is defeated then everything is up in the air and the executive can both ignore Grieve's motion and bring back something else to the HoC which is what Grieve wanted in the first place.
Everyone is approaching the same (potential) amended deal but from different angles. So his amendment becomes trivial. Either the deal or amended deal is able to pass or it is not. That it will be debated does not affect the fact that it still has to pass.
That said, BF might be telling me I am down on my bet that the deal will pass but I refuse to be cowed.
Presumably when hardcore Leavers moan that there hasn't been enough preparation for No Deal, they means things like slaughtering the beef herds ready for the market being closed off on 29th March, scrapping the fishing fleets for the same reason, beginning the five-to-ten year project to transform Dover from a RoRo frictionless port to partially LoLo and partially customs-checking port, invading Calais so we can do the same at the other end, that sort of thing. Criminally negligent not to have done all that, natch.
Good post.
However, the point you are missing is that with hardcore Leavers "it is always someone else's fault".
O/T I see President Macron's approval rating is now down to 18%.
Trump's rating is stellar by comparison (as is May's).
To be fair, they've both lost about the same number of percentage points of support since their election. People forget that Macron only got about 25% in the first round
Apples and pears. The report suggested that Macron would currently win well over his current approval rating in a first round election because although many French don't approve of him, they dislike the alternatives even more.
If he follows the same trajectory as Hollande he'll be down to single figures before long.
He may not stand again. He may stand and lose. It may be that France's labour market reforms start to have a positive impact, and he ends up getting re-elected.
At this point it's a little early to say. But in all the fuss about the fuel taxes, he has successfully increased (albeit modestly) private sector labour mobility, and stripped away a lot of public sector worker provisions. It's not been popular, but it was necessary. And the fuel protests are notable for being the only time he's backed down.
There is a real problem with what to put on the ballot against remain. Parliament won't countenance no deal, and they'll have just rejected a sensible deal brought forward
Have just remain on the ballot paper. If they want to look more democratic they could have remain on there twice or even 3 times using AV.
Presumably when hardcore Leavers moan that there hasn't been enough preparation for No Deal, they means things like slaughtering the beef herds ready for the market being closed off on 29th March, scrapping the fishing fleets for the same reason, beginning the five-to-ten year project to transform Dover from a RoRo frictionless port to partially LoLo and partially customs-checking port, invading Calais so we can do the same at the other end, that sort of thing. Criminally negligent not to have done all that, natch.
What is the collective noun for a group of strawmen ?
Dunno, but I've been asking for months what exactly these mysterious preparations which Cameron and then May negligently omitted to do were supposed to be. I haven't had even the glimmer of an answer, nor has there been one from the politicians making the same moan.
Perhaps you could list them for us, just the main ones covering things like agriculture, customs at Dover, car and aerospace manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, that sort of thing.
O/T I see President Macron's approval rating is now down to 18%.
Trump's rating is stellar by comparison (as is May's).
To be fair, they've both lost about the same number of percentage points of support since their election. People forget that Macron only got about 25% in the first round
Apples and pears. The report suggested that Macron would currently win well over his current approval rating in a first round election because although many French don't approve of him, they dislike the alternatives even more.
If he follows the same trajectory as Hollande he'll be down to single figures before long.
He may not stand again. He may stand and lose. It may be that France's labour market reforms start to have a positive impact, and he ends up getting re-elected.
At this point it's a little early to say. But in all the fuss about the fuel taxes, he has successfully increased (albeit modestly) private sector labour mobility, and stripped away a lot of public sector worker provisions. It's not been popular, but it was necessary. And the fuel protests are notable for being the only time he's backed down.
The Times reported that his Cabinet want to back down on everything (eg reinstating higher tax rates).
There is a real problem with what to put on the ballot against remain. Parliament won't countenance no deal, and they'll have just rejected a sensible deal brought forward
Have just remain on the ballot paper. If they want to look more democratic they could have remain on there twice or even 3 times using AV.
That said, BF might be telling me I am down on my bet that the deal will pass but I refuse to be cowed.
On thus plus side if May, via some miraculous wellspring of convicing power she has heretofore never displayed, is able to wrangle a yes vote on Tuesday, you'll be a shoo-in for punter of the year.
Presumably when hardcore Leavers moan that there hasn't been enough preparation for No Deal, they means things like slaughtering the beef herds ready for the market being closed off on 29th March, scrapping the fishing fleets for the same reason, beginning the five-to-ten year project to transform Dover from a RoRo frictionless port to partially LoLo and partially customs-checking port, invading Calais so we can do the same at the other end, that sort of thing. Criminally negligent not to have done all that, natch.
Good post.
However, the point you are missing is that with hardcore Leavers "it is always someone else's fault".
We did. We told them it would only work with someone who understood and believed in Brexit in charge.
Another unicorn
Theresa May demonstrates more understanding of Brexit than any one of the Brexiteers
Rubbish. She understands Brexit as well as you do and to be frank I often wonder how you manage to tie your own shoelaces in the morning.
Then you shouldn’t have gone ahead with it until you were absolutely certain that one of The Enlightened would be running it, if it was so obvious that a non-Enlightened in control would bring about this disaster.
You need to read what Melvyn King said - this government has been criminally negligent in its preparations for Brexit.
Negligence or a deliberate cynical act to get us to this place where our options are quite frankly shit so she hopes we have to say "we better stay" you decide.
Either way utterly unfit to lead this country.
Yes it's obvious that was the plan all along.
And anyone not going along with this farce is a "loon" apparently.
Can I please ask a question for any leavers who believe the backstop is a price worth paying to ensure Brexit ... of whom there are a few here, Casino, Sean F and Richard T I believe ... would you say that still if instead of being for Northern Ireland it instead applied to England and Scotland?
If we were being told that upon exit England and Scotland would still in perpetuity be subjected to EU regulations, would in perpetuity be stuck in the customs area . . . And that we would have no MEPs etc to change that and we could never unilaterally end this arrangement, it would take EU permission to change anything and that might never come ...
... if the backstop applies to us would you still think it was a price worth paying?
It's always interesting to hear the views from the antipodes.
There is a real problem with what to put on the ballot against remain. Parliament won't countenance no deal, and they'll have just rejected a sensible deal brought forward
Have just remain on the ballot paper. If they want to look more democratic they could have remain on there twice or even 3 times using AV.
This will settle the outcome for a generation.
Why not put Remain and Status Quo.
That will confuse 87.5% of the leavers.
That might convince even my dad to go out and vote.
Presumably when hardcore Leavers moan that there hasn't been enough preparation for No Deal, they means things like slaughtering the beef herds ready for the market being closed off on 29th March, scrapping the fishing fleets for the same reason, beginning the five-to-ten year project to transform Dover from a RoRo frictionless port to partially LoLo and partially customs-checking port, invading Calais so we can do the same at the other end, that sort of thing. Criminally negligent not to have done all that, natch.
What is the collective noun for a group of strawmen ?
Dunno, but I've been asking for months what exactly these mysterious preparations which Cameron and then May negligently neglected were supposed to be. I haven't had even the glimmer of an answer, nor has there been one from the politicians making the same moan.
Perhaps you could list them for us, just the main ones covering things like agriculture, customs at Dover, car and aerospace manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, that sort of thing.
TBF, I think Robert Smithson has given pretty detailed answers.
That said, BF might be telling me I am down on my bet that the deal will pass but I refuse to be cowed.
On thus plus side if May, via some miraculous wellspring of convicing power she has heretofore never displayed, is able to wrangle a yes vote on Tuesday, you'll be a shoo-in for punter of the year.
Deal fails Tues, all hell breaks loose, people realise TINO, deal passes following week.
I will be nothing if not gracious, unassuming and modest.
And belief is apparently what matters. Forget the complexities caused by reality; if they scrunch their eyes up really hard, cross their fingers and mutter prayers beneath their breath to Saint Farage of Brussels, they can achieve anything! Their righteousness means that their evil foes will give in to any of their wishes!
once again we must return to AA Gill
Brexit is the fond belief that Britain is worse now than at some point in the foggy past where we achieved peak Blighty. We listen to the Brexit lot talk about the trade deals they’re going to make with Europe after we leave, and the blithe insouciance that what they’re offering instead of EU membership is a divorce where you can still have sex with your ex. They reckon they can get out of the marriage, keep the house, not pay alimony, take the kids out of school, stop the in-laws going to the doctor, get strict with the visiting rights, but, you know, still get a shag at the weekend and, obviously, see other people on the side.
Really, that’s their best offer? That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: “ ’Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?”
When the rest of us ask how that’s really going to work, leavers reply, with Terry-Thomas smirks, that “they’re going to still really fancy us, honest, they’re gagging for us. Possibly not Merkel, but the bosses of Mercedes and those French vintners and cheesemakers, they can’t get enough of old John Bull. Of course they’re going to want to go on making the free market with two backs after we’ve got the decree nisi. Makes sense, doesn’t it?”
Presumably when hardcore Leavers moan that there hasn't been enough preparation for No Deal, they means things like slaughtering the beef herds ready for the market being closed off on 29th March, scrapping the fishing fleets for the same reason, beginning the five-to-ten year project to transform Dover from a RoRo frictionless port to partially LoLo and partially customs-checking port, invading Calais so we can do the same at the other end, that sort of thing. Criminally negligent not to have done all that, natch.
What is the collective noun for a group of strawmen ?
Dunno, but I've been asking for months what exactly these mysterious preparations which Cameron and then May negligently neglected were supposed to be. I haven't had even the glimmer of an answer, nor has there been one from the politicians making the same moan.
Perhaps you could list them for us, just the main ones covering things like agriculture, customs at Dover, car and aerospace manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, that sort of thing.
Well if it was so difficult to prepare for a post EU world, why did Cameron offer the referendum ?
And having lost it , why did May negotiate a deal with all the skill and dexterity of a chimpanzee after a gallon of cognac ?
There is a real problem with what to put on the ballot against remain. Parliament won't countenance no deal, and they'll have just rejected a sensible deal brought forward
Have just remain on the ballot paper. If they want to look more democratic they could have remain on there twice or even 3 times using AV.
This will settle the outcome for a generation.
Why not put Remain and Status Quo.
That will confuse 87.5% of the leavers.
That might convince even my dad to go out and vote.
He loves Status Quo, he has all their albums.
Whatever You Want could have been written for the Leave campaign.
And belief is apparently what matters. Forget the complexities caused by reality; if they scrunch their eyes up really hard, cross their fingers and mutter prayers beneath their breath to Saint Farage of Brussels, they can achieve anything! Their righteousness means that their evil foes will give in to any of their wishes!
once again we must return to AA Gill
Brexit is the fond belief that Britain is worse now than at some point in the foggy past where we achieved peak Blighty. We listen to the Brexit lot talk about the trade deals they’re going to make with Europe after we leave, and the blithe insouciance that what they’re offering instead of EU membership is a divorce where you can still have sex with your ex. They reckon they can get out of the marriage, keep the house, not pay alimony, take the kids out of school, stop the in-laws going to the doctor, get strict with the visiting rights, but, you know, still get a shag at the weekend and, obviously, see other people on the side.
Really, that’s their best offer? That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: “ ’Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?”
When the rest of us ask how that’s really going to work, leavers reply, with Terry-Thomas smirks, that “they’re going to still really fancy us, honest, they’re gagging for us. Possibly not Merkel, but the bosses of Mercedes and those French vintners and cheesemakers, they can’t get enough of old John Bull. Of course they’re going to want to go on making the free market with two backs after we’ve got the decree nisi. Makes sense, doesn’t it?”
I thought Brexit was the fond belief that decisions should be made in Britain, and not elsewhere? I doubt trade played much of a role in people's decisions.
Sounds like Graham Brady is suggesting that TM should agree for an amendment to the deal to be laid to make the deal subject to the backstop being time limited or some similar mechanism
He said that if she needs a few more days the vote can be postponed
Presumably when hardcore Leavers moan that there hasn't been enough preparation for No Deal, they means things like slaughtering the beef herds ready for the market being closed off on 29th March, scrapping the fishing fleets for the same reason, beginning the five-to-ten year project to transform Dover from a RoRo frictionless port to partially LoLo and partially customs-checking port, invading Calais so we can do the same at the other end, that sort of thing. Criminally negligent not to have done all that, natch.
What is the collective noun for a group of strawmen ?
Dunno, but I've been asking for months what exactly these mysterious preparations which Cameron and then May negligently neglected were supposed to be. I haven't had even the glimmer of an answer, nor has there been one from the politicians making the same moan.
Perhaps you could list them for us, just the main ones covering things like agriculture, customs at Dover, car and aerospace manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, that sort of thing.
Well if it was so difficult to prepare for a post EU world, why did Cameron offer the referendum ?
And having lost it , why did May negotiate a deal with all the skill and dexterity of a chimpanzee after a gallon of cognac ?
First point: because people, and notably his own party, were insisting on it. Of course he wasn't to know that the loons, having won, would trash the deal required to implement their victory, although I agree that with the benefit of hindsight that should have been obvious.
Second point: She did rather well, given the constraints.
Sounds like Graham Brady is suggesting that TM should agree for an amendment to the deal to be laid to make the deal subject to the backstop being time limited or some similar mechanism
He said that if she needs a few more days the vote can be postponed
Except Parliament has no say over the EU's negotiators.
Completely Off Topic Why are new car sales dropping - these guys have an opinion. They're right about my motives, but overall - I dunno. I'd be interested to hear from RCS on this. "The Impending Big Auto/Oil Implosion Explained | In Depth" www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUC6lsLr04I
I'm no expert but did watch the video and heard no mention that cars are just better and last longer now, so there is less need to replace them. That said, I do not have the time or inclination to check that. But it does seem a plausible explanation.
Sounds like Graham Brady is suggesting that TM should agree for an amendment to the deal to be laid to make the deal subject to the backstop being time limited or some similar mechanism
He said that if she needs a few more days the vote can be postponed
A backstop with a time limit is not a backstop.
That's like taking out health insurance that the insurer can cancel when you get ill.
Sounds like Graham Brady is suggesting that TM should agree for an amendment to the deal to be laid to make the deal subject to the backstop being time limited or some similar mechanism
He said that if she needs a few more days the vote can be postponed
Except Parliament has no say over the EU's negotiators.
And belief is apparently what matters. Forget the complexities caused by reality; if they scrunch their eyes up really hard, cross their fingers and mutter prayers beneath their breath to Saint Farage of Brussels, they can achieve anything! Their righteousness means that their evil foes will give in to any of their wishes!
once again we must return to AA Gill
Brexit is the fond belief that Britain is worse now than at some point in the foggy past where we achieved peak Blighty. We listen to the Brexit lot talk about the trade deals they’re going to make with Europe after we leave, and the blithe insouciance that what they’re offering instead of EU membership is a divorce where you can still have sex with your ex. They reckon they can get out of the marriage, keep the house, not pay alimony, take the kids out of school, stop the in-laws going to the doctor, get strict with the visiting rights, but, you know, still get a shag at the weekend and, obviously, see other people on the side.
Really, that’s their best offer? That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: “ ’Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?”
When the rest of us ask how that’s really going to work, leavers reply, with Terry-Thomas smirks, that “they’re going to still really fancy us, honest, they’re gagging for us. Possibly not Merkel, but the bosses of Mercedes and those French vintners and cheesemakers, they can’t get enough of old John Bull. Of course they’re going to want to go on making the free market with two backs after we’ve got the decree nisi. Makes sense, doesn’t it?”
I thought Brexit was the fond belief that decisions should be made in Britain, and not elsewhere? I doubt trade played much of a role in people's decisions.
Since it's Dad rock time. "I bargained for sovereignty And she gave me a lethal dose."
Sounds like Graham Brady is suggesting that TM should agree for an amendment to the deal to be laid to make the deal subject to the backstop being time limited or some similar mechanism
He said that if she needs a few more days the vote can be postponed
She doesn't need a few more days. As the ERG have pointed out, with uncharacteristic wisdom, that would require the reopening of negotiations on the withdrawal agreement, which we have already been told repeatedly by the EU and Mrs May is quite impossible.
Even if it turned out to not be as impossible as they claimed, there'd have to be another European Council to adopt the revised WA. Which would mean, what, mid January at the earliest.
I agree with the sentiment but if she can just remain in charge of the Tories till the 31st, ideally whilst installing Lidington as temporary PM I'd be grateful
You need to stop talking your book up.
She needs to stay in charge until the 31st and be replaced by the best person for the job, and that's Jeremy Hunt.
Sounds like Graham Brady is suggesting that TM should agree for an amendment to the deal to be laid to make the deal subject to the backstop being time limited or some similar mechanism
He said that if she needs a few more days the vote can be postponed
A backstop with a time limit is not a backstop.
That's like taking out health insurance that the insurer can cancel when you get ill.
Beth Rigby of Sky saying that the government has a few more days to come up with a wording for the amendment
Sounds like Graham Brady is suggesting that TM should agree for an amendment to the deal to be laid to make the deal subject to the backstop being time limited or some similar mechanism
He said that if she needs a few more days the vote can be postponed
A backstop with a time limit is not a backstop.
That's like taking out health insurance that the insurer can cancel when you get ill.
Beth Rigby of Sky saying that the government has a few more days to come up with a wording for the amendment
They can write whatever amendment they want, but if they actually moved the amendment they'll look ridiculous. To think that Tory MPs would be dumb enough to fall for an amendment of the meaningful vote being able to bind the EU negotiators to a particular course of action? Utterly ludicrous.
Mr Speaker would relish the opportunity to rule it out of order. Really, does May really need to give Bercow another opportunity to ridicule her?
Sounds like Graham Brady is suggesting that TM should agree for an amendment to the deal to be laid to make the deal subject to the backstop being time limited or some similar mechanism
He said that if she needs a few more days the vote can be postponed
A backstop with a time limit is not a backstop.
That's like taking out health insurance that the insurer can cancel when you get ill.
Beth Rigby of Sky saying that the government has a few more days to come up with a wording for the amendment
That is true Big_G, thay have a few more days... but they need Harry Potter to help conjure up an amendment that will pass the HoC but not nullify the agreement with the EU.
Sounds like Graham Brady is suggesting that TM should agree for an amendment to the deal to be laid to make the deal subject to the backstop being time limited or some similar mechanism
He said that if she needs a few more days the vote can be postponed
She doesn't need a few more days. As the ERG have pointed out, with uncharacteristic wisdom, that would require the reopening of negotiations on the withdrawal agreement, which we have already been told repeatedly by the EU and Mrs May is quite impossible.
Even if it turned out to not be as impossible as they claimed, there'd have to be another European Council to adopt the revised WA. Which would mean, what, mid January at the earliest.
The EU can call emergency Council meetings at anytime. Certainly something is going on and as Sky said, it is very unusual for Graham Brady to come on camera
Sounds like Graham Brady is suggesting that TM should agree for an amendment to the deal to be laid to make the deal subject to the backstop being time limited or some similar mechanism
He said that if she needs a few more days the vote can be postponed
She doesn't need a few more days. As the ERG have pointed out, with uncharacteristic wisdom, that would require the reopening of negotiations on the withdrawal agreement, which we have already been told repeatedly by the EU and Mrs May is quite impossible.
Even if it turned out to not be as impossible as they claimed, there'd have to be another European Council to adopt the revised WA. Which would mean, what, mid January at the earliest.
The EU can call emergency Council meetings at anytime. Certainly something is going on and as Sky said, it is very unusual for Graham Brady to come on camera
Completely Off Topic Why are new car sales dropping - these guys have an opinion. They're right about my motives, but overall - I dunno. I'd be interested to hear from RCS on this. "The Impending Big Auto/Oil Implosion Explained | In Depth" www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUC6lsLr04I
I'm no expert but did watch the video and heard no mention that cars are just better and last longer now, so there is less need to replace them. That said, I do not have the time or inclination to check that. But it does seem a plausible explanation.
True, they're certainly better than my first few cars, but they've been good for maybe 20 years.
Sounds like Graham Brady is suggesting that TM should agree for an amendment to the deal to be laid to make the deal subject to the backstop being time limited or some similar mechanism
He said that if she needs a few more days the vote can be postponed
A backstop with a time limit is not a backstop.
That's like taking out health insurance that the insurer can cancel when you get ill.
Beth Rigby of Sky saying that the government has a few more days to come up with a wording for the amendment
They can write whatever amendment they want, but if they actually moved the amendment they'll look ridiculous.
You cannot say that without knowing the amendment and if it satisfies the mps
Sounds like Graham Brady is suggesting that TM should agree for an amendment to the deal to be laid to make the deal subject to the backstop being time limited or some similar mechanism
He said that if she needs a few more days the vote can be postponed
She doesn't need a few more days. As the ERG have pointed out, with uncharacteristic wisdom, that would require the reopening of negotiations on the withdrawal agreement, which we have already been told repeatedly by the EU and Mrs May is quite impossible.
Even if it turned out to not be as impossible as they claimed, there'd have to be another European Council to adopt the revised WA. Which would mean, what, mid January at the earliest.
The EU can call emergency Council meetings at anytime. Certainly something is going on and as Sky said, it is very unusual for Graham Brady to come on camera
Er.... can you re-phrase that please?
I am just a naive old gentleman but maybe appear would have been more suitable !!!
Sounds like Graham Brady is suggesting that TM should agree for an amendment to the deal to be laid to make the deal subject to the backstop being time limited or some similar mechanism
He said that if she needs a few more days the vote can be postponed
A backstop with a time limit is not a backstop.
That's like taking out health insurance that the insurer can cancel when you get ill.
Beth Rigby of Sky saying that the government has a few more days to come up with a wording for the amendment
They can write whatever amendment they want, but if they actually moved the amendment they'll look ridiculous.
You cannot say that without knowing the amendment and if it satisfies the mps
Would have to be the Mother of all amendments to satisfy all the Conservative MPs. The penny isn't dropping in Downing Street, that it is no longer in the gift of May and her advisers. Anything, short of a VONC, is unlikely to pass. That was made clear on Tuesday.
You cannot say that without knowing the amendment and if it satisfies the mps
No, you misunderstand. It's not MPs May has to convince, it's Bercow. Mr Speaker selects and rules which amendments are effective and which are out of order. Any attempt to move an amendment which claims to be able to bind the EU negotiators is *clearly* absurd and would no doubt be ruled out of order.
Sounds like Graham Brady is suggesting that TM should agree for an amendment to the deal to be laid to make the deal subject to the backstop being time limited or some similar mechanism
He said that if she needs a few more days the vote can be postponed
A backstop with a time limit is not a backstop.
That's like taking out health insurance that the insurer can cancel when you get ill.
Beth Rigby of Sky saying that the government has a few more days to come up with a wording for the amendment
They can write whatever amendment they want, but if they actually moved the amendment they'll look ridiculous.
You cannot say that without knowing the amendment and if it satisfies the mps
Would have to be the Mother of all amendments to satisfy all the Conservative MPs. The penny isn't dropping in Downing Street, that it is no longer in the gift of May and her advisers. Anything, short of a VONC, is unlikely to pass. That was made clear on Tuesday.
Yes but this is Graham Brady making these comments and as Sky has said has appeared to show support for TM
You cannot say that without knowing the amendment and if it satisfies the mps
No, you misunderstand. It's not MPs May has to convince, it's Bercow. Mr Speaker selects and rules which amendments are effective and which are out of order. Any attempt to move an amendment which claims to be able to bind the EU negotiators is *clearly* absurd and would no doubt be ruled out of order.
For the meaningful vote to have, well, meaning, the vote *must* be on the Withdrawal Agreement as it is currently agreed. For the government to think it can somehow make the MV be about some mythical other WA that might or might not exist at some point in the future, and expect the house to vote *on faith*? UTTERLY absurd.
None of the wrecking amendments that have been proposed up to this point come close to being as ridiculous as that.
For the meaningful vote to have, well, meaning, the vote *must* be on the Withdrawal Agreement as it is currently agreed. For the government to think it can somehow make the MV be about some mythical other WA that might or might not exist at some point in the future, and expect the house to vote *on faith*? UTTERLY absurd.
None of the wrecking amendments that have been proposed up to this point come close to being as ridiculous as that.
Why don't we wait and see what happens. Graham Brady is very influential in the party
We did. We told them it would only work with someone who understood and believed in Brexit in charge.
Another unicorn
Theresa May demonstrates more understanding of Brexit than any one of the Brexiteers
Rubbish. She understands Brexit as well as you do and to be frank I often wonder how you manage to tie your own shoelaces in the morning.
Then you shouldn’t have gone ahead with it until you were absolutely certain that one of The Enlightened would be running it, if it was so obvious that a non-Enlightened in control would bring about this disaster.
You need to read what Melvyn King said - this government has been criminally negligent in its preparations for Brexit.
Negligence or a deliberate cynical act to get us to this place where our options are quite frankly shit so she hopes we have to say "we better stay" you decide.
Either way utterly unfit to lead this country.
What Mervyn missed, in an otherwise excellent article, was *why* no No Deal preparation took place. It was not a cynical ploy, but a logical consequence of the business love in the government undertook in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote.
That "love in" was a success, in that it kept investment levels up, and therefore avoided any negative headlines. (And also made sure that the UK didn't slip into recession.) But it also tied the government's hands in negotiation. It had promised Nissan and others there would be a deal, and it was scared of being seen to renege on that commitment.
In retrospect, the government should probably have been more equivocal at the beginning of the process. But had they done that, then perhaps the Brexit recession would have happened... It's all counter-factual, so no one knows, but it wasn't treason or low cunning, it was the consequence of a desire to reassure business.
Boris Johnson has just said we should threaten to use Trident, in order to obtain greater leverage over the EU.
You are joking ?
That has to be a joke
You'd think so. However Boris does have a habit if tripping over his own words in his attempts to say something meaningful, and so it's easy to imagine he'd say something so wonderfully Boris-like.
For the meaningful vote to have, well, meaning, the vote *must* be on the Withdrawal Agreement as it is currently agreed. For the government to think it can somehow make the MV be about some mythical other WA that might or might not exist at some point in the future, and expect the house to vote *on faith*? UTTERLY absurd.
None of the wrecking amendments that have been proposed up to this point come close to being as ridiculous as that.
Why don't we wait and see what happens. Graham Brady is very influential in the party
Is that actually true? See, what I read into Brady's comments is that he is minded to vote against the meaningful vote. He's practically begging, pleading with Mrs May to postpone the MV or fudge the backstop so he doesn't have to.
Excellent article. There is however a further problem with a GE: while it is at a pinch just possible that a Conservative manifesto could just about say something almost coherent and meaningful about its Brexit intentions if it won a GE, there cannot be any possibility of a Labour manifesto coming anywhere close even to this low bar. As only these two parties could win, and probably neither of them would in fact win outright, a GE runs a high risk of achieving the apparently impossible task of making things worse.
TM remaining, impossible as it might seem, may well be best for the country.
It has been abundantly clear that this deal was not going to pass for well over a week now. So why pull the vote now? Another week wasted. Reality hit number 10 smack in the face Tuesday. It should have done so the Tuesday before.
Worth commenting very briefly on the market. The US trade deficit was worse than expected this morning, and continues to expand. In particular, the US-China trade deficit worsened (despite all the sanctions).
The expectation is that this will lead to President Trump increasing tariffs on engaging in other anti-trade behaviour.
At heart, the problem is that the US government's policy of cutting taxes and increasing spending was always going to lead to a higher trade deficit. (See Barber, Anthony.)
The problem is that President Trump's trade team is led by a bunch of former steel industry trade lawyers, who successfully cut the trade deficit in steel via tariffs and therefore assume it works for the economy as a whole. The reality is that steel tariffs may have reduced the US steel deficit, but they did so at the expense of the overall trade deficit.
The US, like the UK, spends too much and saves too little. (While the rest of the world, mostly, has the opposite problem.) It's an unstable equilibrium, that will only end badly*.
* The sensible option would be for the US to lobby China and the Eurozone to run more expansionary fiscal policies and to lower some of the incentives for saving. (It would also be received better as a message that yelling about "unfair trade".) And the US should combine this with measures that encourage saving at home, and a budget that reduces the deficit. But that wouldn't produce a "feel good" factor in the US, and therefore will be rejected out of hand.
It has been abundantly clear that this deal was not going to pass for well over a week now. So why pull the vote now? Another week wasted. Reality hit number 10 smack in the face Tuesday. It should have done so the Tuesday before.
This pointless two week delay was placed here solely for May's ego, so she could have a fakey general election campaign to sell her deal to the people.
It's amazing, in hindsight, that her people can already have forgotten how well May's last election campaign went, since it was not even 18 months ago.
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort and with a No Deal option the DUP and ERG could back it while it would keep her commitment to respect the original Leave vote
It has been abundantly clear that this deal was not going to pass for well over a week now. So why pull the vote now? Another week wasted. Reality hit number 10 smack in the face Tuesday. It should have done so the Tuesday before.
This pointless two week delay was placed here solely for May's ego, so she could have a fakey general election campaign to sell her deal to the people.
It's amazing, in hindsight, that her people can already have forgotten how well May's last election campaign went, since it was not even 18 months ago.
Given Deal beats No Deal 62% to 38% with Yougov May might be tempted to call a Deal v No Deal referendum as a last resort and with a No Deal option the DUP and ERG could back it while it would keep her commitment to respect the original Leave vote
How do you propose May would get such a referendum question past the house and past the electoral commission?
Comments
Just looking to plan my evening accordingly - the aftermath could be more exciting than a GE.
Negligence or a deliberate cynical act to get us to this place where our options are quite frankly shit so she hopes we have to say "we better stay" you decide.
Either way utterly unfit to lead this country.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1070441629935394824
And belief is apparently what matters. Forget the complexities caused by reality; if they scrunch their eyes up really hard, cross their fingers and mutter prayers beneath their breath to Saint Farage of Brussels, they can achieve anything! Their righteousness means that their evil foes will give in to any of their wishes!
TM can postpone the vote and the media in the last hour or so think it is increasingly likely
Barnier lecturing us today that this is the deal and without it no deal, is only going to anger many more. He should keep quiet until after the vote if it takes place
There was a comment on BBC World Service that if we leave the trade negotiations could be up to 27x as complex as 2016-18. All member states have a say. It's not a 'simple' series of bilateral talks between Davis/Raab/whoever and Barnier.
Surely Labour realise this? Winning an election is only relatively problem-free for them if
a) we've voted to stay in
or
b) parliament has decided it for us.
And as successful.
But we will need to maintain their regulations on what we import to the UK from outside the EU and not just what we export.
PS: Editing of the headers sometimes leaves a bit to be desired though - I assume that's down to TSE, whom I excuse on the basis he lacks a grammar school education.
After Tony Blair's unexpectedly enormous 1997 landslide, Labour whips were uncertain they could maintain discipline in such a large PLP full of young, new people they knew little about.
So the Program Motion began its march to ascendancy. Now almost all government business is covered by PMs, and they're widely regarded as being a much more civil, British way of conducting ourselves than all of that nasty messing about with filibusters and guillotines.
But in this case, there is one side effect: once something is scheduled by a vote of the house, it can also only be unscheduled by another vote of the house.
Which at this time it is unlikely to be minded to do.
https://twitter.com/JimKilbane/status/1070714111850414081
Everyone is approaching the same (potential) amended deal but from different angles. So his amendment becomes trivial. Either the deal or amended deal is able to pass or it is not. That it will be debated does not affect the fact that it still has to pass.
That said, BF might be telling me I am down on my bet that the deal will pass but I refuse to be cowed.
However, the point you are missing is that with hardcore Leavers "it is always someone else's fault".
At this point it's a little early to say. But in all the fuss about the fuel taxes, he has successfully increased (albeit modestly) private sector labour mobility, and stripped away a lot of public sector worker provisions. It's not been popular, but it was necessary. And the fuel protests are notable for being the only time he's backed down.
This will settle the outcome for a generation.
Perhaps you could list them for us, just the main ones covering things like agriculture, customs at Dover, car and aerospace manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, that sort of thing.
1) Remain
2) Stay
3) J'adore l'EU!
[On a serious note, questions and answers are a serious problem for a theoretical second referendum].
That will confuse 87.5% of the leavers.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/06/trump-mueller-presidential-harrassment-1046489
And anyone not going along with this farce is a "loon" apparently.
He loves Status Quo, he has all their albums.
24 Amazon Warehouse Workers Sent to Hospital After Robot Punctures Can of Bear Repellent Spray
https://slate.com/business/2018/12/amazon-workers-hospitalized-robot-punctures-bear-repellent-spray.html
I will be nothing if not gracious, unassuming and modest.
Brexit is the fond belief that Britain is worse now than at some point in the foggy past where we achieved peak Blighty. We listen to the Brexit lot talk about the trade deals they’re going to make with Europe after we leave, and the blithe insouciance that what they’re offering instead of EU membership is a divorce where you can still have sex with your ex. They reckon they can get out of the marriage, keep the house, not pay alimony, take the kids out of school, stop the in-laws going to the doctor, get strict with the visiting rights, but, you know, still get a shag at the weekend and, obviously, see other people on the side.
Really, that’s their best offer? That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: “ ’Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?”
When the rest of us ask how that’s really going to work, leavers reply, with Terry-Thomas smirks, that “they’re going to still really fancy us, honest, they’re gagging for us. Possibly not Merkel, but the bosses of Mercedes and those French vintners and cheesemakers, they can’t get enough of old John Bull. Of course they’re going to want to go on making the free market with two backs after we’ve got the decree nisi. Makes sense, doesn’t it?”
https://dndlaw.com/aa-gill-on-brexit/
Would you rather:
Dire Straits or Status Quo?
And having lost it , why did May negotiate a deal with all the skill and dexterity of a chimpanzee after a gallon of cognac ?
If STV were to be used for a 2nd referendum with 3 options the order of the options would need to be randomised across the voting papers.
(Although personally I don't mind if the EC decide to fix the order as Remain, Deal, No Deal
He said that if she needs a few more days the vote can be postponed
Second point: She did rather well, given the constraints.
That's like taking out health insurance that the insurer can cancel when you get ill.
"I bargained for sovereignty
And she gave me a lethal dose."
Even if it turned out to not be as impossible as they claimed, there'd have to be another European Council to adopt the revised WA. Which would mean, what, mid January at the earliest.
She needs to stay in charge until the 31st and be replaced by the best person for the job, and that's Jeremy Hunt.
(*Got a feeling it's a tribute band rather than the originals, not totally sure.)
Mr Speaker would relish the opportunity to rule it out of order. Really, does May really need to give Bercow another opportunity to ridicule her?
https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/1070722251727822848
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1070719997834600449
Boris Johnson has just said we should threaten to use Trident, in order to obtain greater leverage over the EU.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/c9qdqqkgz27t/ftse-100
None of the wrecking amendments that have been proposed up to this point come close to being as ridiculous as that.
That "love in" was a success, in that it kept investment levels up, and therefore avoided any negative headlines. (And also made sure that the UK didn't slip into recession.) But it also tied the government's hands in negotiation. It had promised Nissan and others there would be a deal, and it was scared of being seen to renege on that commitment.
In retrospect, the government should probably have been more equivocal at the beginning of the process. But had they done that, then perhaps the Brexit recession would have happened... It's all counter-factual, so no one knows, but it wasn't treason or low cunning, it was the consequence of a desire to reassure business.
I should of course have prefaced by comment with "Disgraced sack of shit and amoral sociopathic snake …….."
A backstop is only a backstop if it’s indefinite .
Me:
TM remaining, impossible as it might seem, may well be best for the country.
Another week wasted. Reality hit number 10 smack in the face Tuesday. It should have done so the Tuesday before.
The expectation is that this will lead to President Trump increasing tariffs on engaging in other anti-trade behaviour.
At heart, the problem is that the US government's policy of cutting taxes and increasing spending was always going to lead to a higher trade deficit. (See Barber, Anthony.)
The problem is that President Trump's trade team is led by a bunch of former steel industry trade lawyers, who successfully cut the trade deficit in steel via tariffs and therefore assume it works for the economy as a whole. The reality is that steel tariffs may have reduced the US steel deficit, but they did so at the expense of the overall trade deficit.
The US, like the UK, spends too much and saves too little. (While the rest of the world, mostly, has the opposite problem.) It's an unstable equilibrium, that will only end badly*.
* The sensible option would be for the US to lobby China and the Eurozone to run more expansionary fiscal policies and to lower some of the incentives for saving. (It would also be received better as a message that yelling about "unfair trade".) And the US should combine this with measures that encourage saving at home, and a budget that reduces the deficit. But that wouldn't produce a "feel good" factor in the US, and therefore will be rejected out of hand.
It's amazing, in hindsight, that her people can already have forgotten how well May's last election campaign went, since it was not even 18 months ago.