Good for him. Would be great to see others saying the same.
Soubry has agreed with him, so that's two. You'd think people like Clark, Grieve, Allen would do the same as well. And that's before you get anymore cabinet resignations.
I think those believing No Deal is the most likely outcome need to consider this.
There is definitely a majority in the HoC against it. The opposition parties would pretty much vote against it to a person and it seems very likely that enough Tories will vote against No Deal, even if the onlt way they can do that is through a VoNC.
The problem with that is that I am not sure the government needs to submit a "No deal" bill do they? They simply allow A50 to take it's course over the cliff-edge. The only thing parliament could do to stop it is a VONC in the government.. I think. Anyone have a different view?
That's how I now see it, having calmed down by doing half my tax returns.
I reckon the House would VONC the PM, or even the government, if we were deliberately heading for No Deal in mid March. Enough Tories would say NO WAY, probably dozens.
What would happen then? We'd get a form of indicative vote, inasmuch as the subsequent prime minister would have to present a Deal, or a referendum, or even a revokation, which would command the support of the House.
It would surely be a referendum (or, ironically, TMay's Deal). Most likely a revote.
It'd be a General Election for sure, the resigning the whip and not standing again Tories wouldn't suddenly give confidence to Corbyn - they may have EU coloured underpants but they're not about to just hand over the reigns of power to Corbyn without a GE.
Nick Boles statement just gave Corbyn a massive reason to vote down the WA.
Er... like he wasn't going to anyway?
Releases all the pressure on Labour if he knows he can get Boles, Soubry and enough implied Tories to bring down their own Government. Unless I'm mistaken this is what Boles has just said...
Indeed. He can just keep rejecting both the deal and the People's Vote campaigners arguing Tories will trigger an election. He has nothing to lose.
May should then fight a general election on her Deal, given the pathetic Corbyn has no alternative bar petty politics and is still trailing the Tories in many polls she might even win
You suggest this, but there's no way the Tories could line up in a GE behind a policy of backing the deal. You'd get 100 current Tory MPs refusing to do so for a start.
You'd also get 100 current Labour MPs refusing to back Corbyn on Brexit and demanding EUref2
Toward no deal being the only viable alternative, increasing the likelihood of hers being signed?
I think it clear that Parliament will, under no circumstances, give in to such pathetic blackmail.
If we go over the cliff edge, it is because Mrs May chooses to let us. And May is basically giving Corbyn his dream outcome...
Go ahead, Theresa. DO IT, I double dare you.
No, May has produced a Deal after much work, the pathetic Corbyn refuses to back it though his own policy is indistinguishable. If we go to No Deal it will be the fault of Corbyn, the DUP and ERG
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
On which note, I would have thought the 250/1 on the Lib Dems winning Most Seats at the next election represents value. There's a fair few steps needed but they're all more than possible.
Yes. In fact, I don't think there are all that many steps - though there are several scenarios through which it could come about. Most realistic is something similar to 1981, with mass defections from Labour to Lib Dem, which by reducing the fear of a Corbyn government then removes one of the props to the Tory vote share (especially if combined with a No Deal Brexit recession). Presumably a change of leader would need to come into the bargain.
(Near) certainties in British politics:
1) The DUP will never vote for that Deal 2) The SNP will do well whenever the next GE is held
Pretty much everything else is completely up in the air.
But I still reckon that there's going to need to be some kind of realignment to break the impasse if No Deal is to be averted - assuming that a majority of MPs continues to shun May's Deal.
I've assumed that this would most likely evolve out of the Labour Right and Tory Left temporarily joining forces in a panic around late February/early March time, but frankly who knows?
It takes a very unusual politician to defect. Many of them have most of their friendship/personal support groups made up of activists and others who support their parties. I would love to see a complete realignment, but of what I know about professional politicians I think it is sadly very unlikley
Well some 25 Labour MPs did precisely that in 1981/82 - as did one Tory.
A long long time ago, and the contortions individuals have undertaken to avoid doing the same since shows just how unlikely it is now.
There were defections from the Tory ranks under the Major Government to Labour and the LibDems. Alan Howarth comes to mind.
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
On which note, I would have thought the 250/1 on the Lib Dems winning Most Seats at the next election represents value. There's a fair few steps needed but they're all more than possible.
Yes. In fact, I don't think there are all that many steps - though there are several scenarios through which it could come about. Most realistic is something similar to 1981, with mass defections from Labour to Lib Dem, which by reducing the fear of a Corbyn government then removes one of the props to the Tory vote share (especially if combined with a No Deal Brexit recession). Presumably a change of leader would need to come into the bargain.
(Near) certainties in British politics:
1) The DUP will never vote for that Deal 2) The SNP will do well whenever the next GE is held
Pretty much everything else is completely up in the air.
But I still reckon that there's going to need to be some kind of realignment to break the impasse if No Deal is to be averted - assuming that a majority of MPs continues to shun May's Deal.
I've assumed that this would most likely evolve out of the Labour Right and Tory Left temporarily joining forces in a panic around late February/early March time, but frankly who knows?
It takes a very unusual politician to defect. Many of them have most of their friendship/personal support groups made up of activists and others who support their parties. I would love to see a complete realignment, but of what I know about professional politicians I think it is sadly very unlikley
Well some 25 Labour MPs did precisely that in 1981/82 - as did one Tory.
Indeed, it was less than 4% of the total number of MPs and it didn't work out that well for them.
Leavers bizarrely believe that if May refuses to stop no deal that they’ll all be saying thanks and the Tories vote will hold up .
It’s amazing what job losses and chaos might do to those waving the flag for Brexit .
The ECJ case means the power rests with May to stop a crash out , the Tories will pay dearly if the ERG death cult are allowed to push the country over a cliff .
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
On which note, I would have thought the 250/1 on the Lib Dems winning Most Seats at the next election represents value. There's a fair few steps needed but they're all more than possible.
Yes. In fact, I don't think there are all that many steps - though there are several scenarios through which it could come about. Most realistic is something similar to 1981, with mass defections from Labour to Lib Dem, which by reducing the fear of a Corbyn government then removes one of the props to the Tory vote share (especially if combined with a No Deal Brexit recession). Presumably a change of leader would need to come into the bargain.
(Near) certainties in British politics:
1) The DUP will never vote for that Deal 2) The SNP will do well whenever the next GE is held
Pretty much everything else is completely up in the air.
But I still reckon that there's going to need to be some kind of realignment to break the impasse if No Deal is to be averted - assuming that a majority of MPs continues to shun May's Deal.
I've assumed that this would most likely evolve out of the Labour Right and Tory Left temporarily joining forces in a panic around late February/early March time, but frankly who knows?
Depends what you mean by the SNP doing'well'. I doubt they will poll better than circa 33% next time.
If we go to No Deal Scotland could be independent by next time
So are we supposed to believe that as the cliff edge approaches, businesses are screaming blue murder and supermarkets are besieged by panic buyers the government is going to tell parliament to FO and push the country over the edge?
Such a course might be legally acceptable but it is not politically possible.
That's before even factoring in "contempt of parliament" proceedings, if the government ignored a Parliament vote against "No Deal".
(I'm sure people are going to pick on some various constitutional theories to say "contempt of parliament" proceedings can't be used in that way, but let's face it, whatever John Bercow says goes.)
Good for him. Would be great to see others saying the same.
Soubry has agreed with him, so that's two. You'd think people like Clark, Grieve, Allen would do the same as well. And that's before you get anymore cabinet resignations.
I think those believing No Deal is the most likely outcome need to consider this.
There is definitely a majority in the HoC against it. The opposition parties would pretty much vote against it to a person and it seems very likely that enough Tories will vote against No Deal, even if the onlt way they can do that is through a VoNC.
Precisely. So the government is now ramping up panic, spending untold billions and forcing business to do the same, on an outcome most of the government believes would be disastrous and in any case will not be accepted by Parliament under any circumstances.
It doesn't need to be accepted by Parliament for it to happen.
Nick Boles statement just gave Corbyn a massive reason to vote down the WA.
Corbyn is the type of socialist who is quite comfortable with maximum chaos in order to pave the way for his utopia. Once again he is in good company with the headbangers of the Tory right. For this reason he will vote down anything that would lead to stability and order. He is the perfect useful idiot for Vladimir Putin, along with his fellow travellers in Momentum and the ERG.
Indeed
It is May who is playing chicken with the country’s future, by closing off all options other than her wretched deal. And why? To prove that she’s right. Neither she nor Corbyn are putting the country’s interests first.
She hasn't closed off any options. MPs have the ability to remove her anytime they want and we are assured parliament at least has a majority against what she wants so that should not be hard. People moaning she won't do what they want is one of the least convincing outrages out there at the moment, a figleaf, and I think she's doing both a bad job and should do other things.
She can’t get her deal through. The EU says the negotiations are done.
She has ruled out revocation and a further referendum.
Yes - I’d say she’s closing off options.
She has put her survival and that of her deal above all other considerations. That is not the mark of a politician acting in the country’s interests.
Another day, another instalment of Project Fear and watch how frightened everyone gets as soon as the Army gets mentioned.
...
No one is going to starve, run out of medicines or be stopped from going anywhere. A great man once said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Nowadays, the only weapon a bad politician has is fear.
Project Fear's predictions are obviously ridiculous.
As you say, food and medicines will still make their way to the United Kingdom, and people will not starve.
But by attacking only the most extreme of Project Fear's prognostications, there is a tendency to pretend that there will be no ill effects whatsoever from crashing out.
Now, there is a genuine debate to be had about whether the costs of a sudden separation are worth the benefits. But I'm not seeing that debate. I'm seeing two sides: one which pretends there are no consequences from crashing out, and one which forecasts armageddon. That's not a healthy debate, and it's not conducive to good policy making.
Agreed. The real consequences are in danger of being masked by hyperbole of the doomsayers, and the real benefits are in danger of being overplayed by the cheerleaders.
Most people are neither doomsayers nor cheerleaders, but people trying to get on with their lives.
I've been trying to work out today how it would impact on my business in practical, non economy-based terms. The closest I've got to anything concrete is that EU 'export' licenses for cultural goods would be replaced with the ROW ones. That adds about 5 minutes more work to a task I undertake maybe 10 times a year. And adding customs forms to shipments made to the EU, maybe 1 minute extra work every week. Not hugely taxing.
From an economic point of view, because about 40% of my business is exporting products predominately sourced in the UK, largely outside of the EU, I would expect my sales to grow in the short-term following the further weakening of the pound. I'd also expect greater competition when re-stocking. I would expect the profit from this short term sales growth to largely balance out the increased costs that my personal expenditure might incur, and the expected 20% drop off in domestic sales in the immediate aftermath - but I launched the business in 2007 and so know how to manage in a recession.
However, I realise that I am in a privileged position compared to some businesses - especially those with heavily involved in selling products to the single market. No deal doesn't hit me massively; but it hits some people, and their businesses, very much indeed.
Another day, another instalment of Project Fear and watch how frightened everyone gets as soon as the Army gets mentioned.
Calculated nonsense aimed at panicking frightened people into signing up to May's Deal. All she and her allies have now is fear and they are hoping a couple of weeks of this propaganda will do the job.
There's nothing that can't be arranged or sorted in plenty of time (and would have been if this group of dullards had considered the most elementary contingency planning).
No one is going to starve, run out of medicines or be stopped from going anywhere. A great man once said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Nowadays, the only weapon a bad politician has is fear.
Project Fear's predictions are obviously ridiculous.
As you say, food and medicines will still make their way to the United Kingdom, and people will not starve.
But by attacking only the most extreme of Project Fear's prognostications, there is a tendency to pretend that there will be no ill effects whatsoever from crashing out.
Now, there is a genuine debate to be had about whether the costs of a sudden separation are worth the benefits. But I'm not seeing that debate. I'm seeing two sides: one which pretends there are no consequences from crashing out, and one which forecasts armageddon. That's not a healthy debate, and it's not conducive to good policy making.
It's an area where everyone is low-information. To understand all the consequences of 'no-deal' would be to understand the entirety of the UK economy, one of the most complex in the world. On that basis, it's easier just to fling poo like the primates we are.
I'm glad the government is enacting its contingency plans. I will be fucking livid if they have to be carried out; it would be a political failure of the first magnitude.
Mr. kle4, wasn't there a recent, much under-reported, vote in the Lords which essentially means no more elections to replace hereditary peers so they're going to be, as it were, naturally phased out?
So are we supposed to believe that as the cliff edge approaches, businesses are screaming blue murder and supermarkets are besieged by panic buyers the government is going to tell parliament to FO and push the country over the edge?
Such a course might be legally acceptable but it is not politically possible.
F*** business? Last said by Cabinet member IIRC - maybe it is becoming policy?
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
On which note, I would have thought the 250/1 on the Lib Dems winning Most Seats at the next election represents value. There's a fair few steps needed but they're all more than possible.
Yes. In fact, I don't think there are all that many steps - though there are several scenarios through which it could come about. Most realistic is something similar to 1981, with mass defections from Labour to Lib Dem, which by reducing the fear of a Corbyn government then removes one of the props to the Tory vote share (especially if combined with a No Deal Brexit recession). Presumably a change of leader would need to come into the bargain.
(Near) certainties in British politics:
1) The DUP will never vote for that Deal 2) The SNP will do well whenever the next GE is held
Pretty much everything else is completely up in the air.
But I still reckon that there's going to need to be some kind of realignment to break the impasse if No Deal is to be averted - assuming that a majority of MPs continues to shun May's Deal.
I've assumed that this would most likely evolve out of the Labour Right and Tory Left temporarily joining forces in a panic around late February/early March time, but frankly who knows?
Depends what you mean by the SNP doing'well'. I doubt they will poll better than circa 33% next time.
If we go to No Deal Scotland could be independent by next time
I am sure Westminster will have agreed to that!
The SNP will say it only requires the consent of the Scottish people
The notion that a country so stuffed full of food - not to mention with such an overweight citizenry - as ours might starve as a result of any likely Brexit fallout is for the birds. There's probably enough chocolate alone in British shops to provide everyone's recommended calorie intake for a month.
But yes, I concur that upper middle class, faux Marxist North Londoners would not be at all happy in the unlikely event of being forced to live off Fray Bentos meat pies and Cadbury's Dairy Milk for a few days. Good. I'm sure that the inevitable march on Whitehall demanding "Our right to superfood salads and quinoa" would further endear them to the nation at large.
Zinger of a post.
But look, I AM a wet and windy Hampstead lefty-pops and I think that in the 'not happening' event of a no deal brexit, if it really does NOT not happen, I will come to terms with it quite quickly. The trick will be to embrace the new reality rather than go around moaning and whining about it. We will have become at a stroke something that sounds rather heroic and noble, and certainly a damn sight more thrilling than being a member of the European Union. We will have become an independent coastal state with full control of our fish. That is not be sniffed at and I am confident that I for one will not be doing so. Although I can't of course speak for all of my ilk.
Big Tory Maj if the country goes to the polls I reckon . They'll swallow the leave vote whole if they go for no deal.
Exactly the sort of unalloyed garbage we heard from the PB Neobrexiteers in 2017.
Absolutely correct. UKIP withdrawing candidates was supposed to guarantee that.
Corbyn had Remainers behind him last time though, next time if he refuses to back EUref2 even at the risk of No Deal by default many Remainers could switch from Labour to the LDs as the Yougov poll in this thread header suggests
It is May who is playing chicken with the country’s future, by closing off all options other than her wretched deal. And why? To prove that she’s right. Neither she nor Corbyn are putting the country’s interests first.
She hasn't closed off any options. MPs have the ability to remove her anytime they want and we are assured parliament at least has a majority against what she wants so that should not be hard. People moaning she won't do what they want is one of the least convincing outrages out there at the moment, a figleaf, and I think she's doing both a bad job and should do other things.
Precisely. Any grouping of MPs in Parliament capable of forming a majority can simply declare itself a new party, be automatically recognised as the Opposition, vote out what's left of the sitting Government and take control.
If enough MPs believe (a) that No Deal is such a calamity that it must be avoided at no costs, and (b) that it will happen if May stays in office, then they possess the ability to resolve both problems. If they don't opt to use it then this implies that they are either incompetent or cowardly. Either way, not a good look.
The DUP might be prepared to tweak and calibrate their policy on cycling to work or pet microchipping based on opinion polls, but somehow I don't think the same approach would apply to constitutional matters.
OT but news here in Trumpland is reporting the Trump Foundation has agreed to be wound up under court supervision as a partial settlement of the NY AG's case against it.
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
On which note, I would have thought the 250/1 on the Lib Dems winning Most Seats at the next election represents value. There's a fair few steps needed but they're all more than possible.
Yes. In fact, I don't think there are all that many steps - though there are several scenarios through which it could come about. Most realistic is something similar to 1981, with mass defections from Labour to Lib Dem, which by reducing the fear of a Corbyn government then removes one of the props to the Tory vote share (especially if combined with a No Deal Brexit recession). Presumably a change of leader would need to come into the bargain.
(Near) certainties in British politics:
1) The DUP will never vote for that Deal 2) The SNP will do well whenever the next GE is held
Pretty much everything else is completely up in the air.
But I still reckon that there's going to need to be some kind of realignment to break the impasse if No Deal is to be averted - assuming that a majority of MPs continues to shun May's Deal.
I've assumed that this would most likely evolve out of the Labour Right and Tory Left temporarily joining forces in a panic around late February/early March time, but frankly who knows?
Depends what you mean by the SNP doing'well'. I doubt they will poll better than circa 33% next time.
If we go to No Deal Scotland could be independent by next time
I am sure Westminster will have agreed to that!
The SNP will say it only requires the consent of the Scottish people
SNP can say what it likes but such an approach would cost them dearly. For that reason, I would be happy to see them try that, but Nicola Sturgeon is not that stupid. Moreover , voters in Scotland are as sick to death of Brexit as the rest of the UK. Another constitutional wrangle over Independence is not something they would welcome.
The DUP might be prepared to tweak and calibrate their policy on cycling to work or pet microchipping based on opinion polls, but somehow I don't think the same approach would apply to constitutional matters.
They have three options:
- No Deal - Deal - Remain
In constitutional terms, the best outcome for them by far is Remain, and the worst is 'no deal'.
Good for him. Would be great to see others saying the same.
Soubry has agreed with him, so that's two. You'd think people like Clark, Grieve, Allen would do the same as well. And that's before you get anymore cabinet resignations.
I think those believing No Deal is the most likely outcome need to consider this.
There is definitely a majority in the HoC against it. The opposition parties would pretty much vote against it to a person and it seems very likely that enough Tories will vote against No Deal, even if the onlt way they can do that is through a VoNC.
Precisely. So the government is now ramping up panic, spending untold billions and forcing business to do the same, on an outcome most of the government believes would be disastrous and in any case will not be accepted by Parliament under any circumstances.
It doesn't need to be accepted by Parliament for it to happen.
That is legally correct, but if parliament votes against it I think it would be politically impossible for the government to go ahead with it.
OT but news here in Trumpland is reporting the Trump Foundation has agreed to be wound up under court supervision as a partial settlement of the NY AG's case against it.
Accelerating avalanche of bad news for Trump ever since the elections. Pretty clear a lot was held back so as not to be seen to be partisan.
Incidentally, I've got a hunch the Q4 GDP figures might be gruesome.
The shop I work for has had a sudden downturn these last few weeks, with last weekend being especially dire (even taking into account that the weather was bad on Saturday), and it sounds like it's been similar for the other businesses locally.
And, although I've not really been one to say "everything bad is because of Brexit", I can't help but think there's a link given the timing... though, in fairness, my Brexit-voting colleague disagrees with me on that!
So are we supposed to believe that as the cliff edge approaches, businesses are screaming blue murder and supermarkets are besieged by panic buyers the government is going to tell parliament to FO and push the country over the edge?
Such a course might be legally acceptable but it is not politically possible.
That's before even factoring in "contempt of parliament" proceedings, if the government ignored a Parliament vote against "No Deal".
(I'm sure people are going to pick on some various constitutional theories to say "contempt of parliament" proceedings can't be used in that way, but let's face it, whatever John Bercow says goes.)
Not so. Bercow can rule in situations where there is a clear rule as he did with the previous contempt issue. What he cannot do is simply make stuff up which is contrary to the rules. The current law is that Parliament cannot direct the Executive to make treaties. The Speaker cannot arbitrarily change that.
Project Fear's predictions are obviously ridiculous.
As you say, food and medicines will still make their way to the United Kingdom, and people will not starve.
But by attacking only the most extreme of Project Fear's prognostications, there is a tendency to pretend that there will be no ill effects whatsoever from crashing out.
Now, there is a genuine debate to be had about whether the costs of a sudden separation are worth the benefits. But I'm not seeing that debate. I'm seeing two sides: one which pretends there are no consequences from crashing out, and one which forecasts armageddon. That's not a healthy debate, and it's not conducive to good policy making.
Fair points as always, Robert.
I would argue however adequate and proper contingency planning for the possibility of leaving without a Deal would mitigate most negative aspects. My concern is the absence of such planning, as a deliberate political ploy, will exaggerate the impacts.
Today's nonsense is all about generating enough anxiety and panic among the public to force MPs to agree to May's Deal - that's all, shameless political gimmickry and theatre to save the Prime Minister which pretty sums up the last 6-12 months of political life.
Worth comparing the promises made by the Leave campaigns before the referendum about the wonderful future for Britain if it left with the current statements about soldiers on standby, suffering being good for us, food stockpiling etc.
"We won't starve" is not quite what was put on the side of that bus, was it.
A VONC in the Government would lose by roughly 17 votes. The People's Vote crew know this but try to pretend it is not so
What they also know, is a vote to hold a Second Referendum would lose by an even bigger margin even if Jezza whipped MPs to support it. The People's Vote crew know this but try to pretend it is not so
Conclusion the People's Vote Crew are Cretins /liars/ both
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
On which note, I would have thought the 250/1 on the Lib Dems winning Most Seats at the next election represents value. There's a fair few steps needed but they're all more than possible.
Yes. In fact, I don't think there are all that many steps - though there are several scenarios through which it could .
(Near) certainties in British politics:
1) The DUP will never vote for that Deal 2) The SNP will do well whenever the next GE is held
Pretty much everything else is completely up in the air.
But I still reckon that there's going to need to be some kind of realignment to break the impasse if No Deal is to be averted - assuming that a majority of MPs continues to shun May's Deal.
I've assumed that this would most likely evolve out of the Labour Right and Tory Left temporarily joining forces in a panic around late February/early March time, but frankly who knows?
Depends what you mean by the SNP doing'well'. I doubt they will poll better than circa 33% next time.
If we go to No Deal Scotland could be independent by next time
I am sure Westminster will have agreed to that!
The SNP will say it only requires the consent of the Scottish people
SNP can say what it likes but such an approach would cost them dearly. For that reason, I would be happy to see them try that, but Nicola Sturgeon is not that stupid. Moreover , voters in Scotland are as sick to death of Brexit as the rest of the UK. Another constitutional wrangle over Independence is not something they would welcome.
Boy are you out of touch with opinion in Scotland.
You should see our timelines with our extensive family and friends in Scotland before pontificating on the Scots
An election any time soon would result in lost conservative seats and labour gone without trace
I have a modest contribution to make to No Deal planning, and one which costs nothing.
Mr Hammond: May I respectfully suggest that if you're planning to mitigate possible chaos starting on the 30th March, it might be a good idea to cancel the already daft and ill-prepared introduction of Making Tax Digital on the 1st April? Just a thought. You needn't thank me in public for the suggestion, although a little hand-written note would be appreciated.
Today's nonsense is all about generating enough anxiety and panic among the public to force MPs to agree to May's Deal - that's all, shameless political gimmickry and theatre to save the Prime Minister which pretty sums up the last 6-12 months of political life.
I don't think it's about saving the Prime Minister at all. It's about saving the Deal.
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
On which note, I would have thought the 250/1 on the Lib Dems winning Most Seats at the next election represents value. There's a fair few steps needed but they're all more than possible.
Yes. In fact, I don't think there are all that many steps - though there are several scenarios through which it could .
Depends what you mean by the SNP doing'well'. I doubt they will poll better than circa 33% next time.
If we go to No Deal Scotland could be independent by next time
I am sure Westminster will have agreed to that!
The SNP will say it only requires the consent of the Scottish people
SNP can say what it likes but such an approach would cost them dearly. For that reason, I would be happy to see them try that, but Nicola Sturgeon is not that stupid. Moreover , voters in Scotland are as sick to death of Brexit as the rest of the UK. Another constitutional wrangle over Independence is not something they would welcome.
Boy are you out of touch with opinion in Scotland.
You should see our timelines with our extensive family and friends in Scotland before pontificating on the Scots
An election any time soon would result in lost conservative seats and labour gone without trace
Not even the polls are suggesting that - and the SNP have consistently underperformed them for quite some time.
Given your network of reliable contacts, how did you explain the SNP losing 21 of its 56 seats in 2017?
Incidentally, I've got a hunch the Q4 GDP figures might be gruesome.
The shop I work for has had a sudden downturn these last few weeks, with last weekend being especially dire (even taking into account that the weather was bad on Saturday), and it sounds like it's been similar for the other businesses locally.
And, although I've not really been one to say "everything bad is because of Brexit", I can't help but think there's a link given the timing... though, in fairness, my Brexit-voting colleague disagrees with me on that!
After Xmas we will have a raft of very bad economic news from companies, the reaction of businesses to their pre-Christmas present of no deal guidance from the government, and the Channel Four drama portraying how the Leave campaign manipulated the emotions of voters. Then the meaningful vote!
I have a modest contribution to make to No Deal planning, and one which costs nothing.
Mr Hammond: May I respectfully suggest that if you're planning to mitigate possible chaos starting on the 30th March, it might be a good idea to cancel the already daft and ill-prepared introduction of Making Tax Digital on the 1st April? Just a thought. You needn't thank me in public for the suggestion, although a little hand-written note would be appreciated.
Seconded.
Frankly, that change will have much greater practical implication on my business than a no deal Brexit.
A VONC in the Government would lose by roughly 17 votes. The People's Vote crew know this but try to pretend it is not so
What they also know, is a vote to hold a Second Referendum would lose by an even bigger margin even if Jezza whipped MPs to support it. The People's Vote crew know this but try to pretend it is not so
Conclusion the People's Vote Crew are Cretins /liars/ both
So your conclusion is that nothing should be done?
The DUP might be prepared to tweak and calibrate their policy on cycling to work or pet microchipping based on opinion polls, but somehow I don't think the same approach would apply to constitutional matters.
They have three options:
- No Deal - Deal - Remain
In constitutional terms, the best outcome for them by far is Remain, and the worst is 'no deal'.
And I suspect that the brighter ones in the DUP (one has to assume there are some) have realised that Brexit is a shortcut to a united Ireland and would like to see the whole idea binned. They are going about this in their usual fashion by naysaying any possible deal, safe in the assumption that parliament will not allow no deal and therefore remain is likely to emerge from the wreckage.
Good for him. Would be great to see others saying the same.
Soubry has agreed with him, so that's two. You'd think people like Clark, Grieve, Allen would do the same as well. And that's before you get anymore cabinet resignations.
I think those believing No Deal is the most likely outcome need to consider this.
There is definitely a majority in the HoC against it. The opposition parties would pretty much vote against it to a person and it seems very likely that enough Tories will vote against No Deal, even if the onlt way they can do that is through a VoNC.
Precisely. So the government is now ramping up panic, spending untold billions and forcing business to do the same, on an outcome most of the government believes would be disastrous and in any case will not be accepted by Parliament under any circumstances.
It doesn't need to be accepted by Parliament for it to happen.
That is legally correct, but if parliament votes against it I think it would be politically impossible for the government to go ahead with it.
Parliament can't meaningfully "vote against it", they have to vote for a specific other thing to put in its place.
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
On which note, I would have thought the 250/1 on the Lib Dems winning Most Seats at the next election represents value. There's a fair few steps needed but they're all more than possible.
Yes. In fact, I don't think there are all that many steps - though there are several scenarios through which it could .
(Near) certainties in British politics:
1) The DUP will never vote for that Deal 2) The SNP will do well whenever the next GE is
I've assumed that this would most likely evolve out of the Labour Right and Tory Left temporarily joining forces in a panic around late February/early March time, but frankly who knows?
Depends what you mean by the SNP doing'well'. I doubt they will poll better than circa 33% next time.
If we go to No Deal Scotland could be independent by next time
I am sure Westminster will have agreed to that!
The SNP will say it only requires the consent of the Scottish people
SNP can say what it likes but such an approach would cost them dearly. For that reason, I would be happy to see them try that, but Nicola Sturgeon is not that stupid. Moreover , voters in Scotland are as sick to death of Brexit as the rest of the UK. Another constitutional wrangle over Independence is not something they would welcome.
Boy are you out of touch with opinion in Scotland.
You should see our timelines with our extensive family and friends in Scotland before pontificating on the Scots
An election any time soon would result in lost conservative seats and labour gone without trace
Not even the polls are suggesting that - and the SNP have consistently underperformed them for quite some time.
You just do not know the Scots or their attitude to the Westminster Government
The DUP might be prepared to tweak and calibrate their policy on cycling to work or pet microchipping based on opinion polls, but somehow I don't think the same approach would apply to constitutional matters.
They have three options:
- No Deal - Deal - Remain
In constitutional terms, the best outcome for them by far is Remain, and the worst is 'no deal'.
Except that the DUP campaigned to Leave in the first place: my knowledge of them is limited, but they appear to regard the EU itself as a threat. That, surely, would also be a factor in their thinking?
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
On which note, I would have thought the 250/1 on the Lib Dems winning Most Seats at the next election represents value. There's a fair few steps needed but they're all more than possible.
Yes. In fact, I don't think there are all that many steps - though there are several scenarios through which it could .
(Near) certainties in British politics:
1) The DUP will never vote for that Deal 2) The SNP will do well whenever the next GE is
I've assumed that this would most likely evolve out of the Labour Right and Tory Left temporarily joining forces in a panic around late February/early March time, but frankly who knows?
Depends what you mean by the SNP doing'well'. I doubt they will poll better than circa 33% next time.
If we go to No Deal Scotland could be independent by next time
I am sure Westminster will have agreed to that!
The SNP will say it only requires the consent of the Scottish people
SNP can say what it likes but such an approach would cost them dearly. For that reason, I would be happy to see them try that, but Nicola Sturgeon is not that stupid. Moreover , voters in Scotland are as sick to death of Brexit as the rest of the UK. Another constitutional wrangle over Independence is not something they would welcome.
Boy are you out of touch with opinion in Scotland.
You should see our timelines with our extensive family and friends in Scotland before pontificating on the Scots
An election any time soon would result in lost conservative seats and labour gone without trace
Not even the polls are suggesting that - and the SNP have consistently underperformed them for quite some time.
You just do not know the Scots or their attitude to the Westminster Government
Why did the SNP lose 40% of its Westminster seats in 2017?
It's an area where everyone is low-information. To understand all the consequences of 'no-deal' would be to understand the entirety of the UK economy, one of the most complex in the world. On that basis, it's easier just to fling poo like the primates we are.
I'm glad the government is enacting its contingency plans. I will be fucking livid if they have to be carried out; it would be a political failure of the first magnitude.
" To understand all the consequences of 'no-deal' would be to understand the entirety of the UK economy, one of the most complex in the world."
That's a point I made on the last thread. I'm rather unbothered about the big-ticket issues like whether planes will be able to fly - not the least because I rarely fly.
What concerns me are the small-ticket items, the things that just happen because they always have, and fall under the radar of grand planning schemes. Yet they might have an effect far greater than their individual value.
As an example, the worldwide car industry had problems after the Japanese tsunami, as a factory making a certain pigment paint (red, from memory) was knocked out, and few people had any stocks. It would be easy for say, problems with the import of LEDs to cause large-scale problems in our industry as production lines shut for the lack of a single irreplaceable, cheap component.
I would hope that adult on all sides would prevent this sort of thing happening, but the Gallileo mess doesn't fill me with hope that there are adults on any side.
Officials say that in the event of Britain leaving the EU without a deal and on unfriendly terms, they must “create a strategy with other government departments — handling the negative impacts (eg homelessness, poverty and suicide).”
This outcome is likely to cause unemployment and welfare spending to rise to levels last seen after the 2008-09 crash. The unemployment benefit bill could rise by almost £12 billion over three years.
The warning comes in a 16-page planning document entitled “Economic Downturn” prepared for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) on December 6. It outlines planning for three Brexit scenarios.
The most optimistic scenario is a “smooth exit”, which would mean “adjustment costs/lower prospects for the UK economy (which lead to rise in unemployment).”
But look, I AM a wet and windy Hampstead lefty-pops and I think that in the 'not happening' event of a no deal brexit, if it really does NOT not happen, I will come to terms with it quite quickly. The trick will be to embrace the new reality rather than go around moaning and whining about it. We will have become at a stroke something that sounds rather heroic and noble, and certainly a damn sight more thrilling than being a member of the European Union. We will have become an independent coastal state with full control of our fish. That is not be sniffed at and I am confident that I for one will not be doing so. Although I can't of course speak for all of my ilk.
That's the spirit! I am sure that the Ministry of Sovereign Fish will appreciate your support, and ensure that your fish allocation (one per month; species subject to availability) will be delivered harbour-fresh to your local fish collection point.
Just realised the crunchpoint is actually going to come much sooner than March.
It will happen the moment TMay's deal is voted down in January.
At that point, the government will be asked: OK, so what is your plan for Brexit, now we know the Deal is a dud? TMay will not be allowed to say, Oh, the deal goes on, not any more.
So what does she say? Can she honestly turn to the Commons, and the people, and say: I'm going for No Deal, Crash Brexit?
If she does, that's when she, or her government, will be VONC'd. Ergo, she will have to offer something else: A GE, a new referendum, revocation - or she tells the Commons to make the choice.
January. Buckle up.
Indeed. Why do you think she cancelled the MV last week?
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
On which note, I would have thought the 250/1 on the Lib Dems winning Most Seats at the next election represents value. There's a fair few steps needed but they're all more than possible.
Yes. In fact, I don't think there are all that many steps - though there are several scenarios through which it could .
(Near) certainties in
I've assumed that this would most likely evolve out of the Labour Right and Tory Left temporarily joining forces in a panic around late February/early March time, but frankly who knows?
Depends what you mean by the SNP doing'well'. I doubt they will poll better than circa 33% next time.
If we go to No Deal Scotland could be independent by next time
I am sure Westminster will have agreed to that!
The SNP will say it only requires the consent of the Scottish people
SNP can say what it likes but such an approach would cost them dearly. For that reason, I would be happy to see them try that, but Nicola Sturgeon is not that stupid. Moreover , voters in Scotland are as sick to death of Brexit as the rest of the UK. Another constitutional wrangle over Independence is not something they would welcome.
Boy are you out of touch with opinion in Scotland.
You should see our timelines with our extensive family and friends in Scotland before pontificating on the Scots
An election any time soon would result in lost conservative seats and labour gone without trace
Not even the polls are suggesting that - and the SNP have consistently underperformed them for quite some time.
You just do not know the Scots or their attitude to the Westminster Government
Why did the SNP lose 40% of its Westminster seats in 2017?
They won't make the same mistake again and Brexit has been toxic for many Scots
Just realised the crunchpoint is actually going to come much sooner than March.
It will happen the moment TMay's deal is voted down in January.
At that point, the government will be asked: OK, so what is your plan for Brexit, now we know the Deal is a dud? TMay will not be allowed to say, Oh, the deal goes on, not any more.
So what does she say? Can she honestly turn to the Commons, and the people, and say: I'm going for No Deal, Crash Brexit?
If she does, that's when she, or her government, will be VONC'd. Ergo, she will have to offer something else: A GE, a new referendum, revocation - or she tells the Commons to make the choice.
January. Buckle up.
Now is the time to emulate the dormouse. Stuff yourself with food Sean, for the dark times they are a'comin'. Only the fatties will survive.
Officials say that in the event of Britain leaving the EU without a deal and on unfriendly terms, they must “create a strategy with other government departments — handling the negative impacts (eg homelessness, poverty and suicide).”
This outcome is likely to cause unemployment and welfare spending to rise to levels last seen after the 2008-09 crash. The unemployment benefit bill could rise by almost £12 billion over three years.
The warning comes in a 16-page planning document entitled “Economic Downturn” prepared for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) on December 6. It outlines planning for three Brexit scenarios.
The most optimistic scenario is a “smooth exit”, which would mean “adjustment costs/lower prospects for the UK economy (which lead to rise in unemployment).”
Short term pain for long term gain. In 2089 people will thank us for it
To be honest, Norway and anything else has sailed. It is TM deal or choice in a referendum of
Deal - no deal - remain
But the referendum would be divisive, nasty, and with an uncertain outcome
Except that our official opposition when interviewed has to keep trotting out nonsense about their sunshine and sweeties unicorn Brexit to avoid making any useful contribution to the debate.
The strongest argument for a referendum is that NOT having one and proceeding either to no deal or no Brexit would be even MORE divisive and nasty.
It's an area where everyone is low-information. To understand all the consequences of 'no-deal' would be to understand the entirety of the UK economy, one of the most complex in the world. On that basis, it's easier just to fling poo like the primates we are.
Perhaps we could extrapolate it from a piece of fairy cake linked to a Bambleweenie 57 sub-meson brain linked to an atomic vector plotter suspended in a strong Brownian motion producer (say, a nice hot cup of tea)?
Officials say that in the event of Britain leaving the EU without a deal and on unfriendly terms, they must “create a strategy with other government departments — handling the negative impacts (eg homelessness, poverty and suicide).”
This outcome is likely to cause unemployment and welfare spending to rise to levels last seen after the 2008-09 crash. The unemployment benefit bill could rise by almost £12 billion over three years.
The warning comes in a 16-page planning document entitled “Economic Downturn” prepared for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) on December 6. It outlines planning for three Brexit scenarios.
The most optimistic scenario is a “smooth exit”, which would mean “adjustment costs/lower prospects for the UK economy (which lead to rise in unemployment).”
So the £2 or £3 billion put aside won't cover it? At this rate it will soon be costing us more than £350m per week.
Well that at least would be some good news. If Soubry quit the Tories she would at least be out of Parliament at the next election. I suppose every cloud has a silver lining.
Officials say that in the event of Britain leaving the EU without a deal and on unfriendly terms, they must “create a strategy with other government departments — handling the negative impacts (eg homelessness, poverty and suicide).”
This outcome is likely to cause unemployment and welfare spending to rise to levels last seen after the 2008-09 crash. The unemployment benefit bill could rise by almost £12 billion over three years.
The warning comes in a 16-page planning document entitled “Economic Downturn” prepared for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) on December 6. It outlines planning for three Brexit scenarios.
The most optimistic scenario is a “smooth exit”, which would mean “adjustment costs/lower prospects for the UK economy (which lead to rise in unemployment).”
So the £2 or £3 billion put aside won't cover it? At this rate it will soon be costing us more than £350m per week.
We have already reached that point. Brexit is already costing £500m per week
It's an area where everyone is low-information. To understand all the consequences of 'no-deal' would be to understand the entirety of the UK economy, one of the most complex in the world. On that basis, it's easier just to fling poo like the primates we are.
I'm glad the government is enacting its contingency plans. I will be fucking livid if they have to be carried out; it would be a political failure of the first magnitude.
" To understand all the consequences of 'no-deal' would be to understand the entirety of the UK economy, one of the most complex in the world."
That's a point I made on the last thread. I'm rather unbothered about the big-ticket issues like whether planes will be able to fly - not the least because I rarely fly.
What concerns me are the small-ticket items, the things that just happen because they always have, and fall under the radar of grand planning schemes. Yet they might have an effect far greater than their individual value.
As an example, the worldwide car industry had problems after the Japanese tsunami, as a factory making a certain pigment paint (red, from memory) was knocked out, and few people had any stocks. It would be easy for say, problems with the import of LEDs to cause large-scale problems in our industry as production lines shut for the lack of a single irreplaceable, cheap component.
I would hope that adult on all sides would prevent this sort of thing happening, but the Gallileo mess doesn't fill me with hope that there are adults on any side.
Just realised the crunchpoint is actually going to come much sooner than March.
It will happen the moment TMay's deal is voted down in January.
At that point, the government will be asked: OK, so what is your plan for Brexit, now we know the Deal is a dud? TMay will not be allowed to say, Oh, the deal goes on, not any more.
So what does she say? Can she honestly turn to the Commons, and the people, and say: I'm going for No Deal, Crash Brexit?
If she does, that's when she, or her government, will be VONC'd. Ergo, she will have to offer something else: A GE, a new referendum, revocation - or she tells the Commons to make the choice.
January. Buckle up.
You have it in one. January will be 'the' moment in brexit and no one knows the outcome
Just realised the crunchpoint is actually going to come much sooner than March.
It will happen the moment TMay's deal is voted down in January.
At that point, the government will be asked: OK, so what is your plan for Brexit, now we know the Deal is a dud? TMay will not be allowed to say, Oh, the deal goes on, not any more.
So what does she say? Can she honestly turn to the Commons, and the people, and say: I'm going for No Deal, Crash Brexit?
If she does, that's when she, or her government, will be VONC'd. Ergo, she will have to offer something else: A GE, a new referendum, revocation - or she tells the Commons to make the choice.
January. Buckle up.
Choices before meaningful vote occurs: Deal, No Deal, Remain Choices after defeat in meaningful vote: Deal, No Deal, Remain
Defeat changes nothing. Parliament needs to decide whether to eventually swallow the Deal, leave without one, revoke A50, or hold a referendum (which would end up having to be Deal versus Remain if it were to have any chance of persuading the European Council to extend the A50 deadline.) There's no apparent majority willing to ram through any one of these choices now, and no reason to suppose that one is any more likely to coalesce after the meaningful vote has been held.
Unless there's a big surprise and the Deal actually passes, the meaningful vote is irrelevant.
To be honest, Norway and anything else has sailed. It is TM deal or choice in a referendum of
Deal - no deal - remain
But the referendum would be divisive, nasty, and with an uncertain outcome
Except that our official opposition when interviewed has to keep trotting out nonsense about their sunshine and sweeties unicorn Brexit to avoid making any useful contribution to the debate.
The strongest argument for a referendum is that NOT having one and proceeding either to no deal or no Brexit would be even MORE divisive and nasty.
I ffee sure a variant of this must have been posted, but apparently Diane Abbot has been appointed Manager of Manchester Utd. Her past record of played 26 won 39 was the clincher.
To be honest, Norway and anything else has sailed. It is TM deal or choice in a referendum of
Deal - no deal - remain
But the referendum would be divisive, nasty, and with an uncertain outcome
Except that our official opposition when interviewed has to keep trotting out nonsense about their sunshine and sweeties unicorn Brexit to avoid making any useful contribution to the debate.
The strongest argument for a referendum is that NOT having one and proceeding either to no deal or no Brexit would be even MORE divisive and nasty.
Exactly. A second referendum is a very bad idea. But May's deal and no deal are worse ideas.
The Tories have locked the UK in a burning building and thrown away the key.
To be honest, Norway and anything else has sailed. It is TM deal or choice in a referendum of
Deal - no deal - remain
But the referendum would be divisive, nasty, and with an uncertain outcome
Except that our official opposition when interviewed has to keep trotting out nonsense about their sunshine and sweeties unicorn Brexit to avoid making any useful contribution to the debate.
The strongest argument for a referendum is that NOT having one and proceeding either to no deal or no Brexit would be even MORE divisive and nasty.
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
On which note, I would have thought the 250/1 on the Lib Dems winning Most Seats at the next election represents value. There's a fair few steps needed but they're all more than possible.
Yes. In fact, I don't think there are all that many steps - though there are several scenarios through which it could .
(Near) certainties in
I've assumed that this would most likely evolve out of the Labour Right and Tory Left temporarily joining forces in a panic around late February/early March time, but frankly who knows?
Depends what you mean by the SNP doing'well'. I doubt they will poll better than circa 33% next time.
If we go to No Deal Scotland could be independent by next time
I am sure Westminster will have agreed to that!
The SNP will say it only requires the consent of the Scottish people
SNP can say what it likes but such an approach would cost them dearly. For that reason, I would be happy to see them try that, but Nicola Sturgeon is not that stupid. Moreover , voters in Scotland are as sick to death of Brexit as the rest of the UK. Another constitutional wrangle over Independence is not something they would welcome.
Boy are you out of touch with opinion in Scotland.
You should see our timelines with our extensiv An election any time soon would result in lost conservative seats and labour gone without trace
Not even the polls are suggesting that - and the SNP have consistently underperformed them for quite some time.
You just do not know the Scots or their attitude to the Westminster Government
Why did the SNP lose 40% of its Westminster seats in 2017?
They won't make the same mistake again and Brexit has been toxic for many Scots
Bear in mind that in the 73 years since Attlee formed his government, the average PM tenure is about 5 years, so a 250/1 shot implies the sort of thing that happens less than once-a-millennium. Granted that there's much more flux at the moment and a change of PM is more likely that usual but I still think that 250/1 is more than fair.
On which note, I would have thought the 250/1 on the Lib Dems winning Most Seats at the next election represents value. There's a fair few steps needed but they're all more than possible.
Yes. In fact, I don't think there are all that many steps - though there are several scenarios through which it could come about. Most realistic is something similar to 1981, with mass defections from Labour to Lib Dem, which by reducing the fear of a Corbyn government then removes one of the props to the Tory vote share (especially if combined with a No Deal Brexit recession). Presumably a change of leader would need to come into the bargain.
(Near) certainties in British politics:
1) The DUP will never vote for that Deal 2) The SNP will do well whenever the next GE is held
Pretty much everything else is completely up in the air.
But I still reckon that there's going to need to be some kind of realignment to break the impasse if No Deal is to be averted - assuming that a majority of MPs continues to shun May's Deal.
I've assumed that this would most likely evolve out of the Labour Right and Tory Left temporarily joining forces in a panic around late February/early March time, but frankly who knows?
Depends what you mean by the SNP doing'well'. I doubt they will poll better than circa 33% next time.
If we go to No Deal Scotland could be independent by next time
I am sure Westminster will have agreed to that!
The fannies will have little option to not agree. They will not want to be up in court , every country has a right to self determination. You bawheid.
Officials say that in the event of Britain leaving the EU without a deal and on unfriendly terms, they must “create a strategy with other government departments — handling the negative impacts (eg homelessness, poverty and suicide).”
This outcome is likely to cause unemployment and welfare spending to rise to levels last seen after the 2008-09 crash. The unemployment benefit bill could rise by almost £12 billion over three years.
The warning comes in a 16-page planning document entitled “Economic Downturn” prepared for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) on December 6. It outlines planning for three Brexit scenarios.
The most optimistic scenario is a “smooth exit”, which would mean “adjustment costs/lower prospects for the UK economy (which lead to rise in unemployment).”
Short term pain for long term gain. In 2089 people will thank us for it
Yes, one day we look back on Brexit and laugh, from inside our digitised iridium robo-suits, in the Homo Sapiens Legacy Conservancy Labs, on Apple Inc MegaPlanet X44GY
Been there in the year 3018AD, the food was shit and the Maybot overlord promised a meaningful vote before 3022AD.
Just realised the crunchpoint is actually going to come much sooner than March.
It will happen the moment TMay's deal is voted down in January.
At that point, the government will be asked: OK, so what is your plan for Brexit, now we know the Deal is a dud? TMay will not be allowed to say, Oh, the deal goes on, not any more.
So what does she say? Can she honestly turn to the Commons, and the people, and say: I'm going for No Deal, Crash Brexit?
If she does, that's when she, or her government, will be VONC'd. Ergo, she will have to offer something else: A GE, a new referendum, revocation - or she tells the Commons to make the choice.
January. Buckle up.
Now is the time to emulate the dormouse. Stuff yourself with food Sean, for the dark times they are a'comin'. Only the fatties will survive.
I have a good chance then, will be able to last till we are independent and supplies start up again.
Well that at least would be some good news. If Soubry quit the Tories she would at least be out of Parliament at the next election. I suppose every cloud has a silver lining.
Trouble with Soubry is that her One Nation is the EU.
Comments
It’s amazing what job losses and chaos might do to those waving the flag for Brexit .
The ECJ case means the power rests with May to stop a crash out , the Tories will pay dearly if the ERG death cult are allowed to push the country over a cliff .
(I'm sure people are going to pick on some various constitutional theories to say "contempt of parliament" proceedings can't be used in that way, but let's face it, whatever John Bercow says goes.)
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1075082900369039360
Most people are neither doomsayers nor cheerleaders, but people trying to get on with their lives.
I've been trying to work out today how it would impact on my business in practical, non economy-based terms. The closest I've got to anything concrete is that EU 'export' licenses for cultural goods would be replaced with the ROW ones. That adds about 5 minutes more work to a task I undertake maybe 10 times a year. And adding customs forms to shipments made to the EU, maybe 1 minute extra work every week. Not hugely taxing.
From an economic point of view, because about 40% of my business is exporting products predominately sourced in the UK, largely outside of the EU, I would expect my sales to grow in the short-term following the further weakening of the pound. I'd also expect greater competition when re-stocking. I would expect the profit from this short term sales growth to largely balance out the increased costs that my personal expenditure might incur, and the expected 20% drop off in domestic sales in the immediate aftermath - but I launched the business in 2007 and so know how to manage in a recession.
However, I realise that I am in a privileged position compared to some businesses - especially those with heavily involved in selling products to the single market. No deal doesn't hit me massively; but it hits some people, and their businesses, very much indeed.
I'm glad the government is enacting its contingency plans. I will be fucking livid if they have to be carried out; it would be a political failure of the first magnitude.
But look, I AM a wet and windy Hampstead lefty-pops and I think that in the 'not happening' event of a no deal brexit, if it really does NOT not happen, I will come to terms with it quite quickly. The trick will be to embrace the new reality rather than go around moaning and whining about it. We will have become at a stroke something that sounds rather heroic and noble, and certainly a damn sight more thrilling than being a member of the European Union. We will have become an independent coastal state with full control of our fish. That is not be sniffed at and I am confident that I for one will not be doing so. Although I can't of course speak for all of my ilk.
If enough MPs believe (a) that No Deal is such a calamity that it must be avoided at no costs, and (b) that it will happen if May stays in office, then they possess the ability to resolve both problems. If they don't opt to use it then this implies that they are either incompetent or cowardly. Either way, not a good look. The DUP might be prepared to tweak and calibrate their policy on cycling to work or pet microchipping based on opinion polls, but somehow I don't think the same approach would apply to constitutional matters.
Q. Will there be any any troops at Dover?
A. Of course not. Are you a fucking idiot or something?
Response: OMG! There are going to be troops everywhere except Dover! It's a crisis!
- No Deal
- Deal
- Remain
In constitutional terms, the best outcome for them by far is Remain, and the worst is 'no deal'.
The shop I work for has had a sudden downturn these last few weeks, with last weekend being especially dire (even taking into account that the weather was bad on Saturday), and it sounds like it's been similar for the other businesses locally.
And, although I've not really been one to say "everything bad is because of Brexit", I can't help but think there's a link given the timing... though, in fairness, my Brexit-voting colleague disagrees with me on that!
I would argue however adequate and proper contingency planning for the possibility of leaving without a Deal would mitigate most negative aspects. My concern is the absence of such planning, as a deliberate political ploy, will exaggerate the impacts.
Today's nonsense is all about generating enough anxiety and panic among the public to force MPs to agree to May's Deal - that's all, shameless political gimmickry and theatre to save the Prime Minister which pretty sums up the last 6-12 months of political life.
"We won't starve" is not quite what was put on the side of that bus, was it.
I think this is one of the occasions when this thought is quite handy. Something improbable but not impossible is going to happen.
What they also know, is a vote to hold a Second Referendum would lose by an even bigger margin even if Jezza whipped MPs to support it. The People's Vote crew know this but try to pretend it is not so
Conclusion the People's Vote Crew are Cretins /liars/ both
You should see our timelines with our extensive family and friends in Scotland before pontificating on the Scots
An election any time soon would result in lost conservative seats and labour gone without trace
Mr Hammond: May I respectfully suggest that if you're planning to mitigate possible chaos starting on the 30th March, it might be a good idea to cancel the already daft and ill-prepared introduction of Making Tax Digital on the 1st April? Just a thought. You needn't thank me in public for the suggestion, although a little hand-written note would be appreciated.
Given your network of reliable contacts, how did you explain the SNP losing 21 of its 56 seats in 2017?
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
Frankly, that change will have much greater practical implication on my business than a no deal Brexit.
https://twitter.com/LivEchoLFC/status/1075069317841072129
When you eliminate the possible, whatever remains, however impossible, must be the truth?
But then, I would say that, wouldn't I?
Mrs May and her party will ruin this country and still get thousands of votes.
Grim.
It was from a ridiculously high base.
That's a point I made on the last thread. I'm rather unbothered about the big-ticket issues like whether planes will be able to fly - not the least because I rarely fly.
What concerns me are the small-ticket items, the things that just happen because they always have, and fall under the radar of grand planning schemes. Yet they might have an effect far greater than their individual value.
As an example, the worldwide car industry had problems after the Japanese tsunami, as a factory making a certain pigment paint (red, from memory) was knocked out, and few people had any stocks. It would be easy for say, problems with the import of LEDs to cause large-scale problems in our industry as production lines shut for the lack of a single irreplaceable, cheap component.
I would hope that adult on all sides would prevent this sort of thing happening, but the Gallileo mess doesn't fill me with hope that there are adults on any side.
Edit: https://www.autotrader.com/car-reviews/japanese-disaster-cuts-paint-supply-ford-and-chrys-81170
This outcome is likely to cause unemployment and welfare spending to rise to levels last seen after the 2008-09 crash. The unemployment benefit bill could rise by almost £12 billion over three years.
The warning comes in a 16-page planning document entitled “Economic Downturn” prepared for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) on December 6. It outlines planning for three Brexit scenarios.
The most optimistic scenario is a “smooth exit”, which would mean “adjustment costs/lower prospects for the UK economy (which lead to rise in unemployment).”
Deal - no deal - remain
But the referendum would be divisive, nasty, and with an uncertain outcome
https://tinyurl.com/y9ssmjbc
Betting post – William Hill: Total Conservative Party Seats In Scotland Over/Under Over 9.5 at 20/1 – FILL YOUR BOOTS
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/04/22/labour-reduce-the-tory-lead-to-23-with-yougov-in-the-most-incredible-polling-night-i-can-remember/
I sold the SNP at 46 I think as well.
Bill Shankly was famously pro Labour.
The strongest argument for a referendum is that NOT having one and proceeding either to no deal or no Brexit would be even MORE divisive and nasty.
The vnoc in TM by Corbyn was idiotic and on this mornings 5 live programme he was attacked by virtually every caller.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/29/britain-bill-brexit-hits-500-million-pounds-a-week
Choices after defeat in meaningful vote: Deal, No Deal, Remain
Defeat changes nothing. Parliament needs to decide whether to eventually swallow the Deal, leave without one, revoke A50, or hold a referendum (which would end up having to be Deal versus Remain if it were to have any chance of persuading the European Council to extend the A50 deadline.) There's no apparent majority willing to ram through any one of these choices now, and no reason to suppose that one is any more likely to coalesce after the meaningful vote has been held.
Unless there's a big surprise and the Deal actually passes, the meaningful vote is irrelevant.
The Tories have locked the UK in a burning building and thrown away the key.
The truth is the whole political class is failing