If we go to No Deal Davis could end up Tory leader and PM
You know the worst thing? May has actually emboldened Davis. He can claim "I'd have negotiated a Canada++++++ deal by now if it wasn't for that pesky saboteur Theresa May sabotaging the whole thing". It's impossible to disprove a counterfactual, and a lot of people will give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yes and having resigned first after Chequers let alone the final Deal Davis is best placed to take over if No Deal
It would certainly provide some grim amusement to see someone who told us No Deal wouldn't be a disaster being left in charge of picking up the pieces, but sadly not enough amusement to compensate for the chaos, job losses, insolvencies, shortages, and the ensuing Corbyn government.
Davis PM, Boris back as Foreign Secretary, Gove Chancellor, Mogg or Raab at Business, Hunt DPM, Javid stays at Home.
Let those opposed to the Deal and backing No Deal make the running together with the careerists and if Corbyn forms a government shortly after let him then deal with the mess too.
May can enjoy a long cruise with Philip in retirement and several glasses of schadenfraude
I wonder if Javid and Hunt would want to be part of the disaster. They are not complete fools.
The behaviour of The Saj over the last few days has made me revise my certainty of that down a few notches.
Hunt is an opportunist, but clearly not an idiot. Maybe his dream outcome is No Deal brexit just as The Saj becomes leader and the party implodes. Six months later Hunt offers his services as the Safe Pair of Hands to rebuild the Tory party from the no-deal wreckage.
If we go to No Deal Davis could end up Tory leader and PM
You know the worst thing? May has actually emboldened Davis. He can claim "I'd have negotiated a Canada++++++ deal by now if it wasn't for that pesky saboteur Theresa May sabotaging the whole thing". It's impossible to disprove a counterfactual, and a lot of people will give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yes and having resigned first after Chequers let alone the final Deal Davis is best placed to take over if No Deal
It would certainly provide some grim amusement to see someone who told us No Deal wouldn't be a disaster being left in charge of picking up the pieces, but sadly not enough amusement to compensate for the chaos, job losses, insolvencies, shortages, and the ensuing Corbyn government.
As you can probably guess I am less worried by the last of those consequences of No Deal but I would not want to experience the others.
However, if we do end up with No Deal chaos I will enjoy hearing those on here who currently say No Deal will be painless, explain how they got it so wrong*.
(*I suspect it will still all be the fault of 'Remoaners' somehow.)
Of course, it will be the wrong sort of No Deal, with all the bad things caused by a lack of preparations, the substance of which is never specified.
The first rule of Brexiteer club: nothing is EVER the fault of Brexiteer club. (The second rule is that tweed is mandatory)
Incidentally, what's the timetable for the vote? Do we have a date set yet?
The debate is currently scheduled for the 9th - 11th, which is a Friday so not normally a sitting day. Presumably that will mean the vote is on the 11th.
I think the timetable will be set out on Weds 9th.
If we go to No Deal Davis could end up Tory leader and PM
You know the worst thing? May has actually emboldened Davis. He can claim "I'd have negotiated a Canada++++++ deal by now if it wasn't for that pesky saboteur Theresa May sabotaging the whole thing". It's impossible to disprove a counterfactual, and a lot of people will give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yes and having resigned first after Chequers let alone the final Deal Davis is best placed to take over if No Deal
It would certainly provide some grim amusement to see someone who told us No Deal wouldn't be a disaster being left in charge of picking up the pieces, but sadly not enough amusement to compensate for the chaos, job losses, insolvencies, shortages, and the ensuing Corbyn government.
As you can probably guess I am less worried by the last of those consequences of No Deal but I would not want to experience the others.
However, if we do end up with No Deal chaos I will enjoy hearing those on here who currently say No Deal will be painless, explain how they got it so wrong*.
(*I suspect it will still all be the fault of 'Remoaners' somehow.)
Of course, it will be the wrong sort of No Deal, with all the bad things caused by a lack of preparations, the substance of which is never specified.
It'll be incompetence by every single ministry. Anyone still in the cabinet at that point should be terrified.
Takes some skill to piss off both sides in a binary issue. Like walking into a room to encounter a bickering ex-wife and -husband and somehow managing to unite them against you.
In a parallel universe somewhere, a leading Brexiter - Boris would have been ideal, instead of making his puerile 'independence day' speech - would, immediately after the referendum, have laid out the facts of the position, the time it would take to disentangle forty years of integration and the considerable risks involved, set out a road map toward destination Brexit moving progressively over say ten years, with the first step being EEA/CU - and faced down the Brexit hardnuts with some hard truths at outset.
Securing agreement to the first step would have been much easier; the existence of a ten year plan would have reassured people that we had some sort of plan and objective; the details of each successive stage could be fleshed out at relative leisure, and arguments about the eventual destination could be headed off by making it clear that progress would be dependent on parliamentary votes at each stage, as well as inevitably being an issue in the intervening GEs. If hard Brexit was what they wanted they could even have offered a referendum before the final step, to keep the soft Brexiters on board.
You may not like some of my detail, but it would at least have been a strategy, and reasonably honest and transparent.
After all, she is currently holding a loaded revolver to the country’s head. Does that sound like the actions of a sane person?
It is Labour, the SNP, the DUP, the LibDems and the ERG who are holding loaded revolvers to the country’s head. Theresa May and the government as a whole are trying to disarm them, unfortunately with little sign of success.
You're trying this again, Richard? When Mrs May drives the UK over the cliff edge it will be her choice.
We do not give in to blackmail.
The very fact that Parliament, Labour, Labour members, Tory members, Tory backbenchers and the electorate as a whole are all opposed to Mrs May's deal, does not give her any kind of moral cover to drive the UK over the cliff edge in a tantrum of chaos and destruction.
If we go over the cliff edge, it'll be her choice to do so, and she will rightly get the blame.
We don't give in to blackmail.
So what do you suggest she should do instead, that would get parliamentary support? A single-sentence answer will do.
Revoke Article 50?
Would that get a majority? Dunno. But it wouldn't be possible for a Conservative PM to do it.
Doesn’t that currently apply to every option. With a split Tory Party a Tory PM has limited room for manoeuvre. With her counting down the clock on the deal the problem worsens every day.
It's not her counting down the clock, though. She's all keen to get the deal agreed and to move on to the next stage. It's her opponents who are preventing that.
But, yes you are right, all options are impossible, which means that we are at very substantial risk of falling accidentally into the unquestionably worst of all the bad routes we could have taken.
The deal was rejected in December. It has fundamental flaws that means it doesn’t command a majority . Bringing it back unchanged now, threatening chaos, is at best dumb at worst negligent. Her duty is to find something that passes, delay or revoke.
It's rather naive to think that the deal doesn't command a majority because it has fundamental flaws. It doesn't command a majority because various different groups of MPs have contradictory agendas, and because Labour are opposing it for the sake of opposing it.
Takes some skill to piss off both sides in a binary issue. Like walking into a room to encounter a bickering ex-wife and -husband and somehow managing to unite them against you.
Incidentally, what's the timetable for the vote? Do we have a date set yet?
The debate is currently scheduled for the 9th - 11th, which is a Friday so not normally a sitting day. Presumably that will mean the vote is on the 11th.
I think the timetable will be set out on Weds 9th.
Parliament needs to dispose of all the tabled amendments first too. Three days of the five scheduled as part of the programme motion have already taken place.
That leaves two days of debate, then disposal of amendments, wrapping up by Michael Gove and then finally the MV (in whatever amended form it takes and assuming it doesn't get wrecked by one of the amendments).
We still don't know which amendments the Speaker will select. I think many of them are obvious wrecking amendments that would normally be ruled out of order, but these are fractious times and Bercow will probably select the whole lot just to maximise the government's suffering.
Incidentally, what's the timetable for the vote? Do we have a date set yet?
The debate is currently scheduled for the 9th - 11th, which is a Friday so not normally a sitting day. Presumably that will mean the vote is on the 11th.
I think the timetable will be set out on Weds 9th.
The vote is expected in week commencing 14th January - probably 15th.
Takes some skill to piss off both sides in a binary issue. Like walking into a room to encounter a bickering ex-wife and -husband and somehow managing to unite them against you.
..except without the bit about uniting the couple...
After all, she is currently holding a loaded revolver to the country’s head. Does that sound like the actions of a sane person?
It is Labour, the SNP, the DUP, the LibDems and the ERG who are holding loaded revolvers to the country’s head. Theresa May and the government as a whole are trying to disarm them, unfortunately with little sign of success.
You're trying this again, Richard? When Mrs May drives the UK over the cliff edge it will be her choice.
We do not give in to blackmail.
The very fact that Parliament, Labour, Labour members, Tory members, Tory backbenchers and the electorate as a whole are all opposed to Mrs May's deal, does not give her any kind of moral cover to drive the UK over the cliff edge in a tantrum of chaos and destruction.
If we go over the cliff edge, it'll be her choice to do so, and she will rightly get the blame.
We don't give in to blackmail.
So what do you suggest she should do instead, that would get parliamentary support? A single-sentence answer will do.
Revoke Article 50?
Would that get a majority? Dunno. But it wouldn't be possible for a Conservative PM to do it.
Doesn’t that currently apply to every option. With a split Tory Party a Tory PM has limited room for manoeuvre. With her counting down the clock on the deal the problem worsens every day.
It's not her counting down the clock, though. She's all keen to get the deal agreed and to move on to the next stage. It's her opponents who are preventing that.
But, yes you are right, all options are impossible, which means that we are at very substantial risk of falling accidentally into the unquestionably worst of all the bad routes we could have taken.
The deal was rejected in December. It has fundamental flaws that means it doesn’t command a majority . Bringing it back unchanged now, threatening chaos, is at best dumb at worst negligent. Her duty is to find something that passes, delay or revoke.
It's rather naive to think that the deal doesn't command a majority because it has fundamental flaws. It doesn't command a majority because various different groups of MPs have contradictory agendas, and because Labour are opposing it for the sake of opposing it.
Nothing commands a majority in Parliament right now - other than leaving the whole mess in May's hands.
After all, she is currently holding a loaded revolver to the country’s head. Does that sound like the actions of a sane person?
It is Labour, the SNP, the DUP, the LibDems and the ERG who are holding loaded revolvers to the country’s head. Theresa May and the government as a whole are trying to disarm them, unfortunately with little sign of success.
You're trying this again, Richard? When Mrs May drives the UK over the cliff edge it will be her choice.
We do not give in to blackmail.
The very fact that Parliament, Labour, Labour members, Tory members, Tory backbenchers and the electorate as a whole are all opposed to Mrs May's deal, does not give her any kind of moral cover to drive the UK over the cliff edge in a tantrum of chaos and destruction.
If we go over the cliff edge, it'll be her choice to do so, and she will rightly get the blame.
We don't give in to blackmail.
So what do you suggest she should do instead, that would get parliamentary support? A single-sentence answer will do.
Revoke Article 50?
Would that get a majority? Dunno. But it wouldn't be possible for a Conservative PM to do it.
Doesn’t that currently apply to every option. With a split Tory Party a Tory PM has limited room for manoeuvre. With her counting down the clock on the deal the problem worsens every day.
It's not her counting down the clock, though. She's all keen to get the deal agreed and to move on to the next stage. It's her opponents who are preventing that.
But, yes you are right, all options are impossible, which means that we are at very substantial risk of falling accidentally into the unquestionably worst of all the bad routes we could have taken.
The deal was rejected in December. It has fundamental flaws that means it doesn’t command a majority . Bringing it back unchanged now, threatening chaos, is at best dumb at worst negligent. Her duty is to find something that passes, delay or revoke.
Quite. May is the PM, the head of the government. It is the government's job to find a way forward that is acceptable to parliament. It has been obvious for weeks that they have not found an acceptable way forward, therefore their duty is to look at other options, not just delay and threaten that is the deal or Armageddon.
Incidentally, what's the timetable for the vote? Do we have a date set yet?
The debate is currently scheduled for the 9th - 11th, which is a Friday so not normally a sitting day. Presumably that will mean the vote is on the 11th.
I think the timetable will be set out on Weds 9th.
Parliament needs to dispose of all the tabled amendments first too. Three days of the five scheduled as part of the programme motion have already taken place.
That leaves two days of debate, then disposal of amendments, wrapping up my Michael Gove and then finally the MV (in whatever amended form it takes and assuming it doesn't get wrecked by one of the amendments).
We still don't know which amendments the Speaker will select. I think many of them are obvious wrecking amendments that would normally be ruled out of order, but these are fractious times and Bercow will probably select the whole lot just to maximise the government's suffering.
Actually that is one key point - the amendments might provide a bit of a clue as to whether there is anything the Commons can agree on. I'm not holding my breath, though.
After all, she is currently holding a loaded revolver to the country’s head. Does that sound like the actions of a sane person?
It is Labour, the SNP, the DUP, the LibDems and the ERG who are holding loaded revolvers to the country’s head. Theresa May and the government as a whole are trying to disarm them, unfortunately with little sign of success.
You're trying this again, Richard? When Mrs May drives the UK over the cliff edge it will be her choice.
We do not give in to blackmail.
The very fact that Parliament, Labour, Labour members, Tory members, Tory backbenchers and the electorate as a whole are all opposed to Mrs May's deal, does not give her any kind of moral cover to drive the UK over the cliff edge in a tantrum of chaos and destruction.
If we go over the cliff edge, it'll be her choice to do so, and she will rightly get the blame.
We don't give in to blackmail.
So what do you suggest she should do instead, that would get parliamentary support? A single-sentence answer will do.
What she should do is renounce No Deal as an option and use her privileged pulpit to address the nation on exactly why it is not a credible or safe path.
Since her deal alone looks impassable she should commit to a referendum rider on the bill, ie that the Deal will be subject to approval by referendum. Yes, this will require an extension of A50. But it looks like one of the only ways left to gain a majority in Parliament.
And in doing so, she should make a conspicuous reach out to the Opposition benches, or rather parliamentarians at large, to agree a way forward in the interests of the country, both Brexiters and Remainers.
The above could be done in a single speech, lasting just 30 minutes, simulcast on major TV and radio stations.
If she *still* failed, then she should let a caretaker takeover to find a cross party consensus, as Mr Meeks has suggested or predicted.
Mr. B2, the interest of Boris is the ambition of Boris. Sound governance or the national interest doesn't disturb his contemplation of himself.
His resignation is a perfect example of his unfitness for high office. Hides in Afghanistan to avoid either an honourable resignation or breaking a pledge, only to have a ludicrous 'me too' resignation after Davis leaves, mere weeks later. Daft cock.
After all, she is currently holding a loaded revolver to the country’s head. Does that sound like the actions of a sane person?
It is Labour, the SNP, the DUP, the LibDems and the ERG who are holding loaded revolvers to the country’s head. Theresa May and the government as a whole are trying to disarm them, unfortunately with little sign of success.
You're trying this again, Richard? When Mrs May drives the UK over the cliff edge it will be her choice.
We do not give in to blackmail.
The very fact that Parliament, Labour, Labour members, Tory members, Tory backbenchers and the electorate as a whole are all opposed to Mrs May's deal, does not give her any kind of moral cover to drive the UK over the cliff edge in a tantrum of chaos and destruction.
If we go over the cliff edge, it'll be her choice to do so, and she will rightly get the blame.
We don't give in to blackmail.
So what do you suggest she should do instead, that would get parliamentary support? A single-sentence answer will do.
Revoke Article 50?
Would that get a majority? Dunno. But it wouldn't be possible for a Conservative PM to do it.
Doesn’t that currently apply to every option. With a split Tory Party a Tory PM has limited room for manoeuvre. With her counting down the clock on the deal the problem worsens every day.
It's not her counting down the clock, though. She's all keen to get the deal agreed and to move on to the next stage. It's her opponents who are preventing that.
But, yes you are right, all options are impossible, which means that we are at very substantial risk of falling accidentally into the unquestionably worst of all the bad routes we could have taken.
The deal was rejected in December. It has fundamental flaws that means it doesn’t command a majority . Bringing it back unchanged now, threatening chaos, is at best dumb at worst negligent. Her duty is to find something that passes, delay or revoke.
It's rather naive to think that the deal doesn't command a majority because it has fundamental flaws. It doesn't command a majority because various different groups of MPs have contradictory agendas, and because Labour are opposing it for the sake of opposing it.
Even if only 100 or so MP's positively want No Deal, a much larger number consider it to be acceptable, because they see advantage from it.
If we go to No Deal Davis could end up Tory leader and PM
You know the worst thing? May has actually emboldened Davis. He can claim "I'd have negotiated a Canada++++++ deal by now if it wasn't for that pesky saboteur Theresa May sabotaging the whole thing". It's impossible to disprove a counterfactual, and a lot of people will give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yes and having resigned first after Chequers let alone the final Deal Davis is best placed to take over if No Deal
It would certainly provide some grim amusement to see someone who told us No Deal wouldn't be a disaster being left in charge of picking up the pieces, but sadly not enough amusement to compensate for the chaos, job losses, insolvencies, shortages, and the ensuing Corbyn government.
Davis PM, Boris back as Foreign Secretary, Gove Chancellor, Mogg or Raab at Business, Hunt DPM, Javid stays at Home.
Let those opposed to the Deal and backing No Deal make the running together with the careerists and if Corbyn forms a government shortly after let him then deal with the mess too.
May can enjoy a long cruise with Philip in retirement and several glasses of schadenfraude
I wonder if Javid and Hunt would want to be part of the disaster. They are not complete fools.
The behaviour of The Saj over the last few days has made me revise my certainty of that down a few notches.
Hunt is an opportunist, but clearly not an idiot. Maybe his dream outcome is No Deal brexit just as The Saj becomes leader and the party implodes. Six months later Hunt offers his services as the Safe Pair of Hands to rebuild the Tory party from the no-deal wreckage.
Hunt polls worst of any Tory contender bar Gove and neither he nor Javid are proper No Dealers just opportunists. If No Deal Davis, Boris or Raab far more likely to take over
Takes some skill to piss off both sides in a binary issue. Like walking into a room to encounter a bickering ex-wife and -husband and somehow managing to unite them against you.
..except without the bit about uniting the couple...
You say that, but the UK is now pretty united in its opposition to May's deal. I know that wasn't the way she *intended* to bring the country together but that makes it funnier.
If we go to No Deal Davis could end up Tory leader and PM
You know the worst thing? May has actually emboldened Davis. He can claim "I'd have negotiated a Canada++++++ deal by now if it wasn't for that pesky saboteur Theresa May sabotaging the whole thing". It's impossible to disprove a counterfactual, and a lot of people will give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yes and having resigned first after Chequers let alone the final Deal Davis is best placed to take over if No Deal
It would certainly provide some grim amusement to see someone who told us No Deal wouldn't be a disaster being left in charge of picking up the pieces, but sadly not enough amusement to compensate for the chaos, job losses, insolvencies, shortages, and the ensuing Corbyn government.
Davis PM, Boris back as Foreign Secretary, Gove Chancellor, Mogg or Raab at Business, Hunt DPM, Javid stays at Home.
Let those opposed to the Deal and backing No Deal make the running together with the careerists and if Corbyn forms a government shortly after let him then deal with the mess too.
May can enjoy a long cruise with Philip in retirement and several glasses of schadenfraude
I wonder if Javid and Hunt would want to be part of the disaster. They are not complete fools.
Both have said they are prepared to back No Deal is for their careers
Takes some skill to piss off both sides in a binary issue. Like walking into a room to encounter a bickering ex-wife and -husband and somehow managing to unite them against you.
..except without the bit about uniting the couple...
You say that, but the UK is now pretty united in its opposition to May's deal. I know that wasn't the way she *intended* to bring the country together but that makes it funnier.
There is a difference between opposing, and being united in opposing.
If we go to No Deal Davis could end up Tory leader and PM
You know the worst thing? May has actually emboldened Davis. He can claim "I'd have negotiated a Canada++++++ deal by now if it wasn't for that pesky saboteur Theresa May sabotaging the whole thing". It's impossible to disprove a counterfactual, and a lot of people will give him the benefit of the doubt.
Yes and having resigned first after Chequers let alone the final Deal Davis is best placed to take over if No Deal
It would certainly provide some grim amusement to see someone who told us No Deal wouldn't be a disaster being left in charge of picking up the pieces, but sadly not enough amusement to compensate for the chaos, job losses, insolvencies, shortages, and the ensuing Corbyn government.
Davis PM, Boris back as Foreign Secretary, Gove Chancellor, Mogg or Raab at Business, Hunt DPM, Javid stays at Home.
Let those opposed to the Deal and backing No Deal make the running together with the careerists and if Corbyn forms a government shortly after let him then deal with the mess too.
May can enjoy a long cruise with Philip in retirement and several glasses of schadenfraude
I wonder if Javid and Hunt would want to be part of the disaster. They are not complete fools.
Both have said they are prepared to back No Deal is for their careers
Which is why neither is really fit to be PM. And in the event of No Deal, neither would be PM.
After all, she is currently holding a loaded revolver to the country’s head. Does that sound like the actions of a sane person?
It is Labour, the SNP, the DUP, the LibDems and the ERG who are holding loaded revolvers to the country’s head. Theresa May and the government as a whole are trying to disarm them, unfortunately with little sign of success.
You're trying this again, Richard? When Mrs May drives the UK over the cliff edge it will be her choice.
We do not give in to blackmail.
The very fact that Parliament, Labour, Labour members, Tory members, Tory backbenchers and the electorate as a whole are all opposed to Mrs May's deal, does not give her any kind tantrum of chaos and destruction.
If we go over the cliff edge, it'll be her choice to do so, and she will rightly get the blame.
We don't give in to blackmail.
should do instead, that would get parliamentary support? A single-sentence answer will do.
Revoke Article 50?
Would that get a majority? Dunno. But it wouldn't be possible for a Conservative PM to do it.
Doesn’t that currently apply to ck on the deal the problem worsens every day.
It's not her counting down the clock, though. She's all keen to get the deal agreed and to move on to the next stage. It's her opponents who are preventing that.
But, yes you are right, all options are impossible, which means that we are at very substantial risk of falling accidentally into the unquestionably worst of all the bad routes we could have taken.
The deal was rejected in December. It has fundamental flaws that means it doesn’t command a majority . Bringing it back unchanged now, threatening chaos, is at best dumb at worst negligent. Her duty is to find something that passes, delay or revoke.
It's rather naive to think that the deal doesn't command a majority because it has fundamental flaws. It doesn't command a majority because various different groups of MPs have contradictory agendas, and because Labour are opposing it for the sake of opposing it.
This is your monumental mistake. People are not backing down because they fundamentally disagree with it. The calculated risk is not something people can accept. Something needs to click. This is not opposition for opposition sake. Please wake up to this before it’s too late.
Surely at Westminster it's DUP+Tory vs SNP+Labour. So it shouldn't matter a jot to Corbyn's chances of being PM if SNP and Labour trade seats. What really matters to Corbyn in Scotland is number of Tory seats.
Agreed. I would settle for an SNP clean sweep in Scotland to maximise the number of non-Tory seats.
I think you’re playing with fire. I would dearly love politics to find an equilibrium north and south of the border. One party states are unhealthy, Scotland is too interesting to be represented by one party. The UK will not have recovered from this crisis period until Scotland feels confident enough of its position to move on from nationalism. It seems on that front we’re going backwards.
We will only be confident when we are free and not serfs.
The Scots have never been and never will be serfs.
Maybe you mean Smurfs? That blue face paint must be hard to wash off.
Time they got off their bended knee. The old fearties are vanishing like snow off a dyke, soon we will be free.
No Scots I know are on the blended knee, you’ll get nowhere by distancing yourself from your kin south of the border.
Jonathan , don't be a silly boy, what is wanted is the same as every other country in the world, to make your own decisions. How you lot can whine on about EU making decisions etc but are very happy to crap on Scotland by forcing the wrong policies on Scotland constantly beggars belief. No is moving anywhere , we just need to be able to manage our own affairs and not have our bigger neighbour kicking us in the goolies and deciding where our money goes and how much of their loans are to be paid by us etc, regardless of what we would like. I seriously doubt you would like to give your salary to your neighbour to let him decide how you spend it.
We’re not neighbours, we’re family. But I do agree, English nationalism and Scottish nationalism are both bad. Hopefully the pendulum will swing against both and those that seek to divide us will not prosper.
What about British nationalism? An oft heard cry from Labour Unionists during the indy ref was that Scottish independence would make family foreigners (Tony Benn & Margaret Curran spring to mind as producers of that sort of guff). Why is being a foreigner so bad, and why should a Glasgow scaffolder feel more internationalist solidarity with one from Gloucester than he would with ones from Galway or Göttingen?
After all, she is currently holding a loaded revolver to the country’s head. Does that sound like the actions of a sane person?
It is Labour, the SNP, the DUP, the LibDems and the ERG who are holding loaded revolvers to the country’s head. Theresa May and the government as a whole are trying to disarm them, unfortunately with little sign of success.
You're trying this again, Richard? When Mrs May drives the UK over the cliff edge it will be her choice.
We do not give in to blackmail.
The very fact that Parliament, Labour, Labour members, Tory members, Tory backbenchers and the electorate as a whole are all opposed to Mrs May's deal, does not give her any kind of moral cover to drive the UK over the cliff edge in a tantrum of chaos and destruction.
If we go over the cliff edge, it'll be her choice to do so, and she will rightly get the blame.
We don't give in to blackmail.
So what do you suggest she should do instead, that would get parliamentary support? A single-sentence answer will do.
Revoke Article 50?
Would that get a majority? Dunno. But it wouldn't be possible for a Conservative PM to do it.
Doesn’t that currently apply to every option. With a split Tory Party a Tory PM has limited room for manoeuvre. With her counting down the clock on the deal the problem worsens every day.
It's not her counting down the clock, though. She's all keen to get the deal agreed and to move on to the next stage. It's her opponents who are preventing that.
But, yes you are right, all options are impossible, which means that we are at very substantial risk of falling accidentally into the unquestionably worst of all the bad routes we could have taken.
The deal was rejected in December. It has fundamental flaws that means it doesn’t command a majority . Bringing it back unchanged now, threatening chaos, is at best dumb at worst negligent. Her duty is to find something that passes, delay or revoke.
There is no alternative Deal without the backstop, revoke with No referendum means far right surge and near Civil War, delay unlikely to be agreed by EU.
Hunt polls worst of any Tory contender bar Gove and neither he nor Javid are proper No Dealers just opportunists. If No Deal Davis, Boris or Raab far more likely to take over
Live footage of the people of the UK hearing that Boris Johnson has become their new Prime Minister:
Surely at Westminster it's DUP+Tory vs SNP+Labour. So it shouldn't matter a jot to Corbyn's chances of being PM if SNP and Labour trade seats. What really matters to Corbyn in Scotland is number of Tory seats.
Agreed. I would settle for an SNP clean sweep in Scotland to maximise the number of non-Tory seats.
I think you’re playing with fire. I would dearly love politics to find an equilibrium north and south of the border. One party states are unhealthy, Scotland is too interesting to be represented by one party. The UK will not have recovered from this crisis period until Scotland feels confident enough of its position to move on from nationalism. It seems on that front we’re going backwards.
We will only be confident when we are free and not serfs.
The Scots have never been and never will be serfs.
Maybe you mean Smurfs? That blue face paint must be hard to wash off.
Time they got off their bended knee. The old fearties are vanishing like snow off a dyke, soon we will be free.
No Scots I know are on the blended knee, you’ll get nowhere by distancing yourself from your kin south of the border.
t.
We’re not neighbours, we’re family. But I do agree, English nationalism and Scottish nationalism are both bad. Hopefully the pendulum will swing against both and those that seek to divide us will not prosper.
What about British nationalism? An oft heard cry from Labour Unionists during the indy ref was that Scottish independence would make family foreigners (Tony Benn & Margaret Curran spring to mind as producers of that sort of guff). Why is being a foreigner so bad, and why should a Glasgow scaffolder feel more internationalist solidarity with one from Gloucester than he would with ones from Galway or Göttingen?
People are tied together more by nationality than by class.
This is your monumental mistake. People are not backing down because they fundamentally disagree with it. The calculated risk is not something people can accept. Something needs to click. This is not opposition for opposition sake. Please wake up to this before it’s too late.
Come off it, you're not seriously suggesting that the Labour front bench believe the utter tosh they put forward, are you? The deal is indistinguishable from what they say they want, once you adjust for the unicorns.
Mr. B2, the interest of Boris is the ambition of Boris. Sound governance or the national interest doesn't disturb his contemplation of himself.
His resignation is a perfect example of his unfitness for high office. Hides in Afghanistan to avoid either an honourable resignation or breaking a pledge, only to have a ludicrous 'me too' resignation after Davis leaves, mere weeks later. Daft cock.
I agree absolutely.
I just wonder whether, in some parallel universe, there is a sensible, mature, statesmanlike Boris?
This is your monumental mistake. People are not backing down because they fundamentally disagree with it. The calculated risk is not something people can accept. Something needs to click. This is not opposition for opposition sake. Please wake up to this before it’s too late.
Come off it, you're not seriously suggesting that the Labour front bench believe the utter tosh they put forward, are you? The deal is indistinguishable from what they say they want, once you adjust for the unicorns.
Wake up old chap. They mean it. We don’t like it. And for good reason.
What about British nationalism? An oft heard cry from Labour Unionists during the indy ref was that Scottish independence would make family foreigners (Tony Benn & Margaret Curran spring to mind as producers of that sort of guff). Why is being a foreigner so bad, and why should a Glasgow scaffolder feel more internationalist solidarity with one from Gloucester than he would with ones from Galway or Göttingen?
Because the common man in Berwickshire and the common man in Northumberland are culturally and linguistically one and the same.
Surely at Westminster it's DUP+Tory vs SNP+Labour. So it shouldn't matter a jot to Corbyn's chances of being PM if SNP and Labour trade seats. What really matters to Corbyn in Scotland is number of Tory seats.
Agreed. I would settle for an SNP clean sweep in Scotland to maximise the number of non-Tory seats.
I think you’re playing with fire. I would dearly love politics to find an equilibrium north and south of the border. One party states are unhealthy, Scotland is too interesting to be represented by one party. The UK will not have recovered from this crisis period until Scotland feels confident enough of its position to move on from nationalism. It seems on that front we’re going backwards.
We will only be confident when we are free and not serfs.
The Scots have never been and never will be serfs.
Maybe you mean Smurfs? That blue face paint must be hard to wash off.
Time they got off their bended knee. The old fearties are vanishing like snow off a dyke, soon we will be free.
No Scots I know are on the blended knee, you’ll get nowhere by distancing yourself from your kin south of the border.
t.
We’re not neighbours, we’re family. But I do agree, English nationalism and Scottish nationalism are both bad. Hopefully the pendulum will swing against both and those that seek to divide us will not prosper.
What about British nationalism? An oft heard cry from Labour Unionists during the indy ref was that Scottish independence would make family foreigners (Tony Benn & Margaret Curran spring to mind as producers of that sort of guff). Why is being a foreigner so bad, and why should a Glasgow scaffolder feel more internationalist solidarity with one from Gloucester than he would with ones from Galway or Göttingen?
People are tied together more by nationality than by class.
Possibly, but since every recent poll or survey shows Britishness as markedly subordinate to English, Welsh and Scottish identities, which nationality is that?
That is what I am not completely clear on, the precise mechanism and status of the voting. Which is, as you say, absolutely crucial. Still, not too long to wait to find that out. It is nearly upon us.
Surely at Westminster it's DUP+Tory vs SNP+Labour. So it shouldn't matter a jot to Corbyn's chances of being PM if SNP and Labour trade seats. What really matters to Corbyn in Scotland is number of Tory seats.
Agreed. I would settle for an SNP clean sweep in Scotland to maximise the number of non-Tory seats.
Disagree. I would always vote Tory rather than SNP - or Plaid.
After all, she is currently holding a loaded revolver to the country’s head. Does that sound like the actions of a sane person?
It is Labour, the SNP, the DUP, the LibDems and the ERG who are holding loaded revolvers to the country’s head. Theresa May and the government as a whole are trying to disarm them, unfortunately with little sign of success.
You're trying this again, Richard? When Mrs May drives the UK over the cliff edge it will be her choice.
We do not give in to blackmail.
The very fact that Parliament, Labour, Labour members, Tory members, Tory backbenchers and the electorate as a whole are all opposed to Mrs May's deal, does not give her any kind of moral cover to drive the UK over the cliff edge in a tantrum of chaos and destruction.
If we go over the cliff edge, it'll be her choice to do so, and she will rightly get the blame.
We don't give in to blackmail.
So what do you suggest she should do instead, that would get parliamentary support? A single-sentence answer will do.
Revoke Article 50?
Would that get a majority? Dunno. But it wouldn't be possible for a Conservative PM to do it.
Doesn’t that currently apply to every option. With a split Tory Party a Tory PM has limited room for manoeuvre. With her counting down the clock on the deal the problem worsens every day.
It's not her counting down the clock, though. She's all keen to get the deal agreed and to move on to the next stage. It's her opponents who are preventing that.
But, yes you are right, all options are impossible, which means that we are at very substantial risk of falling accidentally into the unquestionably worst of all the bad routes we could have taken.
It is only her pig headedness that is causing the problem, time she was gone. Running down teh clock is despicable and deserves her getting "No Deal" and eternal vilification.
I like our Malc. He's always here to remind us that no matter how nutty the ERG or Maomentum get, the SNP's cybernutters will always go one step further.
bellend old boy , I am not in the SNP or have any connection. I am for independence, think what that word means, I am not a political party sheeple lackey like you fan boys on here.
Fair enough, but you're still barking mad and that's why we love you.
Cut him some slack; you may have missed his sharing that one side of his brain runs slow.
Ian, I chastised you on this previously, I never said such a thing. I said one side ran slower than the other but as that other side was above supersonic/light speed the other one even if slower is still very very fast. Take 10 lines, in your best writing do "I must not tell porkies again about Malkie's brain speed".
After all, she is currently holding a loaded revolver to the country’s head. Does that sound like the actions of a sane person?
It is Labour, the SNP, the DUP, the LibDems and the ERG who are holding loaded revolvers to the country’s head. Theresa May and the government as a whole are trying to disarm them, unfortunately with little sign of success.
You're trying this again, Richard? When Mrs May drives the UK over the cliff edge it will be her choice.
We do not give in to blackmail.
The very fact that Parliament, Labour, Labour members, Tory members, Tory backbenchers and the electorate as a whole are all opposed to Mrs May's deal, does not give her any kind of moral cover to drive the UK over the cliff edge in a tantrum of chaos and destruction.
If we go over the cliff edge, it'll be her choice to do so, and she will rightly get the blame.
We don't give in to blackmail.
So what do you suggest she should do instead, that would get parliamentary support? A single-sentence answer will do.
Revoke Article 50?
Would that get a majority? Dunno. But it wouldn't be possible for a Conservative PM to do it.
Doesn’t that currently apply to every option. With a split Tory Party a Tory PM has limited room for manoeuvre. With her counting down the clock on the deal the problem worsens every day.
It's not her counting down the clock, though. She's all keen to get the deal agreed and to move on to the next stage. It's her opponents who are preventing that.
But, yes you are right, all options are impossible, which means that we are at very substantial risk of falling accidentally into the unquestionably worst of all the bad routes we could have taken.
The deal was rejected in December. It has fundamental flaws that means it doesn’t command a majority . Bringing it back unchanged now, threatening chaos, is at best dumb at worst negligent. Her duty is to find something that passes, delay or revoke.
It's rather naive to think that the deal doesn't command a majority because it has fundamental flaws. It doesn't command a majority because various different groups of MPs have contradictory agendas, and because Labour are opposing it for the sake of opposing it.
It is bollox , no one could make a silk purse out of that sows ear of a deal. A pox on your propaganda.
Surely at Westminster it's DUP+Tory vs SNP+Labour. So it shouldn't matter a jot to Corbyn's chances of being PM if SNP and Labour trade seats. What really matters to Corbyn in Scotland is number of Tory seats.
Agreed. I would settle for an SNP clean sweep in Scotland to maximise the number of non-Tory seats.
I think you’re playing with fire. I would dearly love politics to find an equilibrium north and south of the border. One party states are unhealthy, Scotland is too interesting to be represented by one party. The UK will not have recovered from this crisis period until Scotland feels confident enough of its position to move on from nationalism. It seems on that front we’re going backwards.
We will only be confident when we are free and not serfs.
The Scots have never been and never will be serfs.
Maybe you mean Smurfs? That blue face paint must be hard to wash off.
Time they got off their bended knee. The old fearties are vanishing like snow off a dyke, soon we will be free.
No Scots I know are on the blended knee, you’ll get nowhere by distancing yourself from your kin south of the border.
snip
We’re not neighbours, we’re family. But I do agree, English nationalism and Scottish nationalism are both bad. Hopefully the pendulum will swing against both and those that seek to divide us will not prosper.
What about British nationalism? An oft heard cry from Labour Unionists during the indy ref was that Scottish independence would make family foreigners (Tony Benn & Margaret Curran spring to mind as producers of that sort of guff). Why is being a foreigner so bad, and why should a Glasgow scaffolder feel more internationalist solidarity with one from Gloucester than he would with ones from Galway or Göttingen?
TUD , they need the last remnant of the Empire to make them feel good.
Mr. Cocque, didn't Corbyn also go to a fancy school?
Yeah, I mean. Corbyn clearly isn't the sharpest tool. But the Tory benches have all those expensive Eton educations and Oxford PPEs apparently going to waste.
(And before you start TSE, shush, I know PPE isn't a real subject and Oxford isn't a real university)
Socially, the Parliamentary Conservative Party is far more representative of the public as a whole than it was thirty years ago. but that doesn't seem to have widened the talent pool in any way. The ones who aren't expensively educated seem no more effective than the ones who are.
Really talented people just don't seem to go into politics, these days. And, I think the answer was given upthread - your personal foibles are given far more scrutiny than is ever given to policy decisions.
And politics has become more of a lifetime career, in the past people did not often become MPs before they were 40 and cabinet ministers were mostly in their 50s and 60s. This meant that almost all MPs had a great deal of experience of "real life" before politics. Now it is common for people to move straight from university into lobbying or political research roles and become MPs in their early 30s or even their 20s without having any experience of anything apart from student politics.
Anecdote alert... but I'm told a huge proportion of current PPE-ers see their futures in financial services, possibly with a view to retiring somewhere agreeable in their thirties. There seems to be very little thirst for the lobbying/research>elected office/civil service route.. presumably for the scrutiny reasons already quoted and £££ to be earned elsewhere. So we're probably in for a future run by sociology grads from Wolverhampton Uni (which I suppose will increase the diversity a bit!)
Parliament would be a bit too much like hard work for sociology students.
What about British nationalism? An oft heard cry from Labour Unionists during the indy ref was that Scottish independence would make family foreigners (Tony Benn & Margaret Curran spring to mind as producers of that sort of guff). Why is being a foreigner so bad, and why should a Glasgow scaffolder feel more internationalist solidarity with one from Gloucester than he would with ones from Galway or Göttingen?
Because the common man in Berwickshire and the common man in Northumberland are culturally and linguistically one and the same.
Hmmmm, you listening to Land of Hope and Glory as you post that. Utter bollox.
Comments
Hunt is an opportunist, but clearly not an idiot. Maybe his dream outcome is No Deal brexit just as The Saj becomes leader and the party implodes. Six months later Hunt offers his services as the Safe Pair of Hands to rebuild the Tory party from the no-deal wreckage.
(The second rule is that tweed is mandatory)
I think the timetable will be set out on Weds 9th.
Takes some skill to piss off both sides in a binary issue. Like walking into a room to encounter a bickering ex-wife and -husband and somehow managing to unite them against you.
Securing agreement to the first step would have been much easier; the existence of a ten year plan would have reassured people that we had some sort of plan and objective; the details of each successive stage could be fleshed out at relative leisure, and arguments about the eventual destination could be headed off by making it clear that progress would be dependent on parliamentary votes at each stage, as well as inevitably being an issue in the intervening GEs. If hard Brexit was what they wanted they could even have offered a referendum before the final step, to keep the soft Brexiters on board.
You may not like some of my detail, but it would at least have been a strategy, and reasonably honest and transparent.
That leaves two days of debate, then disposal of amendments, wrapping up by Michael Gove and then finally the MV (in whatever amended form it takes and assuming it doesn't get wrecked by one of the amendments).
We still don't know which amendments the Speaker will select. I think many of them are obvious wrecking amendments that would normally be ruled out of order, but these are fractious times and Bercow will probably select the whole lot just to maximise the government's suffering.
Since her deal alone looks impassable she should commit to a referendum rider on the bill, ie that the Deal will be subject to approval by referendum. Yes, this will require an extension of A50. But it looks like one of the only ways left to gain a majority in Parliament.
And in doing so, she should make a conspicuous reach out to the Opposition benches, or rather parliamentarians at large, to agree a way forward in the interests of the country, both Brexiters and Remainers.
The above could be done in a single speech, lasting just 30 minutes, simulcast on major TV and radio stations.
If she *still* failed, then she should let a caretaker takeover to find a cross party consensus, as Mr Meeks has suggested or predicted.
His resignation is a perfect example of his unfitness for high office. Hides in Afghanistan to avoid either an honourable resignation or breaking a pledge, only to have a ludicrous 'me too' resignation after Davis leaves, mere weeks later. Daft cock.
And in the event of No Deal, neither would be PM.
An oft heard cry from Labour Unionists during the indy ref was that Scottish independence would make family foreigners (Tony Benn & Margaret Curran spring to mind as producers of that sort of guff). Why is being a foreigner so bad, and why should a Glasgow scaffolder feel more internationalist solidarity with one from Gloucester than he would with ones from Galway or Göttingen?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHc288IPFzk
NEW THREAD
I just wonder whether, in some parallel universe, there is a sensible, mature, statesmanlike Boris?
There is no case for any alternative unless it has more support in parliament than the Deal.
6/4 shot to pass, BTW, odds which belie talk of it being impossible or highly unlikely.
The penny has clearly not dropped, it's just a matter of who it has not dropped with.
Why would you not embrace that when the alternative is to junk a cherished belief that means a great deal to you?
Hence why the idea that No Deal might be good because it will force the Hard Brexiteers to 'own it' is flawed.
That is what I am not completely clear on, the precise mechanism and status of the voting. Which is, as you say, absolutely crucial. Still, not too long to wait to find that out. It is nearly upon us.
@ Pulpstar:
I agree. I'm on it!