Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the eve of the critical Mississippi senate election Trump’s

13»

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,640
    OK. I know you guys are all off now.

    But.

    Here's my question. Say, the deal goes down by 120 votes (or whatever). And May resigns.

    How quickly can the Conservative Party replace her? Let's assume that given the exceptional circumstances, the rules are changed to allow MPs voting to happen entirely before Christmas.

    Could we have members vote by the middle of January? Does that work? So, therefore, PM Raab or Hunt or Johnson in mid Jan.

    Who presumably would have to ask for an extension. Assume the EU says "no". What then?

    Presumably the leader would ask the British people to brace themselves for the worst. But what if they instead chose to call an election? Or a referendum? Or if 50 pro-EU Conservatives broke off to offer Corbyn support for a three month Premiership during which time a "permanent" Customs Union is signed?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 47,100



    The interesting constitutional position is what happens if she loses? If she chooses not to call a second referendum (knowing it would destroy her party) and chooses not to resign she can effectively sit there and watch the clock count down. Can Parliament actually do anything to stop her if her own party will not get rid of her?

    If she really pushed it to that point, I think a VONC against her in the Commons would actually succeed. Virtually nobody wants the total bloodbath of No Deal At All.
    I am not so sure. The total bloodbath (to use your terminology) of reversing the referendum would be equally disastrous for both Parliament and the country.
    The will of the people at the time it’s happening overrides the will of the people in 2016.
    Not when the will of the people of 2016 has not even been enacted. You really don't understand the shit storm that will be created by this do you?
    It would be pretty bad I expect. But so, apparently, will no deal, so it's time to choose between shit storms. No point in wishing for better deals agreed by a magically pliant EU, and nothing else is getting through the Commons.

    Good night all.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 19,123
    edited November 2018



    The interesting constitutional position is what happens if she loses? If she chooses not to call a second referendum (knowing it would destroy her party) and chooses not to resign she can effectively sit there and watch the clock count down. Can Parliament actually do anything to stop her if her own party will not get rid of her?

    If she really pushed it to that point, I think a VONC against her in the Commons would actually succeed. Virtually nobody wants the total bloodbath of No Deal At All.
    I am not so sure. The total bloodbath (to use your terminology) of reversing the referendum would be equally disastrous for both Parliament and the country.
    The will of the people at the time it’s happening overrides the will of the people in 2016.
    Which will just bring calls that the will of the people in 2022 trumps 2019. When does it end?
    That depends what people think in 2022. I think it will be a hard sell to ask people to go through this again.
    Even if you get a million of those who voted Leave last time to reverse their vote - and you will certainly do no better than that - that still leaves you 16 million people who have seen that democracy has failed. You will destroy this country.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 47,100



    The interesting constitutional position is what happens if she loses? If she chooses not to call a second referendum (knowing it would destroy her party) and chooses not to resign she can effectively sit there and watch the clock count down. Can Parliament actually do anything to stop her if her own party will not get rid of her?

    If she really pushed it to that point, I think a VONC against her in the Commons would actually succeed. Virtually nobody wants the total bloodbath of No Deal At All.
    I am not so sure. The total bloodbath (to use your terminology) of reversing the referendum would be equally disastrous for both Parliament and the country.
    The will of the people at the time it’s happening overrides the will of the people in 2016.
    Which will just bring calls that the will of the people in 2022 trumps 2019. When does it end?
    That depends what people think in 2022. I think it will be a hard sell to ask people to go through this again.
    You are already committed to asking them to go through it again.
  • members of the female sex are being referred to as 'womxn' by students at both Goldsmiths, University of London and Kings College London.

    At Goldsmiths, the Students Union has ceased to use the words women and woman in its publications, since 'womxn' has been deemed more 'inclusive' of all students, including those who identify as transgender.

    Elsewhere in the city, societies including the 'KCL Womxn in Physics' club at King's College are also using the word.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6428225/Snowflake-students-replace-word-women-WOMXN-traditional-spelling-contains-man.html
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,640

    rcs1000 said:

    Am I missing something or is it really likely that the government could lose by 150-170 votes?

    I'm thinking of something like :

    Aye - 217

    Con 214
    Lab 2
    Ind 1

    No - 378

    Con 75
    Lab 238
    SNP 35
    LD 12
    DUP 10
    Plaid 4
    Green 1
    Ind 3

    Abstain - 42

    Con 25
    Lab 15
    Ind 2

    (Don't ask who the Lab rebels are. They could be Eurosceptics; they could be 'mandate' voters believing they had to back such Brexit as is on offer; they could be so worried that they see what's on the table as the best - indeed, only - way of avoiding No Deal. It doesn't really matter - I doubt there'll be many at all but there is a fair possibility of a handful).

    I can't really see why any SNP or LDs would break ranks and I can't see pairing operating on such a critical vote (not that that should make any difference anyway).

    If the deal does go down by 161 or so, what does that mean for May? There will of course be calls for her to resign and I'd expect Lab to table an immediate VoNC. How she handles the 24 hours after the Brexit vote (and in particular, the 3 hours after it, to set the narrative), will be critical. Labour's VoNC should be enough to prevent an immediate Tory Confidence vote but after the government sees it off (as it should) - then what?

    The big problem with deposing May is that it means that the government can't do anything for about two months while the Tories sort themselves out - and very probably not afterwards either as a Con leadership election could only be won on a Hard Brexit mandate. That might be fine if you're after a No Deal Brexit but few of the Con MPs are - and those that aren't should be able to do the numbers sufficiently to realise that there's a good chance that they couldn't carry a confidence vote for that very reason. Besides, as long as there's no Plan B, they might end up with a No Deal outcome anyway, except that they would appear a lot less culpable.

    I think your Labour abstain number is probably light by 40-50 votes. And I also suspect that of the 100 Conservatives opposed to the deal, it'll be more like 60 voting against, 40 abstaining. I also think you've likely got 2 LibDems in favour.
    The interesting constitutional position is what happens if she loses? If she chooses not to call a second referendum (knowing it would destroy her party) and chooses not to resign she can effectively sit there and watch the clock count down. Can Parliament actually do anything to stop her if her own party will not get rid of her?
    Well that's the thing, isn't it: there's no Conservative who genuinely has the guts to challenge her. They all say "the deal's shit", but do that and not No Confidence her makes no sense.

    Unless, of course, you're virtue signalling.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,722
    Andrew said:

    Apparently Mueller is saying he's caught Manafort in multiple lies.

    So few?
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 3,516
    rcs1000 said:

    OK. I know you guys are all off now.

    But.

    Here's my question. Say, the deal goes down by 120 votes (or whatever). And May resigns.

    How quickly can the Conservative Party replace her? Let's assume that given the exceptional circumstances, the rules are changed to allow MPs voting to happen entirely before Christmas.

    Could we have members vote by the middle of January? Does that work? So, therefore, PM Raab or Hunt or Johnson in mid Jan.

    Who presumably would have to ask for an extension. Assume the EU says "no". What then?

    Presumably the leader would ask the British people to brace themselves for the worst. But what if they instead chose to call an election? Or a referendum? Or if 50 pro-EU Conservatives broke off to offer Corbyn support for a three month Premiership during which time a "permanent" Customs Union is signed?

    They can do it very quickly, if all bar one candidates are nobbled and voting is superfluous.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 47,100
    rcs1000 said:

    OK. I know you guys are all off now.

    But.

    Here's my question. Say, the deal goes down by 120 votes (or whatever). And May resigns.

    How quickly can the Conservative Party replace her? Let's assume that given the exceptional circumstances, the rules are changed to allow MPs voting to happen entirely before Christmas.

    Could we have members vote by the middle of January? Does that work? So, therefore, PM Raab or Hunt or Johnson in mid Jan.

    Who presumably would have to ask for an extension. Assume the EU says "no". What then?

    Presumably the leader would ask the British people to brace themselves for the worst. But what if they instead chose to call an election? Or a referendum? Or if 50 pro-EU Conservatives broke off to offer Corbyn support for a three month Premiership during which time a "permanent" Customs Union is signed?

    Presumably the party has procedures to amend its, er, procedures quickly if it needs to, so it seems plausible. If the EU say no to an extension (incidentally I think they would say no if the leadership election was on its existing timeframe as it eats up so much time before they even knew if we were committing to no deal or even wanted an extension, but might say yes if they do it quickly) then I think a referendum will definitely get through (obviously the mechanics of agreeing that are complicated still). MPs talk a lot of crap, particularly around fearing no deal when their actions risk it, but I don't think people are entirely wrong to say they will find some way to avoid it, so if the EU does say no and the Tories are somehow still in power, I think there would be enough votes for a referendum to remain or no deal.

    Another reason we should just do that now. Wasting another negotiation which would probably have near as much internal dissent seems pointless for us and the EU. Remain or no deal now, as that actually settles things in the short term, and then the fallout from ignoring 2016 can begin.
  • rcs1000 said:

    OK. I know you guys are all off now.

    But.

    Here's my question. Say, the deal goes down by 120 votes (or whatever). And May resigns.

    How quickly can the Conservative Party replace her? Let's assume that given the exceptional circumstances, the rules are changed to allow MPs voting to happen entirely before Christmas.

    Could we have members vote by the middle of January? Does that work? So, therefore, PM Raab or Hunt or Johnson in mid Jan.

    Who presumably would have to ask for an extension. Assume the EU says "no". What then?

    Presumably the leader would ask the British people to brace themselves for the worst. But what if they instead chose to call an election? Or a referendum? Or if 50 pro-EU Conservatives broke off to offer Corbyn support for a three month Premiership during which time a "permanent" Customs Union is signed?

    It is all up in the air. Who knows? Of course it will all depend on who that new leader is. Bear in mind that as far as a referendum goes we have already past the minimum time that the Electoral Commission said would be necessary for a fair vote. Even were the legislation passed tomorrow, the EC say they need 12 weeks to field test the questions and a minimum 10 week campaign period. They also say no referendum should be held before 6 months after the legislation has past approving the referendum.

    That is before you even start to take into account the legal challenges all the way to the Supreme Court.

    So what you have to start looking at is how possible would it be to get the A50 extension - which requires all 27 other countries to approve.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,722
    rcs1000 said:

    OK. I know you guys are all off now.

    But.

    Here's my question. Say, the deal goes down by 120 votes (or whatever). And May resigns.

    How quickly can the Conservative Party replace her? Let's assume that given the exceptional circumstances, the rules are changed to allow MPs voting to happen entirely before Christmas.

    Could we have members vote by the middle of January? Does that work? So, therefore, PM Raab or Hunt or Johnson in mid Jan.

    Who presumably would have to ask for an extension. Assume the EU says "no". What then?

    Presumably the leader would ask the British people to brace themselves for the worst. But what if they instead chose to call an election? Or a referendum? Or if 50 pro-EU Conservatives broke off to offer Corbyn support for a three month Premiership during which time a "permanent" Customs Union is signed?

    Just who knows now.

    No Deal now looks favourite, as it is so difficult to see how anything else gets approved. There's going to be a dozen different forms of "we must do SOMETHING!" but how does any one of them get critical mass?

    We voted to Leave. It is quite possible that by trying to be too clever by half, the Establishment and the Remainers will have conspired to dump the UK into the unknown soup of No Deal. Which at least has the benefit of not being a compromise. And delivering what we voted for. Albeit, rather more full on than most imagined our politicians would deliver.

  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:



    Nope, a new leader achieves nothing else, zilch, nada, nothing, the EU have been abundantly clear it is this Deal or No Deal hence most Tory MPs still back her.

    If idiots in the Tory Party and Labour Party are really going to vote down the only Deal on the table they deserve nothing but contempt. The only people who will suffer are the workers who will lose their jobs and wages with No Deal. Either that or further caving through permanent Customs Union or EUref2 and Remain and the clueless ERG get even less Brexit than under May's Deal

    I don't think it is a risk that should be taken either, and agree that the options are an even less brexity brexit, remain or, in my opinion, unacceptable levels of chaos.

    But that's irrelevant if MPs do not believe it. Cabinet members publicly do not believe it, so of course no one else does. Labour are going to at least try to attempt it if they get into power somehow. 200 loyalists at least some of whom are lukewarm on the deal at best (Gove and co again) does not mean they all actually accept it is indeed this deal or no deal, and even if most of them do believe that, May cannot get the deal through and there are paths she would not be able to take us down as leader, so Tory Mps will have to pick someone else - and no matter what the majority think, if her deal has been rejected by 150 votes in the Commons, there's no point picking someone who says 'I'm going to try May's deal again', so the only options will be no dealers or renegotiaters.

    I don't think changing leader actually alters the facts or numbers in play here. But if the Commons won't back May's plan it and the Tory party will have to decide how to react. Attempting an unreaslistic option appears to be what they will choose.
    Of course attempting an unrealistic option may just make it realistic and may just solve this mess!
    And we do that in a few months how or the EU decide to let us weaken their position by extending the time because...they are liars who will be nice to us now because they want a deal so bad? But not so bad that they didn't lend us a hand sooner?

    I hope you are right because it looks like what we will try next, I could even believe the EU will make some changes, but if a new Tory leader tries to sell some minor shift as seismic then I will hold them in utter contempt.
    The didn't need to lend us a hand earlier, they do now. Also they're not liars, you don't call the people you're negotiating with liars. There'll be a change and there will be face-saving words for everyone to claim victory.

    To the Irish/EU it will be sold as a minor shift, to the UK it will be sold as a seismic one. How you judge it depends upon your priorities.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 8,170



    The interesting constitutional position is what happens if she loses? If she chooses not to call a second referendum (knowing it would destroy her party) and chooses not to resign she can effectively sit there and watch the clock count down. Can Parliament actually do anything to stop her if her own party will not get rid of her?

    If she really pushed it to that point, I think a VONC against her in the Commons would actually succeed. Virtually nobody wants the total bloodbath of No Deal At All.
    I am not so sure. The total bloodbath (to use your terminology) of reversing the referendum would be equally disastrous for both Parliament and the country.
    The will of the people at the time it’s happening overrides the will of the people in 2016.
    Which will just bring calls that the will of the people in 2022 trumps 2019. When does it end?
    In Williams mind the moment remain get their first win
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 47,100

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:



    Nope, a new leader achieves nothing else, zilch, nada, nothing, the EU have been abundantly clear it is this Deal or No Deal hence most Tory MPs still back her.

    If idiots in the Tory Party and Labour Party are really going to vote down the only Deal on the table they deserve nothing but contempt. The only people who will suffer are the workers who will lose their jobs and wages with No Deal. Either that or further caving through permanent Customs Union or EUref2 and Remain and the clueless ERG get even less Brexit than under May's Deal

    I don't think it is a risk that should be taken either, and agree that the options are an even less brexity brexit, remain or, in my opinion, unacceptable levels of chaos.

    But that's irrelevant if MPs do not believe it. Cabinet members publicly do not believe it, so of course no one else does. Labour are going to at least try to attempt it if they get into power somehow. 200 loyalists at least some of whom are lukewarm on the deal at best (Gove and co again) does not mean they all actually accept it is indeed this deal or no deal, and even if most of them do believe that, May cannot get the deal through and there are paths she would not be able to take us down as leader, so Tory Mps will have to pick someone else - and no matter what the majority think, if her deal has been rejected by 150 votes in the Commons, there's no point picking someone who says 'I'm going to try May's deal again', so the only options will be no dealers or renegotiaters.

    I don't think changing leader actually alters the facts or numbers in play here. But if the Commons won't back May's plan it and the Tory party will have to decide how to react. Attempting an unreaslistic option appears to be what they will choose.
    Of course attempting an unrealistic option may just make it realistic and may just solve this mess!
    And we do that in a few months how or the EU decide to let us weaken their position by extending the time because...they are s to sell some minor shift as seismic then I will hold them in utter contempt.
    The didn't need to lend us a hand earlier, they do now. Also they're not liars, you don't call the people you're negotiating with liars. There'll be a change and there will be face-saving words for everyone to claim victory.

    To the Irish/EU it will be sold as a minor shift, to the UK it will be sold as a seismic one. How you judge it depends upon your priorities.
    It's not me calling them, in effec, liars then expecting them to change position to suit us.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,400

    rcs1000 said:

    OK. I know you guys are all off now.

    But.

    Here's my question. Say, the deal goes down by 120 votes (or whatever). And May resigns.

    How quickly can the Conservative Party replace her? Let's assume that given the exceptional circumstances, the rules are changed to allow MPs voting to happen entirely before Christmas.

    Could we have members vote by the middle of January? Does that work? So, therefore, PM Raab or Hunt or Johnson in mid Jan.

    Who presumably would have to ask for an extension. Assume the EU says "no". What then?

    Presumably the leader would ask the British people to brace themselves for the worst. But what if they instead chose to call an election? Or a referendum? Or if 50 pro-EU Conservatives broke off to offer Corbyn support for a three month Premiership during which time a "permanent" Customs Union is signed?

    Just who knows now.

    No Deal now looks favourite, as it is so difficult to see how anything else gets approved. There's going to be a dozen different forms of "we must do SOMETHING!" but how does any one of them get critical mass?

    We voted to Leave. It is quite possible that by trying to be too clever by half, the Establishment and the Remainers will have conspired to dump the UK into the unknown soup of No Deal. Which at least has the benefit of not being a compromise. And delivering what we voted for. Albeit, rather more full on than most imagined our politicians would deliver.

    And with the added bonus of potentially crashing the economy, leading Scotland to vote for independence and causing chaos in Ireland too.

    If May's Deal is rejected the threat of No Deal goes up yes but I still think a permanent Customs Union vote is more likely to pass first if that is the threat
  • Just to reinforce the point I made earlier. It would be almost impossible to have a referendum now without extending A50. Which would need the unanimous support of all 27 other EU states.

    https://constitution-unit.com/2018/08/30/how-long-would-it-take-to-hold-a-second-referendum-on-brexit/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,400

    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    Am I missing something or is it really likely that the government could lose by 150-170 votes?

    I'm thinking of something like :

    Aye - 217

    Con 214
    Lab 2
    Ind 1

    No - 378

    Con 75
    Lab 238
    SNP 35
    LD 12
    DUP 10
    Plaid 4
    Green 1
    Ind 3

    Abstain - 42

    Con 25
    Lab 15
    Ind 2

    (Don't ask who the Lab rebels are. They could be Eurosceptics; they could be 'mandate' voters believing they had to back such Brexit as is on offer; they could be so worried that they see what's on the table as the best - indeed, only - way of avoiding No Deal. It doesn't really matter - I doubt there'll be many at all but there is a fair possibility of a handful).

    I can't really see why any SNP or LDs would break ranks and I can't see pairing operating on such a critical vote (not that that should make any difference anyway).

    If the deal does go down by 161 or so, what does that mean for May? There will of course be calls for her to resign and I'd expect Lab to table an immediate VoNC. How she handles the 24 hours after the Brexit vote (and in particular, the 3 hours after it, to set the narrative), will be critical. Labour's VoNC should be enough to prevent an immediate Tory Confidence votemandate. That might be fine if you're after a No Deal Brexit but few of the Con MPs are - and those that aren't should be able to do the numbers sufficiently to realise that there's a good chance that they couldn't carry a confidence vote for that very reason. Besides, as long as there's no Plan B, they might end up with a No Deal outcome anyway, except that they would appear a lot less culpable.

    I believe that the LibDem Stephen Lloyd has come out in support of May's deal. Also some speculation re- Norman Lamb's intentions.
    Lamb's come out against the deal tonight.

    'This Deal will not heal the nation' - Well it will do a damn sight better than a No Deal v Remain civil war!
    For once, I agree with you.
    There isn’t a deal which will ‘heal the nation’, in any event.

    No but this is the best there is. The alternative is the country rips itself to shreds in either EUref2 and a narrow Remain win or a No Deal economic disaster and possible break up of the Union
    Remain could win in a landslide. The tabloids will be behind it and the Brexiteers are throwing in the towel.
    Even with No Deal Leave Remain still only gets to 55% with YouGov, ie the same as No got in indyref 2014 and we know how much that shut the nationalists up
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,179

    rcs1000 said:

    OK. I know you guys are all off now.

    But.

    Here's my question. Say, the deal goes down by 120 votes (or whatever). And May resigns.

    How quickly can the Conservative Party replace her? Let's assume that given the exceptional circumstances, the rules are changed to allow MPs voting to happen entirely before Christmas.

    Could we have members vote by the middle of January? Does that work? So, therefore, PM Raab or Hunt or Johnson in mid Jan.

    Who presumably would have to ask for an extension. Assume the EU says "no". What then?

    Presumably the leader would ask the British people to brace themselves for the worst. But what if they instead chose to call an election? Or a referendum? Or if 50 pro-EU Conservatives broke off to offer Corbyn support for a three month Premiership during which time a "permanent" Customs Union is signed?

    Just who knows now.

    No Deal now looks favourite, as it is so difficult to see how anything else gets approved. There's going to be a dozen different forms of "we must do SOMETHING!" but how does any one of them get critical mass?

    We voted to Leave. It is quite possible that by trying to be too clever by half, the Establishment and the Remainers will have conspired to dump the UK into the unknown soup of No Deal. Which at least has the benefit of not being a compromise. And delivering what we voted for. Albeit, rather more full on than most imagined our politicians would deliver.

    Theresa May is literally terrified of no deal so while she's there I can't see it happening.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,400

    HYUFD said:

    No but this is the best there is. The alternative is the country rips itself to shreds in either EUref2 and a narrow Remain win or a No Deal economic disaster and possible break up of the Union

    No the better alternative is that the UK shows some backbone and we get a better deal.

    HYUFD: "Ah but the EU have said this is as good as it gets"
    Philip_Thompson: "Well they would, wouldn't they?"
    HYUFD: "Ah but the EU have said this is as good as it gets"

    Fade to black.
    The EU can afford to say it is as good as it gets as we are 16% of their exports but they are 44% of ours
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,400
    edited November 2018
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:



    Nope, a new leader achieves nothing else, zilch, nada, nothing, the EU have been abundantly clear it is this Deal or No Deal hence most Tory MPs still back her.

    If idiots in the Tory Party and Labour Party are really going to vote down the only Deal on the table they deserve nothing but contempt. The only people who will suffer are the workers who will lose their jobs and wages with No Deal. Either that or further caving through permanent Customs Union or EUref2 and Remain and the clueless ERG get even less Brexit than under May's Deal

    I don't think it is a risk that should be taken either, and agree that the options are an even less brexity brexit, remain or, in my opinion, unacceptable levels of chaos.

    But that's irrelevant if MPs do not believe it. Cabinet members publicly do not believe it, so of course no one else does. Labour are going to at least try to attempt it if they get into power somehow. 200 loyalists at least some of whom are lukewarm on the deal at best (Gove and co again) does not mean they all actually accept it is indeed this deal or no deal, and even if most of them do believe that, May cannot get the deal through and there are paths she would not be able to take us down as leader, so Tory Mps will have to pick someone else - and no matter what the majority think, if her deal has been rejected by 150 votes in the Commons, there's no point picking someone who says 'I'm going to try May's deal again', so the only options will be no dealers or renegotiaters.

    I don't think changing leader actually alters the facts or numbers in play here. But if the Commons won't back May's plan it and the Tory party will have to decide how to react. Attempting an unreaslistic option appears to be what they will choose.
    If the Commons do not back May's plan as I said I think permanent Customs Union or No Deal are the only likely alternatives
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 9,934
    rcs1000 said:

    OK. I know you guys are all off now.

    But.

    Here's my question. Say, the deal goes down by 120 votes (or whatever). And May resigns.

    How quickly can the Conservative Party replace her? Let's assume that given the exceptional circumstances, the rules are changed to allow MPs voting to happen entirely before Christmas.

    Could we have members vote by the middle of January? Does that work? So, therefore, PM Raab or Hunt or Johnson in mid Jan.

    Who presumably would have to ask for an extension. Assume the EU says "no". What then?

    Presumably the leader would ask the British people to brace themselves for the worst. But what if they instead chose to call an election? Or a referendum? Or if 50 pro-EU Conservatives broke off to offer Corbyn support for a three month Premiership during which time a "permanent" Customs Union is signed?

    @rcs1000, you're overthinking this. Let me make it simple. The MPs are stupid/malevolent/distanced. There is no incentive for them to do well and considerable incentive for them to do badly. In short, they will fuck it up, and fuck it up big style, and blame the EU for the upfucking.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,640
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:



    Nope, a new leader achieves nothing else, zilch, nada, nothing, the EU have been abundantly clear it is this Deal or No Deal hence most Tory MPs still back her.

    If idiots in the Tory Party and Labour Party are really going to vote down the only Deal on the table they deserve nothing but contempt. The only people who will suffer are the workers who will lose their jobs and wages with No Deal. Either that or further caving through permanent Customs Union or EUref2 and Remain and the clueless ERG get even less Brexit than under May's Deal

    I don't think it is a risk that should be taken either, and agree that the options are an even less brexity brexit, remain or, in my opinion, unacceptable levels of chaos.

    But that's irrelevant if MPs do not believe it. Cabinet members publicly do not believe it, so of course no one else does. Labour are going to at least try to attempt it if they get into power somehow. 200 loyalists at least some of whom are lukewarm on the deal at best (Gove and co again) does not mean they all actually accept it is indeed this deal or no deal, and even if most of them do believe that, May cannot get the deal through and there are paths she would not be able to take us down as leader, so Tory Mps will have to pick someone else - and no matter what the majority think, if her deal has been rejected by 150 votes in the Commons, there's no point picking someone who says 'I'm going to try May's deal again', so the only options will be no dealers or renegotiaters.

    I don't think changing leader actually alters the facts or numbers in play here. But if the Commons won't back May's plan it and the Tory party will have to decide how to react. Attempting an unreaslistic option appears to be what they will choose.
    Of course attempting an unrealistic option may just make it realistic and may just solve this mess!
    And we do that in a few months how or the EU decide to let us weaken their position by extending the time because...they are liars who will be nice to us now because they want a deal so bad? But not so bad that they didn't lend us a hand sooner?

    I hope you are right because it looks like what we will try next, I could even believe the EU will make some changes, but if a new Tory leader tries to sell some minor shift as seismic then I will hold them in utter contempt.
    Two months with the Conservative Party embroiled in an election campaign means two months of "No Deal" preparation lost.
  • rcs1000 said:

    OK. I know you guys are all off now.

    But.

    Here's my question. Say, the deal goes down by 120 votes (or whatever). And May resigns.

    How quickly can the Conservative Party replace her? Let's assume that given the exceptional circumstances, the rules are changed to allow MPs voting to happen entirely before Christmas.

    Could we have members vote by the middle of January? Does that work? So, therefore, PM Raab or Hunt or Johnson in mid Jan.

    Who presumably would have to ask for an extension. Assume the EU says "no". What then?

    Presumably the leader would ask the British people to brace themselves for the worst. But what if they instead chose to call an election? Or a referendum? Or if 50 pro-EU Conservatives broke off to offer Corbyn support for a three month Premiership during which time a "permanent" Customs Union is signed?

    It is all up in the air. Who knows? Of course it will all depend on who that new leader is. Bear in mind that as far as a referendum goes we have already past the minimum time that the Electoral Commission said would be necessary for a fair vote. Even were the legislation passed tomorrow, the EC say they need 12 weeks to field test the questions and a minimum 10 week campaign period. They also say no referendum should be held before 6 months after the legislation has past approving the referendum.

    That is before you even start to take into account the legal challenges all the way to the Supreme Court.

    So what you have to start looking at is how possible would it be to get the A50 extension - which requires all 27 other countries to approve.
    ... and what they will want to do so. Fish. Gibraltar. Etc. We may just have to say no and then go for low corporate taxes
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,640
    Andrew said:

    Apparently Mueller is saying he's caught Manafort in multiple lies.

    Manafort is - irrespective of anything to do with President Trump - an amoral scumbag who broke many, many laws, and who is rightly going to prison.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,640

    Just to reinforce the point I made earlier. It would be almost impossible to have a referendum now without extending A50. Which would need the unanimous support of all 27 other EU states.

    https://constitution-unit.com/2018/08/30/how-long-would-it-take-to-hold-a-second-referendum-on-brexit/

    Unanimity is achieved all the time. I think if Mrs May went to Brussels and said "I'm going out to bat for you in a referendum, please extend A50 by six weeks," then they'd say "Sure".

    (Or, they'd say "So, tell me how well you did last time you had to face actual voters...")
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,722
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    OK. I know you guys are all off now.

    But.

    Here's my question. Say, the deal goes down by 120 votes (or whatever). And May resigns.

    How quickly can the Conservative Party replace her? Let's assume that given the exceptional circumstances, the rules are changed to allow MPs voting to happen entirely before Christmas.

    Could we have members vote by the middle of January? Does that work? So, therefore, PM Raab or Hunt or Johnson in mid Jan.

    Who presumably would have to ask for an extension. Assume the EU says "no". What then?

    Presumably the leader would ask the British people to brace themselves for the worst. But what if they instead chose to call an election? Or a referendum? Or if 50 pro-EU Conservatives broke off to offer Corbyn support for a three month Premiership during which time a "permanent" Customs Union is signed?

    Just who knows now.

    No Deal now looks favourite, as it is so difficult to see how anything else gets approved. There's going to be a dozen different forms of "we must do SOMETHING!" but how does any one of them get critical mass?

    We voted to Leave. It is quite possible that by trying to be too clever by half, the Establishment and the Remainers will have conspired to dump the UK into the unknown soup of No Deal. Which at least has the benefit of not being a compromise. And delivering what we voted for. Albeit, rather more full on than most imagined our politicians would deliver.

    And with the added bonus of potentially crashing the economy, leading Scotland to vote for independence and causing chaos in Ireland too.

    If May's Deal is rejected the threat of No Deal goes up yes but I still think a permanent Customs Union vote is more likely to pass first if that is the threat
    There is undoubtedly a greater risk to the economy than if we had taken serious measures to plan for No Deal as a potential outcome, to smooth out the bumps if that was where we ended up. It is utterly damning how this entire process has been managed by Government, Opposition and Civil Service. A fucking clown troupe, the lot of them.

    The hope that after two and half years, they will magically turn this around in four months for an acceptable outcome is forlorn.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,400
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,640

    rcs1000 said:

    OK. I know you guys are all off now.

    But.

    Here's my question. Say, the deal goes down by 120 votes (or whatever). And May resigns.

    How quickly can the Conservative Party replace her? Let's assume that given the exceptional circumstances, the rules are changed to allow MPs voting to happen entirely before Christmas.

    Could we have members vote by the middle of January? Does that work? So, therefore, PM Raab or Hunt or Johnson in mid Jan.

    Who presumably would have to ask for an extension. Assume the EU says "no". What then?

    Presumably the leader would ask the British people to brace themselves for the worst. But what if they instead chose to call an election? Or a referendum? Or if 50 pro-EU Conservatives broke off to offer Corbyn support for a three month Premiership during which time a "permanent" Customs Union is signed?

    Just who knows now.

    No Deal now looks favourite, as it is so difficult to see how anything else gets approved. There's going to be a dozen different forms of "we must do SOMETHING!" but how does any one of them get critical mass?

    We voted to Leave. It is quite possible that by trying to be too clever by half, the Establishment and the Remainers will have conspired to dump the UK into the unknown soup of No Deal. Which at least has the benefit of not being a compromise. And delivering what we voted for. Albeit, rather more full on than most imagined our politicians would deliver.

    No Deal is favourite, but a long way from odds on, simply because there are so many possible outcomes.

    Ultimately, I think the PM of the day is likely to ask for an extension, rather than crashing directly into No Deal. It may be a six week extension followed by No Deal, but I still think even a small extension to do minimal bilateral deals is more likely than a March 29th crash out.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,640
    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    OK. I know you guys are all off now.

    But.

    Here's my question. Say, the deal goes down by 120 votes (or whatever). And May resigns.

    How quickly can the Conservative Party replace her? Let's assume that given the exceptional circumstances, the rules are changed to allow MPs voting to happen entirely before Christmas.

    Could we have members vote by the middle of January? Does that work? So, therefore, PM Raab or Hunt or Johnson in mid Jan.

    Who presumably would have to ask for an extension. Assume the EU says "no". What then?

    Presumably the leader would ask the British people to brace themselves for the worst. But what if they instead chose to call an election? Or a referendum? Or if 50 pro-EU Conservatives broke off to offer Corbyn support for a three month Premiership during which time a "permanent" Customs Union is signed?

    Presumably the party has procedures to amend its, er, procedures quickly if it needs to, so it seems plausible. If the EU say no to an extension (incidentally I think they would say no if the leadership election was on its existing timeframe as it eats up so much time before they even knew if we were committing to no deal or even wanted an extension, but might say yes if they do it quickly) then I think a referendum will definitely get through (obviously the mechanics of agreeing that are complicated still). MPs talk a lot of crap, particularly around fearing no deal when their actions risk it, but I don't think people are entirely wrong to say they will find some way to avoid it, so if the EU does say no and the Tories are somehow still in power, I think there would be enough votes for a referendum to remain or no deal.

    Another reason we should just do that now. Wasting another negotiation which would probably have near as much internal dissent seems pointless for us and the EU. Remain or no deal now, as that actually settles things in the short term, and then the fallout from ignoring 2016 can begin.
    Remain or No Deal, especially if won marginally by Remain, would be a horrible result for the country and would poison political debate for decades.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,640

    rcs1000 said:

    OK. I know you guys are all off now.

    But.

    Here's my question. Say, the deal goes down by 120 votes (or whatever). And May resigns.

    How quickly can the Conservative Party replace her? Let's assume that given the exceptional circumstances, the rules are changed to allow MPs voting to happen entirely before Christmas.

    Could we have members vote by the middle of January? Does that work? So, therefore, PM Raab or Hunt or Johnson in mid Jan.

    Who presumably would have to ask for an extension. Assume the EU says "no". What then?

    Presumably the leader would ask the British people to brace themselves for the worst. But what if they instead chose to call an election? Or a referendum? Or if 50 pro-EU Conservatives broke off to offer Corbyn support for a three month Premiership during which time a "permanent" Customs Union is signed?

    It is all up in the air. Who knows? Of course it will all depend on who that new leader is. Bear in mind that as far as a referendum goes we have already past the minimum time that the Electoral Commission said would be necessary for a fair vote. Even were the legislation passed tomorrow, the EC say they need 12 weeks to field test the questions and a minimum 10 week campaign period. They also say no referendum should be held before 6 months after the legislation has past approving the referendum.

    That is before you even start to take into account the legal challenges all the way to the Supreme Court.

    So what you have to start looking at is how possible would it be to get the A50 extension - which requires all 27 other countries to approve.
    ... and what they will want to do so. Fish. Gibraltar. Etc. We may just have to say no and then go for low corporate taxes
    Corporate taxes everywhere are on a race towards zero (for many good reasons, but that's another story). When everyone has 50% taxes on profit, and you have 10%, then that's a massive difference. When everyone is at 15%, and you're at 5%, that's not.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 9,934



    No Deal now looks favourite, as it is so difficult to see how anything else gets approved. There's going to be a dozen different forms of "we must do SOMETHING!" but how does any one of them get critical mass?

    We voted to Leave. It is quite possible that by trying to be too clever by half, the Establishment and the Remainers will have conspired to dump the UK into the unknown soup of No Deal. Which at least has the benefit of not being a compromise. And delivering what we voted for. Albeit, rather more full on than most imagined our politicians would deliver.

    I think you're right. However, I wish you hadn't swerved into "failing and blaming" ("...It is quite possible that by trying to be too clever by half, the Establishment and the Remainers will have conspired to dump the UK into the unknown soup of No Deal..."). I wish I lived in a country where politicians tried to fix things and make things better, rather than break things and blame it on somebody else. But it seems I am fated to be disappointed in that wish.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 6,293
    philiph said:

    rcs1000 said:

    OK. I know you guys are all off now.

    But.

    Here's my question. Say, the deal goes down by 120 votes (or whatever). And May resigns.

    How quickly can the Conservative Party replace her? Let's assume that given the exceptional circumstances, the rules are changed to allow MPs voting to happen entirely before Christmas.

    Could we have members vote by the middle of January? Does that work? So, therefore, PM Raab or Hunt or Johnson in mid Jan.

    Who presumably would have to ask for an extension. Assume the EU says "no". What then?

    Presumably the leader would ask the British people to brace themselves for the worst. But what if they instead chose to call an election? Or a referendum? Or if 50 pro-EU Conservatives broke off to offer Corbyn support for a three month Premiership during which time a "permanent" Customs Union is signed?

    They can do it very quickly, if all bar one candidates are nobbled and voting is superfluous.
    But that doesn't address the issue . Presumably it would be someone like Hunt. A Releaver. The same problem then applies .
  • NotchNotch Posts: 145
    edited November 2018
    Jeremy "I suppose if I must lose voteshare I'd rather lose it to the LibDems than to UKIP" Corbyn continues his poor performance as Leader of the Opposition when the Tory government is crying out to be put out of its misery:

    New Statesman: "Labour will not allow a representative of the People’s Vote campaign to take part in any televised Brexit debate involving Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn, with the party instead pushing for a format that would allow the opposition leader to criticise the prime minister’s domestic policies".

    He probably thinks that's a good reframing but it isn't.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 61,400
    edited November 2018

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    OK. I know you guys are all off now.

    But.

    Here's my question. Say, the deal goes down by 120 votes (or whatever). And May resigns.

    How quickly can the Conservative Party replace her? Let's assume that given the exceptional circumstances, the rules are changed to allow MPs voting to happen entirely before Christmas.

    Could we have members vote by the middle of January? Does that work? So, therefore, PM Raab or Hunt or Johnson in mid Jan.

    Who presumably would have to ask for an extension. Assume the EU says "no". What then?

    Presumably the leader would ask the British people to brace themselves for the worst. But what if they instead chose to call an election? Or a referendum? Or if 50 pro-EU Conservatives broke off to offer Corbyn support for a three month Premiership during which time a "permanent" Customs Union is signed?

    Just who knows now.

    No Deal now looks favourite, as it is so difficult to see how anything else gets approved. There's going to be a dozen different forms of "we must do SOMETHING!" but how does any one of them get critical mass?

    We voted to Leave. It is quite possible that by trying to be too clever by half, the Establishment and the Remainers will have conspired to dump the UK into the unknown soup of No Deal. Which at least has the benefit of not being a compromise. And delivering what we voted for. Albeit, rather more full on than most imagined our politicians would deliver.

    And with the added bonus of potentially crashing the economy, leading Scotland to vote for independence and causing chaos in Ireland too.

    If May's Deal is rejected the threat of No Deal goes up yes but I still think a permanent Customs Union vote is more likely to pass first if that is the threat
    There is undoubtedly a greater risk to the economy than if we had taken serious measures to plan for No Deal as a potential outcome, to smooth out the bumps if that was where we ended up. It is utterly damning how this entire process has been managed by Government, Opposition and Civil Service. A fucking clown troupe, the lot of them.

    The hope that after two and half years, they will magically turn this around in four months for an acceptable outcome is forlorn.
    All you can do with No Deal is try and minimise the damage but damage there still will be no matter how well prepared to all sectors of the economy but particularly to manufacturing industry
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 26,722
    viewcode said:



    No Deal now looks favourite, as it is so difficult to see how anything else gets approved. There's going to be a dozen different forms of "we must do SOMETHING!" but how does any one of them get critical mass?

    We voted to Leave. It is quite possible that by trying to be too clever by half, the Establishment and the Remainers will have conspired to dump the UK into the unknown soup of No Deal. Which at least has the benefit of not being a compromise. And delivering what we voted for. Albeit, rather more full on than most imagined our politicians would deliver.

    I think you're right. However, I wish you hadn't swerved into "failing and blaming" ("...It is quite possible that by trying to be too clever by half, the Establishment and the Remainers will have conspired to dump the UK into the unknown soup of No Deal..."). I wish I lived in a country where politicians tried to fix things and make things better, rather than break things and blame it on somebody else. But it seems I am fated to be disappointed in that wish.
    Sorry, but I have watched this Brexit process unfold with utter dismay. This whole mess has been undertaken by government and civil service with huge reluctance, perhaps hoping that we would all be wiped out by an asteroid before they had to deliver it. Throughout, the PM has intervened to over-rule, to blind-side, to revise deal terms, to stop people doing their jobs. She is reaping the whirlwind. I see a failed process - and blame being appropriate.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 9,934

    viewcode said:



    No Deal now looks favourite, as it is so difficult to see how anything else gets approved. There's going to be a dozen different forms of "we must do SOMETHING!" but how does any one of them get critical mass?

    We voted to Leave. It is quite possible that by trying to be too clever by half, the Establishment and the Remainers will have conspired to dump the UK into the unknown soup of No Deal. Which at least has the benefit of not being a compromise. And delivering what we voted for. Albeit, rather more full on than most imagined our politicians would deliver.

    I think you're right. However, I wish you hadn't swerved into "failing and blaming" ("...It is quite possible that by trying to be too clever by half, the Establishment and the Remainers will have conspired to dump the UK into the unknown soup of No Deal..."). I wish I lived in a country where politicians tried to fix things and make things better, rather than break things and blame it on somebody else. But it seems I am fated to be disappointed in that wish.
    Sorry, but I have watched this Brexit process unfold with utter dismay. This whole mess has been undertaken by government and civil service with huge reluctance, perhaps hoping that we would all be wiped out by an asteroid before they had to deliver it. Throughout, the PM has intervened to over-rule, to blind-side, to revise deal terms, to stop people doing their jobs. She is reaping the whirlwind. I see a failed process - and blame being appropriate.
    Fair enough.
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,000
    edited November 2018
    Are we heading for a government of national unity? This is arguably the biggest UK political crisis since WW II so such a next step seems plausible to me. Who would lead it? Who could command sufficient cross party support to carve out a Brexit deal? Hunt? Hammond? Cox? Lidington? Rudd?
  • rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    OK. I know you guys are all off now.

    But.

    Here's my question. Say, the deal goes down by 120 votes (or whatever). And May resigns.

    How quickly can the Conservative Party replace her? Let's assume that given the exceptional circumstances, the rules are changed to allow MPs voting to happen entirely before Christmas.

    Could we have members vote by the middle of January? Does that work? So, therefore, PM Raab or Hunt or Johnson in mid Jan.

    Who presumably would have to ask for an extension. Assume the EU says "no". What then?

    Presumably the leader would ask the British people to brace themselves for the worst. But what if they instead chose to call an election? Or a referendum? Or if 50 pro-EU Conservatives broke off to offer Corbyn support for a three month Premiership during which time a "permanent" Customs Union is signed?

    Presumably the party has procedures to amend its, er, procedures quickly if it needs to, so it seems plausible. If the EU say no to an extension (incidentally I think they would say no if the leadership election was on its existing timeframe as it eats up so much time before they even knew if we were committing to no deal or even wanted an extension, but might say yes if they do it quickly) then I think a referendum will definitely get through (obviously the mechanics of agreeing that are complicated still). MPs talk a lot of crap, particularly around fearing no deal when their actions risk it, but I don't think people are entirely wrong to say they will find some way to avoid it, so if the EU does say no and the Tories are somehow still in power, I think there would be enough votes for a referendum to remain or no deal.

    Another reason we should just do that now. Wasting another negotiation which would probably have near as much internal dissent seems pointless for us and the EU. Remain or no deal now, as that actually settles things in the short term, and then the fallout from ignoring 2016 can begin.
    Remain or No Deal, especially if won marginally by Remain, would be a horrible result for the country and would poison political debate for decades.

    I genuinely worry that it would be worse than that. I think we could end up with a populist centre right grouping like Liga Nord based on a they-stole-your-vote position coupled with British nationalism. I think it would be very popular
  • Notch said:

    Jeremy "I suppose if I must lose voteshare I'd rather lose it to the LibDems than to UKIP" Corbyn continues his poor performance as Leader of the Opposition when the Tory government is crying out to be put out of its misery:

    New Statesman: "Labour will not allow a representative of the People’s Vote campaign to take part in any televised Brexit debate involving Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn, with the party instead pushing for a format that would allow the opposition leader to criticise the prime minister’s domestic policies".

    He probably thinks that's a good reframing but it isn't.

    What you don't know is whether that is informed by private focus groups. If it is then the whole media/London bubble may be in for a shock.
  • NotchNotch Posts: 145
    edited November 2018
    kle4 said:

    Presumably the party has procedures to amend its, er, procedures quickly if it needs to

    The key documents are the 1922 Committee's Procedure for the Election of the Leader of the Conservative Party and Schedule 2 to the party's constitution.

    First three paragraphs in the latter:

    1. If the position of the Leader of the Party becomes vacant the Chairman of the 1922 Committee shall arrange for an election to begin as soon as practicable.

    2. The Chairman of the 1922 Committee will be responsible for the conduct of all ballots specified in these rules and will settle all matters in relation thereto.

    3. These rules are drawn up under the authority of the 1922 Committee, and any future changes which may be deemed necessary will be made by the 1922 Committee, as provided for in Schedule 2 of the Constitution of the Conservative Party
    (emphasis added, as also below).

    Go to Schedule 2 of the constitution:

    3. Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board.

    Those are the aforementioned rules. There is no provision for how long the EC22 needs to take to change them. An afternoon should suffice.

    The Tory party is in bad enough trouble as it is. They are not going to hit the bin because 10 candidates presented themselves and even after eight rounds the second-placed candidate stayed stubbornly in the race, and what with postal problems and hustings the ballot of the membership had to take until April. The new leader will probably be in within 10 days of Theresa May getting the push.








  • I think it'll be a bit less solid than that, but should be three figures. What she needs is a plan B that is similar enough to the Deal to get weary acquiescence from Brussels yet different enough for dissident Tories and some Labour to declare victory and accept it. A permanent customs union plus regulatory alignment looks a candidate - it's hard for Labour to oppose since it's the main substantive point of difference, and voters will accept it as sounding reasonable. It's compatible with the deal. It will annoy the ERG (shrug) but not the DUP. It is open to the "I can't believe it's not membership" jibe, but by that time everyone will be past caring. It means no new trade deals with Trump, but that's probably a headache best avoided anyway.

    Would Corbyn go for that? His calculation seems to be that he can cause enough of a crisis to seriously damage the Tories or get a new election, and he won't get the blame, and that calculation seems correct. Why would he let the government off the hook? It's not like the voters understand what these different options mean anyhow.

    Politically if he was going to end up supporting the government that it seems better to just abstain on the original deal, because if the result appears to be implementing the *Labour* policy then he's going to have to take the blame for it.
  • Notch said:

    kle4 said:

    Presumably the party has procedures to amend its, er, procedures quickly if it needs to

    The key documents are the 1922 Committee's Procedure for the Election of the Leader of the Conservative Party and Schedule 2 to the party's constitution.

    First three paragraphs in the latter:

    1. If the position of the Leader of the Party becomes vacant the Chairman of the 1922 Committee shall arrange for an election to begin as soon as practicable.

    2. The Chairman of the 1922 Committee will be responsible for the conduct of all ballots specified in these rules and will settle all matters in relation thereto.

    3. These rules are drawn up under the authority of the 1922 Committee, and any future changes which may be deemed necessary will be made by the 1922 Committee, as provided for in Schedule 2 of the Constitution of the Conservative Party
    (emphasis added, as also below).

    Go to Schedule 2 of the constitution:

    3. Upon the initiation of an election for the Leader, it shall be the duty of the 1922 Committee to present to the Party, as soon as reasonably practicable, a choice of candidates for election as Leader. The rules for deciding the procedure by which the 1922 Committee selects candidates for submission for election shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the 1922 Committee after consultation of the Board.

    Those are the aforementioned rules. There is no provision for how long the EC22 needs to take to change them. An afternoon should suffice.

    The Tory party is in bad enough trouble as it is. They are not going to hit the bin because 10 candidates presented themselves and even after eight rounds the second-placed candidate stayed stubbornly in the race, and what with postal problems and hustings the ballot of the membership had to take until April. The new leader will probably be in within 10 days of Theresa May getting the push.

    If they don't go out to the membership this time then I expect they will find virtually no ground game turnout for the locals or the next GE. The members won't stand for another coronation.
  • NotchNotch Posts: 145
    stjohn said:

    Are we heading for a government of national unity? This is arguably the biggest UK political crisis since WW II so such a next step seems plausible to me. Who would lead it? Who could command sufficient cross party support to carve out a Brexit deal? Hunt? Hammond? Cox? Lidington? Rudd?

    I was surprised to learn there's only a single barrister in the cabinet (to go with the solicitors David Gauke and James Brokenshire), namely Jeremy Wright, the only QC, and even he got silk only by dint of being appointed Attorney-General.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 1,767
    edited November 2018
    rcs1000 said:


    Manafort is - irrespective of anything to do with President Trump - an amoral scumbag who broke many, many laws, and who is rightly going to prison.

    Seems so, they're talking about sentences over a decade now (and he's 69 and not in best of health either).

    Makes me wonder why he would risk lying at this stage ...... has a pardon been dangled?
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 1,746
    Notch said:

    stjohn said:

    Are we heading for a government of national unity? This is arguably the biggest UK political crisis since WW II so such a next step seems plausible to me. Who would lead it? Who could command sufficient cross party support to carve out a Brexit deal? Hunt? Hammond? Cox? Lidington? Rudd?

    I was surprised to learn there's only a single barrister in the cabinet (to go with the solicitors David Gauke and James Brokenshire), namely Jeremy Wright, the only QC, and even he got silk only by dint of being appointed Attorney-General.
    Cox is a QC.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 30,526
    I’ve just noticed Andrew Lewer has said he submitted a letter to Graham Brady today. Perhaps we could finally reach the 48 this week.
  • I’ve just noticed Andrew Lewer has said he submitted a letter to Graham Brady today. Perhaps we could finally reach the 48 this week.

    I was thinking the same.....if May is seen to go over the heads of her backbenchers I can see the letters hitting 48 this week, interesting times
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 35,348
    edited November 2018

    I’ve just noticed Andrew Lewer has said he submitted a letter to Graham Brady today. Perhaps we could finally reach the 48 this week.

    image
  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,085
    It's the euro elections that cock this up...
  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,085

    rcs1000 said:

    OK. I know you guys are all off now.

    But.

    Here's my question. Say, the deal goes down by 120 votes (or whatever). And May resigns.

    How quickly can the Conservative Party replace her? Let's assume that given the exceptional circumstances, the rules are changed to allow MPs voting to happen entirely before Christmas.

    Could we have members vote by the middle of January? Does that work? So, therefore, PM Raab or Hunt or Johnson in mid Jan.

    Who presumably would have to ask for an extension. Assume the EU says "no". What then?

    Presumably the leader would ask the British people to brace themselves for the worst. But what if they instead chose to call an election? Or a referendum? Or if 50 pro-EU Conservatives broke off to offer Corbyn support for a three month Premiership during which time a "permanent" Customs Union is signed?

    It is all up in the air. Who knows? Of course it will all depend on who that new leader is. Bear in mind that as far as a referendum goes we have already past the minimum time that the Electoral Commission said would be necessary for a fair vote. Even were the legislation passed tomorrow, the EC say they need 12 weeks to field test the questions and a minimum 10 week campaign period. They also say no referendum should be held before 6 months after the legislation has past approving the referendum.

    That is before you even start to take into account the legal challenges all the way to the Supreme Court.

    So what you have to start looking at is how possible would it be to get the A50 extension - which requires all 27 other countries to approve.
    Which means we have to participate in the euro elections....
    Not what anybody wants as it ties MEPS for 5 years
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 12,093
    edited November 2018
    timmo said:


    Which means we have to participate in the euro elections....
    Not what anybody wants as it ties MEPS for 5 years

    That's an irritation but not a big deal: The EP has handled EU membership changing partway through a term before, and the EU has already made contingency plans in case Brexit gets delayed. Obviously the British MEPs wouldn't be there for 5 years, they'd leave when the UK does.
  • [The Electoral Commission] also say no referendum should be held before 6 months after the legislation has past approving the referendum.

    Where are you getting that from?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 5,044
    Surely at least 500 MPs prefer May's deal to No Deal.

    So if it looks as if we really are heading for No Deal then we'll default back to May's deal - which would pass the Commons in say February if it was then clear that the only alternative really would be No Deal.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 35,348
    edited November 2018
    Bizarre tale,

    Leading generator of Fake News is Democrat supporting / anti-Trump and claims to do it not for the green-backs, but to highlight how stupid Republicans are...

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/the_godfather_of_fake_news
  • RobDRobD Posts: 38,793
    edited November 2018

    [The Electoral Commission] also say no referendum should be held before 6 months after the legislation has past approving the referendum.

    Where are you getting that from?
    It's not a legal requirement, but it is advised:

    http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/195867/EU-Referendum-media-briefing.pdf

    (section 2)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,640

    Bizarre tale,

    Leading generator of Fake News is Democrat supporting / anti-Trump and claims to do it not for the green-backs, but to highlight how stupid Republicans are...

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/the_godfather_of_fake_news

    There's a really good Washington Post story about the guy here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nothing-on-this-page-is-real-how-lies-become-truth-in-online-america/2018/11/17/edd44cc8-e85a-11e8-bbdb-72fdbf9d4fed_story.html?utm_term=.b6de6ea69cc6

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,640
    MikeL said:

    Surely at least 500 MPs prefer May's deal to No Deal.

    So if it looks as if we really are heading for No Deal then we'll default back to May's deal - which would pass the Commons in say February if it was then clear that the only alternative really would be No Deal.

    I was talking to the head of UK equity trading at a large investment bank - this is a man who used to make me coffee, and is now a partner, sigh... - and this was his calculation.

    "Don't worry about No Deal, it's all posturing. When it comes to Deal vs No Deal, they'll all get in line. Everyone knows this."

    OK, he didn't say "Everyone know this," but the rest is accurate.

    Which is what worries me. Everyone believes there will be a last minute deal... and then no one blinks.
  • RobD said:

    [The Electoral Commission] also say no referendum should be held before 6 months after the legislation has past approving the referendum.

    Where are you getting that from?
    It's not a legal requirement, but it is advised:

    http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/195867/EU-Referendum-media-briefing.pdf

    (section 2)
    OK, "best practice". Obviously not what you'd do if you're in a hurry.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,640

    RobD said:

    [The Electoral Commission] also say no referendum should be held before 6 months after the legislation has past approving the referendum.

    Where are you getting that from?
    It's not a legal requirement, but it is advised:

    http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/195867/EU-Referendum-media-briefing.pdf

    (section 2)
    OK, "best practice". Obviously not what you'd do if you're in a hurry.
    I think we left "best practise" behind some time ago.
  • timmo said:


    Which means we have to participate in the euro elections....
    Not what anybody wants as it ties MEPS for 5 years

    That's an irritation but not a big deal: The EP has handled EU membership changing partway through a term before, and the EU has already made contingency plans in case Brexit gets delayed. Obviously the British MEPs wouldn't be there for 5 years, they'd leave when the UK does.
    what a thought.......European Parliament elections.......that really will bring out the loons and fruitcakes
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,640

    timmo said:


    Which means wYoe have to participate in the euro elections....
    Not what anybody wants as it ties MEPS for 5 years

    That's an irritation but not a big deal: The EP has handled EU membership changing partway through a term before, and the EU has already made contingency plans in case Brexit gets delayed. Obviously the British MEPs wouldn't be there for 5 years, they'd leave when the UK does.
    what a thought.......European Parliament elections.......that really will bring out the loons and fruitcakes
    You think the LibDems will do well then?
  • MikeL said:

    Surely at least 500 MPs prefer May's deal to No Deal.

    So if it looks as if we really are heading for No Deal then we'll default back to May's deal - which would pass the Commons in say February if it was then clear that the only alternative really would be No Deal.

    Yes but will May be around to see it or will it be Hunt/Corbyn/A N Other's May++ deal?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,640

    MikeL said:

    Surely at least 500 MPs prefer May's deal to No Deal.

    So if it looks as if we really are heading for No Deal then we'll default back to May's deal - which would pass the Commons in say February if it was then clear that the only alternative really would be No Deal.

    Yes but will May be around to see it or will it be Hunt/Corbyn/A N Other's May++ deal?
    Here's the thing:

    500 MPs would prefer May's Deal to No Deal.
    But 200 Labour MPs would prefer the Conservative Government to fall.
    12 LibDem MPs oppose May's Deal because they want to Remain.
    100 Conservative MPs oppose May's Deal because the unicorn's horns are the wrong colour.
    17 million Brits will be happy with whatever happens, so long as Tony Blair hates it.
    1 US President has no idea what's going on.
    71 Conservative MPs have put in letters of No Confidence. But 64 have removed them. And 23 aren't sure if they've sent them in or not.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 14,586
    edited November 2018

    rcs1000 said:

    OK. I know you guys are all off now.

    But.

    Here's my question. Say, the deal goes down by 120 votes (or whatever). And May resigns.

    How quickly can the Conservative Party replace her? Let's assume that given the exceptional circumstances, the rules are changed to allow MPs voting to happen entirely before Christmas.

    Could we have members vote by the middle of January? Does that work? So, therefore, PM Raab or Hunt or Johnson in mid Jan.

    Who presumably would have to ask for an extension. Assume the EU says "no". What then?

    Presumably the leader would ask the British people to brace themselves for the worst. But what if they instead chose to call an election? Or a referendum? Or if 50 pro-EU Conservatives broke off to offer Corbyn support for a three month Premiership during which time a "permanent" Customs Union is signed?

    Just who knows now.

    No Deal now looks favourite, as it is so difficult to see how anything else gets approved. There's going to be a dozen different forms of "we must do SOMETHING!" but how does any one of them get critical mass?

    We voted to Leave. It is quite possible that by trying to be too clever by half, the Establishment and the Remainers will have conspired to dump the UK into the unknown soup of No Deal. Which at least has the benefit of not being a compromise. And delivering what we voted for. Albeit, rather more full on than most imagined our politicians would deliver.

    What you voted for.

    “What we voted for” is objectively untrue, as we know from the number of leave voters anxiously to prevent no deal.

    “Will have conspired to dump the UK”... the willingness of the more ideologically committed leavers to take responsibility for their own actions is quite remarkable.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 14,586
    rcs1000 said:

    MikeL said:

    Surely at least 500 MPs prefer May's deal to No Deal.

    So if it looks as if we really are heading for No Deal then we'll default back to May's deal - which would pass the Commons in say February if it was then clear that the only alternative really would be No Deal.

    Yes but will May be around to see it or will it be Hunt/Corbyn/A N Other's May++ deal?
    Here's the thing:

    500 MPs would prefer May's Deal to No Deal.
    But 200 Labour MPs would prefer the Conservative Government to fall.
    12 LibDem MPs oppose May's Deal because they want to Remain.
    100 Conservative MPs oppose May's Deal because the unicorn's horns are the wrong colour.
    17 million Brits will be happy with whatever happens, so long as Tony Blair hates it.
    1 US President has no idea what's going on.
    71 Conservative MPs have put in letters of No Confidence. But 64 have removed them. And 23 aren't sure if they've sent them in or not.

    Well Labour are quite explicit that their preference is for s general election over any other immediate outcome - and Nick Palmer keeps reminding us that “Jeremy doesn’t really care all that much about Europe”.

    I think you probably right in suspecting Parliament will do nothing to prevent a slide toward no deal. Too many MPs have more important matters on their personal agendas.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 14,586
    Andrew said:

    rcs1000 said:


    Manafort is - irrespective of anything to do with President Trump - an amoral scumbag who broke many, many laws, and who is rightly going to prison.

    Seems so, they're talking about sentences over a decade now (and he's 69 and not in best of health either).

    Makes me wonder why he would risk lying at this stage ...... has a pardon been dangled?
    The suggestion is that Manafort has effectively been acting as a mole on behalf of Trump inside the Mueller investigation, with the incentive of a pardon all along. If true, that would be unbelievably stupid on both his part, and that of Trump, but we know that they are both more than capable of unbelievable stupidities.
    The further suggestion is that Mueller might use Manafort’s imminent sentencing report to publish his damning information on Trump:
    https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/11/26/manafort-tests-the-theory-of-an-unpardonable-plea/

    We should find out, one way or another, quite soon.
  • TheoTheo Posts: 325
    rcs1000 said:

    Bizarre tale,

    Leading generator of Fake News is Democrat supporting / anti-Trump and claims to do it not for the green-backs, but to highlight how stupid Republicans are...

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/the_godfather_of_fake_news

    There's a really good Washington Post story about the guy here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nothing-on-this-page-is-real-how-lies-become-truth-in-online-america/2018/11/17/edd44cc8-e85a-11e8-bbdb-72fdbf9d4fed_story.html?utm_term=.b6de6ea69cc6

    I wonder if he could use his position to turn the base against the Republican Party. "Mitch McConnell conspired with Hillary and Obama to make Trump lose"...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,312
    Are the leavers who screeched and squealed about Obama's intervention about Brexit responding similarly about Trump's overnight intervention?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 38,793

    Are the leavers who screeched and squealed about Obama's intervention about Brexit responding similarly about Trump's overnight intervention?

    Difference is he's not going to sway anyone.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 15,948
    rcs1000 said:

    MikeL said:

    Surely at least 500 MPs prefer May's deal to No Deal.

    So if it looks as if we really are heading for No Deal then we'll default back to May's deal - which would pass the Commons in say February if it was then clear that the only alternative really would be No Deal.

    Yes but will May be around to see it or will it be Hunt/Corbyn/A N Other's May++ deal?
    Here's the thing:

    500 MPs would prefer May's Deal to No Deal.
    But 200 Labour MPs would prefer the Conservative Government to fall.
    12 LibDem MPs oppose May's Deal because they want to Remain.
    100 Conservative MPs oppose May's Deal because the unicorn's horns are the wrong colour.
    17 million Brits will be happy with whatever happens, so long as Tony Blair hates it.
    1 US President has no idea what's going on.
    71 Conservative MPs have put in letters of No Confidence. But 64 have removed them. And 23 aren't sure if they've sent them in or not.

    One of those moments when one really, really misses the Like option!
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,087

    Are the leavers who screeched and squealed about Obama's intervention about Brexit responding similarly about Trump's overnight intervention?

    He’s no different to Putin. He wants everything to burn so he looks better in the reflected light.
  • rcs1000 said:

    MikeL said:

    Surely at least 500 MPs prefer May's deal to No Deal.

    So if it looks as if we really are heading for No Deal then we'll default back to May's deal - which would pass the Commons in say February if it was then clear that the only alternative really would be No Deal.

    Yes but will May be around to see it or will it be Hunt/Corbyn/A N Other's May++ deal?
    Here's the thing:

    500 MPs would prefer May's Deal to No Deal.
    But 200 Labour MPs would prefer the Conservative Government to fall.
    12 LibDem MPs oppose May's Deal because they want to Remain.
    100 Conservative MPs oppose May's Deal because the unicorn's horns are the wrong colour.
    17 million Brits will be happy with whatever happens, so long as Tony Blair hates it.
    1 US President has no idea what's going on.
    71 Conservative MPs have put in letters of No Confidence. But 64 have removed them. And 23 aren't sure if they've sent them in or not.

    ...and a partridge in a pear tree...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 24,312
    RobD said:

    Are the leavers who screeched and squealed about Obama's intervention about Brexit responding similarly about Trump's overnight intervention?

    Difference is he's not going to sway anyone.
    Nah, that doesn't work as an excuse. The vitriol poured on Obama by the winnets was quite something to behold. I'd expect Trump to get similar castigation.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 11,392
    edited November 2018

    members of the female sex are being referred to as 'womxn' by students at both Goldsmiths, University of London and Kings College London.

    At Goldsmiths, the Students Union has ceased to use the words women and woman in its publications, since 'womxn' has been deemed more 'inclusive' of all students, including those who identify as transgender.

    Elsewhere in the city, societies including the 'KCL Womxn in Physics' club at King's College are also using the word.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6428225/Snowflake-students-replace-word-women-WOMXN-traditional-spelling-contains-man.html

    Sounds like the daily mail has been triggered.
This discussion has been closed.