You keep saying this. You are too kind to her. Sure those are factors. But they were entirely predictable. She utterly failed to take any of these into account, ploughed her own solitary furrow without involving anyone else, refused to listen or to talk to anyone else, sacked or ignored those with knowledge and expertise who could have helped, showed a contempt for Parliament and is now reduced to talking about non-existent negotiations in a manner which, were she an ordinary member of the public, would have her family and friends wondering whether she needed professional help.
She has utterly failed in basic political tradecraft.
I don't disagree. As I've posted before, her personality is completely unsuited to a hung parliament, and she's very poor at bringing people with her even when she's right.
But that doesn't alter the fact that she is right that there's no alternative to the EU's deal. Crashing out is unthinkable, revocation would be a democratic outrage, and the EU won't budge. It really is as simple as that, and therefore the entire crisis - and it really is a crisis - is caused by MPs refusing, for contradictory and in some cases entirely cynical reasons, to ratify the deal which would avert the crisis. Yes, sure, if she had been defter and more skilled at stroking their egos and making them feel loved, she might have got more support from them. But they are not children, and this is a real-life crisis in which they should forget about whether they feel loved and just get on with ending the uncertainty and taking 'no deal' off the table in the only way available.
It’s not a question of making MPs feel loved or stroking their egos. She utterly failed to take account of anyone’s views other than her own - or rather whoever wrote her speeches for her in June 2016 and later to the Tory conference.
And a second referendum to get people’s consent or not to this deal is not a democratic outrage. It is an obvious option. It is one she has ruled out. Why? Because she cares more about sticking to a date (talk about focusing on the unimportant) and because she is a bully who thinks that getting her own way is the only thing that matters. A deal that she bullies Parliament into accepting out of fear will not stick. It simply means that the arguments will continue elsewhere and the lack of real consent to what she is doing will continue to poison British politics.
Hear hear.
May seems determined to beat her predecessor to the top of the worst modern PM league.
It’s not a question of making MPs feel loved or stroking their egos. She utterly failed to take account of anyone’s views other than her own - or rather whoever wrote her speeches for her in June 2016 and later to the Tory conference.
And a second referendum to get people’s consent or not to this deal is not a democratic outrage. It is an obvious option. It is one she has ruled out. Why? Because she cares more about sticking to a date (talk about focusing on the unimportant) and because she is a bully who thinks that getting her own way is the only thing that matters. A deal that she bullies Parliament into accepting out of fear will not stick. It simply means that the arguments will continue elsewhere and the lack of real consent to what she is doing will continue to poison British politics.
You seem to think a second referendum is supported by parliament, could be agreed (what would the question be?), would resolve the problem, and wouldn't provoke a backlash from those who already thought they were being ignored by the 'elites'. Have you considered the possibility that she's not 'bullying', but that she has looked at another referendum and has quite reasonably concluded that it's a deeply unattractive option? Lots of people, including many Labour MPs, agree with her.
But, as I've said before, parliament could easily vote for another referendum if it wanted to. It shows no signs of doing so. I really don't mind what MPs do as long as we avoid crashing out with no deal, but they need to do something. At least Theresa May, for all her many faults, has a workable proposal. No-one else seems to.
What do we think the chance of the new Cooper-Boles amendment passing are ?
I think we need to individually examine MPs that changed their votes between Cooper-Boles I and Spelman. I doubt for example my MP John Mann will go for the Cooper-Boles II amendment even though he voted for Spelman.
Very high I think. Tory MPs (and some ministers) like Richard Harrington are very likely to back it this time, unless there is some movement in the negotiations in the meantime.
That 'almost certainly' excludes leaving on time I think ?
I'm not sure. If the deal or a tweaked version does get agreed, I think we might nominally leave on time. Any loose ends on legislation (and there will be a hell of a lot) canrything continues as before. The political imperative to be able to say we left on time is quite important for the PM.
She really has needlessly boxed herself in.
She's boxed
That’s a bit weak. Her failure to bring her party with her is the root problem. Her choice to force others and not compromise was her second mistake. Her third mistake was not to learn from heavy defeat.
The fact she is still trying to force her will is depressing beyond measure.
There was a way.
It required accepting the results of the ref. Reaching out for cross-party consensus. Seeking the closest possible ties with the EU. Reassuring Remainers. Using the rhetoric of healing, not division. And keeping hold of the UK’s *only* leverage: timing.
In the utter vacuum of leadership, the ERGers were given license to define increasingly more extreme Brexits. May piled on with divisive words of her own. She let Davis and Johnson indulge in their fantasies. And then she exercised Article 50, unilaterally defined her red lines, and the rest is history.
This is May’s wholly-owned crisis.
Your argument she exercised A50 is of course inaccurate in so far as 498 mps instructed A50 to be exercised with default no deal. You can say they didn't know what they were doing but the HOC voted for the action by a large margin. A50 was also served a long time after Corbyn had demanded it to be served
A50 was exercised by May after steering the necessary agreement through by Parliament. It’s not like Parliament instructed May to do it.
The second referendum fans' problem is that everyone knows the only reason for their enthusiasm is they want to reverse the original decision. It's called sour grapes, and while understandable, its still the reaction of a five-year-old.
"Want, want, want."
"No, Elizabeth Violet, no means no."
"I'll scweam and scweam until I'm sick."
The only chance of a second referendum is if the options are two sorts of Leave, thereby treating the first referendum as a run-off.
What do we think the chance of the new Cooper-Boles amendment passing are ?
I think we need to individually examine MPs that changed their votes between Cooper-Boles I and Spelman. I doubt for example my MP John Mann will go for the Cooper-Boles II amendment even though he voted for Spelman.
Very high I think. Tory MPs (and some ministers) like Richard Harrington are very likely to back it this time, unless there is some movement in the negotiations in the meantime.
That 'almost certainly' excludes leaving on time I think ?
I'm not sure. If the deal or a tweaked version does get agreed, I think we might nominally leave on time. Any loose ends on legislation (and there will be a hell of a lot) canrything continues as before. The political imperative to be able to say we left on time is quite important for the PM.
She really has needlessly boxed herself in.
She's boxed
That’s a bit weak. Her failure to bring her party with her is the root problem. Her choice to force others and not compromise was her second mistake. Her third mistake was not to learn from heavy defeat.
The fact she is still trying to force her will is depressing beyond measure.
There was a way.
It required accepting the results of the ref. Reaching out for cross-party consensus. Seeking the closest possible ties with the EU. Reassuring Remainers. Using the rhetoric of healing, not division. And keeping hold of the UK’s *only* leverage: timing.
In the utter vacuum of leadership, the ERGers were given license to define increasingly more extreme Brexits. May piled on with divisive words of her own. She let Davis and Johnson indulge in their fantasies. And then she exercised Article 50, unilaterally defined her red lines, and the rest is history.
This is May’s wholly-owned crisis.
Your argument she exercised A50 is of course inaccurate in so far as 498 mps instructed A50 to be exercised with default no deal. You can say they didn't know what they were doing but the HOC voted for the action by a large margin. A50 was also served a long time after Corbyn had demanded it to be served
A50 was exercised by May after steering the necessary agreement through by Parliament. It’s not like Parliament instructed May to do it.
You keep saying this. You are too kind to her. Sure those are factors. But they were entirely predictable. She utterly failed to take any of these into account, ploughed her own solitary furrow without involving anyone else, refused to listen or to talk to anyone else, sacked or ignored those with knowledge and expertise who could have helped, showed a contempt for Parliament and is now reduced to talking about non-existent negotiations in a manner which, were she an ordinary member of the public, would have her family and friends wondering whether she needed professional help.
She has utterly failed in basic political tradecraft.
I don't disagree. As I've posted before, her personality is completely unsuited to a hung parliament, and she's very poor at bringing people with her even when she's right.
But that doesn't alter the fact that she is right that there's no alternative to the EU's deal. Crashing out is unthinkable, revocation would be a democratic outrage, and the EU won't budge. It really is as simple as that, and therefore the entire crisis - and it really is a crisis - is caused by MPs refusing, for contradictory and in some cases entirely cynical reasons, to ratify the deal which would avert the crisis. Yes, sure, if she had been defter and more skilled at stroking their egos and making them feel loved, she might have got more support from them. But they are not children, and this is a real-life crisis in which they should forget about whether they feel loved and just get on with ending the uncertainty and taking 'no deal' off the table in the only way available.
It’s not a question of making MPs feel loved or stroking their egos. She utterly failed to take account of anyone’s views other than her own - or rather whoever wrote her speeches for her in June 2016 and later to the Tory conference.
And a second referendum to get people’s consent or not to this deal is not a democratic outrage. It is an obvious option. It is one she has ruled out. Why? Because she cares more about sticking to a date (talk about focusing on the unimportant) and because she is a bully who thinks that getting her own way is the only thing that matters. A deal that she bullies Parliament into accepting out of fear will not stick. It simply means that the arguments will continue elsewhere and the lack of real consent to what she is doing will continue to poison British politics.
You have made three outstanding posts in succession. This one makes the important point - one I haven’t seen before - that a coerced vote is *not* consent, and will mean that Brexit remains rancourous and unsettled.
She's boxed in by factors beyond her control, most notably Labour's cynical collaboration with the ERG, and the manoeuvrings of those still hoping to reverse Brexit despite having voted for it and the referendum.
That’s a bit weak. Her failure to bring her party with her is the root problem. Her choice to force others and not compromise was her second mistake. Her third mistake was not to learn from heavy defeat.
The fact she is still trying to force her will is depressing beyond measure.
There was a way.
It required accepting the results of the ref. Reaching out for cross-party consensus. Seeking the closest possible ties with the EU. Reassuring Remainers. Using the rhetoric of healing, not division. And keeping hold of the UK’s *only* leverage: timing.
In the utter vacuum of leadership, the ERGers were given license to define increasingly more extreme Brexits. May piled on with divisive words of her own. She let Davis and Johnson indulge in their fantasies. And then she exercised Article 50, unilaterally defined her red lines, and the rest is history.
This is May’s wholly-owned crisis.
Your argument she exercised A50 is of course inaccurate in so far as 498 mps instructed A50 to be exercised with default no deal. You can say they didn't know what they were doing but the HOC voted for the action by a large margin. A50 was also served a long time after Corbyn had demanded it to be served
I suppose it's arguable that in exercising A50 she was aiming for cross-party consensus, in that Labour (generally) voted for it too. However after that she made little or no attempt to consider the views of anyone except the ERG and the DUP, assuming that the bulk of the Tories would follow their Leader.
That's really quite unfair. She did not consider the views of the ERG or the DUP either. Hence the problems with the backstop amongst others. Even when the DUP told her in words of one syllable that it was not acceptable she signed up to it anyway. I mean, its not like they gave her a majority or anything.
What do we think the chance of the new Cooper-Boles amendment passing are ?
I think we need to individually examine MPs that changed their votes between Cooper-Boles I and Spelman. I doubt for example my MP John Mann will go for the Cooper-Boles II amendment even though he voted for Spelman.
Very high I think. Tory MPs (and some ministers) like Richard Harrington are very likely to back it this time, unless there is some movement in the negotiations in the meantime.
That 'almost certainly' excludes leaving on time I think ?
I'm not sure. If the deal or a tweaked version does get agreed, I think we might nominally leave on time. Any loose ends on legislation (and there will be a hell of a lot) canrything continues as before. The political imperative to be able to say we left on time is quite important for the PM.
She really has needlessly boxed herself in.
She's boxed
The fact she is still trying to force her will is depressing beyond measure.
There was a way.
It required accepting the results of the ref. Reaching out for cross-party consensus. Seeking the closest possible ties with the EU. Reassuring Remainers. Using the rhetoric of healing, not division. And keeping hold of the UK’s *only* leverage: timing.
In the utter vacuum of leadership, the ERGers were given license to define increasingly more extreme Brexits. May piled on with divisive words of her own. She let Davis and Johnson indulge in their fantasies. And then she exercised Article 50, unilaterally defined her red lines, and the rest is history.
This is May’s wholly-owned crisis.
Your argument she exercised A50 is of course inaccurate in so far as 498 mps instructed A50 to be exercised with default no deal. You can say they didn't know what they were doing but the HOC voted for the action by a large margin. A50 was also served a long time after Corbyn had demanded it to be served
A50 was exercised by May after steering the necessary agreement through by Parliament. It’s not like Parliament instructed May to do it.
May chose the timing.
No one objected at the time
Many on here did. Ken Clarke did. You did not, because you were in the first flush of the Brexit sickness.
Your argument she exercised A50 is of course inaccurate in so far as 498 mps instructed A50 to be exercised with default no deal. You can say they didn't know what they were doing but the HOC voted for the action by a large margin. A50 was also served a long time after Corbyn had demanded it to be served
A50 was exercised by May after steering the necessary agreement through by Parliament. It’s not like Parliament instructed May to do it.
May chose the timing.
The timing was irrelevant. The EU flatly refused to discuss anything, including what would and would not be possible, until we had triggered Article 50. There would have been no difference whatsoever in outcome if we had delayed further.
A50 was exercised by May after steering the necessary agreement through by Parliament. It’s not like Parliament instructed May to do it.
May chose the timing.
It's completely ridiculous to claim she rushed it. She waited nearly a year, for heaven's sake. Together with the transition period her timetable means five years to implement the referendum decision.
The issue wasn't the timing, it was the EU's absolute refusal to start negotiations before Article 50 was triggered, combined with their refusal even then to discuss the long-term relationship until very late in the process. Delaying triggering Article 50 wouldn't have helped - it's as daft to claim it would have done as it is for the ERGers to claim that the whole problem has been civil service treachery and a Remainer being in charge of the negotiations, or that somehow Cameron should have decided what the Leave campaign's exit plan should be.
You keep saying this. You are too kind to her. Sure those are factors. But they were entirely predictable. She utterly failed to take any of these into account, ploughed her own solitary furrow without involving anyone else, refused to listen or to talk to anyone else, sacked or ignored those with knowledge and expertise who could have helped, showed a contempt for Parliament and is now reduced to talking about non-existent negotiations in a manner which, were she an ordinary member of the public, would have her family and friends wondering whether she needed professional help.
She has utterly failed in basic political tradecraft.
I don't disagree. As I've posted before, her personality is completely unsuited to a hung parliament, and she's very poor at bringing people with her even when she's right.
But that doesn't alter the fact that she is right that there's no alternative to the EU's deal. Crashing out is unthinkable, revocation would be a democratic outrage, and the EU won't budge. It really is as simple as that, and therefore the entire crisis - and it really is a crisis - is caused by MPs refusing, for contradictory and in some cases entirely cynical reasons, to ratify the deal which would avert the crisis. Yes, sure, if she had been defter and more skilled at stroking their egos and making them feel loved, she might have got more support from them. But they are not children, and this is a real-life crisis in which they should forget about whether they feel loved and just get on with ending the uncertainty and taking 'no deal' off the table in the only way available.
It’s not a question of making MPs feel loved or stroking their egos. She utterly failed to take account of anyone’s views other than her own - or rather whoever wrote her speeches for her in June 2016 and later to the Tory conference.
And a second referendum to get people’s consent or not to this deal is not a democratic outrage. It is an obvious option. It is one she has ruled out. Why? Because she cares more about sticking to a date (talk about focusing on the unimportant) and because she is a bully who thinks that getting her own way is the only thing that matters. A deal that she bullies Parliament into accepting out of fear will not stick. It simply means that the arguments will continue elsewhere and the lack of real consent to what she is doing will continue to poison British politics.
If the aim of a second referendum is to get people's approval for this deal or not then the choice should be between this deal or no deal. Remain should not be a choice as that question has already been asked and answered.
Your argument she exercised A50 is of course inaccurate in so far as 498 mps instructed A50 to be exercised with default no deal. You can say they didn't know what they were doing but the HOC voted for the action by a large margin. A50 was also served a long time after Corbyn had demanded it to be served
A50 was exercised by May after steering the necessary agreement through by Parliament. It’s not like Parliament instructed May to do it.
May chose the timing.
The timing was irrelevant. The EU flatly refused to discuss anything, including what would and would not be possible, until we had triggered Article 50. There would have been no difference whatsoever in outcome if we had delayed further.
The EU played hardball, and we didn’t. We sacrificed our only real leverage.
What do we think the chance of the new Cooper-Boles amendment passing are ?
I think we need to individually examine MPs that changed their votes between Cooper-Boles I and Spelman. I doubt for example my MP John Mann will go for the Cooper-Boles II amendment even though he voted for Spelman.
Very high I think. Tory MPs (and some ministers) like Richard Harrington are very likely to back it this time, unless there is some movement in the negotiations in the meantime.
That 'almost certainly' excludes leaving on time I think ?
I'm not sure.
She really has needlessly boxed herself in.
She's boxed
The fact she is still trying to force her will is depressing beyond measure.
There was a way.
It required accepting the results of the ref. Reaching out for cross-party consensus. Seeking the closest possible ties with the EU. Reassuring Remainers. Using the rhetoric of healing, not division. And keeping hold of the UK’s *only* leverage: timing.
In the utter vacuum of leadership, the ERGers were given license to define increasingly more extreme Brexits. May piled on with divisive words of her own. She let Davis and Johnson indulge in their fantasies. And then she exercised Article 50, unilaterally defined her red lines, and the rest is history.
This is May’s wholly-owned crisis.
Your argument she exercised A50 is of course inaccurate in so far as 498 mps instructed A50 to be exercised with default no deal. You can say they didn't know what they were doing but the HOC voted for the action by a large margin. A50 was also served a long time after Corbyn had demanded it to be served
A50 was exercised by May after steering the necessary agreement through by Parliament. It’s not like Parliament instructed May to do it.
May chose the timing.
No one objected at the time
Many on here did. Ken Clarke did. You did not, because you were in the first flush of the Brexit sickness.
You are hurting and I understand that and I am just as concerned about brexit but I do try to make arguments without making it personal
Interesting that the main BBC new story is currently Stephen Barclay's denial that Olly Robbins's bar-room indiscretions reflect Theresa May's strategy.
"That England that was wont to conquer others ..."
Time is not a friend of May. The economy has survived much longer than expected but will go into deep freeze soon. Couriers are letting us know now the last date they will accept boxes for international shipments. By 2 weeks before the end of March companies will be stopping production, flights will be cancelled and the country will be in chaos. May is the last person to lead the country in such a scenario. If you think we are heading for a chaotic no deal then bet on May leaving before end of March.
"Corbyn says Grayling said that the taxpayer would not lose out from the Seaborne Freight contract. But £800,000 was spent on consultants.
May says the SNP asked about this yesterday. The money would have been spent by consultants whoever got the contract."
Wait, what? Is that really May's answer? Is it just me or does that make no sense at all?
Who are these mystery consultants that receive Gov't largesse whatever the weather ?
I assume this means that they spent 800k on a process that resulted in three firms (including Seaborne) receiving contracts. If they'd only awarded the other two (and no-one is challenging those, which were much higher value than Seaborne) then the 800k would still have been payable.
You keep saying this. You are too kind to her. Sure those are factors. But they were entirely predictable. She utterly failed to take any of these into account, ploughed her own solitary furrow without involving anyone else, refused to listen or to talk to anyone else, sacked or ignored those with knowledge and expertise who could have helped, showed a contempt for Parliament and is now reduced to talking about non-existent negotiations in a manner which, were she an ordinary member of the public, would have her family and friends wondering whether she needed professional help.
She has utterly failed in basic political tradecraft.
I don't disagree. As I've posted before, her personality is completely unsuited to a hung parliament, and she's very poor at bringing people with her even when she's right.
But that doesn't alter the fact that she is right that there's no alternative to the EU's deal. Crashing out is unthinkable, revocation would be a democratic outrage, and the EU won't budge. It really is as simple as that, and therefore the entire crisis - and it really is a crisis - is caused by MPs refusing, for contradictory and in some cases entirely cynical reasons, to ratify the deal which would avert the crisis. Yes, sure, if she had been defter and more skilled at stroking their egos and making them feel loved, she might have got more support from them. But they are not children, and this is a real-life crisis in which they should forget about whether they feel loved and just get on with ending the uncertainty and taking 'no deal' off the table in the only way available.
And a second referendum to get people’s consent or not to this deal is not a democratic outrage. It is an obvious option. It is one she has ruled out. Why? Because she cares more about sticking to a date (talk about focusing on the unimportant) and because she is a bully who thinks that getting her own way is the only thing that matters. A deal that she bullies Parliament into accepting out of fear will not stick. It simply means that the arguments will continue elsewhere and the lack of real consent to what she is doing will continue to poison British politics.
If the aim of a second referendum is to get people's approval for this deal or not then the choice should be between this deal or no deal. Remain should not be a choice as that question has already been asked and answered.
Eyeballs roll as Tyndall rocks up to repeat for the 100th time a favourite gammon trope.
Actually, the public have never had a chance to vote between two known and stable outcomes. May’s Deal v Remain would be a very satisfactorily democratic outcome, not that I expect it to happen.
Your argument she exercised A50 is of course inaccurate in so far as 498 mps instructed A50 to be exercised with default no deal. You can say they didn't know what they were doing but the HOC voted for the action by a large margin. A50 was also served a long time after Corbyn had demanded it to be served
A50 was exercised by May after steering the necessary agreement through by Parliament. It’s not like Parliament instructed May to do it.
May chose the timing.
The timing was irrelevant. The EU flatly refused to discuss anything, including what would and would not be possible, until we had triggered Article 50. There would have been no difference whatsoever in outcome if we had delayed further.
The EU played hardball, and we didn’t. We sacrificed our only real leverage.
Time is not a friend of May. The economy has survived much longer than expected but will go into deep freeze soon. Couriers are letting us know now the last date they will accept boxes for international shipments. By 2 weeks before the end of March companies will be stopping production, flights will be cancelled and the country will be in chaos. May is the last person to lead the country in such a scenario. If you think we are heading for a chaotic no deal then bet on May leaving before end of March.
If you think we going for a calm hard Brexit go and see a doctor
There is much talk about how May might “split the Tory party”. I don’t buy it. The Tories have gone from being pro-Europe and socially liberal, to anti-Europe and anti-business in the space of just a few years with no obvious signs of fracture.
The only outcome at this stage which right royally fucks the party is “No Deal” which of course would contaminate the party for a generation - think Poll Tax on steroids.
All other outcomes, including May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Extend could be sold to the Party. Even Revoke (we need a tea break to think) could be managed with sufficient consideration.
The Tories aren’t anti business (yes I know Boris).
They have made a call (rightly or wrongly) that their interpretation of Brexit means that restricting FoM is more important than preserving the trading advantages of the SM.
I don’t see that as a change in their DNA, just a tricky choice with consequences
Time is not a friend of May. The economy has survived much longer than expected but will go into deep freeze soon. Couriers are letting us know now the last date they will accept boxes for international shipments. By 2 weeks before the end of March companies will be stopping production, flights will be cancelled and the country will be in chaos. May is the last person to lead the country in such a scenario. If you think we are heading for a chaotic no deal then bet on May leaving before end of March.
As much as the prospect of the departure of the Mouldy Jam Muncher gladdens the heart what follows? GE? Military coup? Isle of Wight secedes? Anything seems possible now.
"Corbyn says Grayling said that the taxpayer would not lose out from the Seaborne Freight contract. But £800,000 was spent on consultants.
May says the SNP asked about this yesterday. The money would have been spent by consultants whoever got the contract."
Wait, what? Is that really May's answer? Is it just me or does that make no sense at all?
Who are these mystery consultants that receive Gov't largesse whatever the weather ?
I assume this means that they spent 800k on a process that resulted in three firms (including Seaborne) receiving contracts. If they'd only awarded the other two (and no-one is challenging those, which were much higher value than Seaborne) then the 800k would still have been payable.
I see, that makes sense, though I find it a little hard to believe that getting all the way to the contract stage with Seaborne added nothing to the bill.
Time is not a friend of May. The economy has survived much longer than expected but will go into deep freeze soon. Couriers are letting us know now the last date they will accept boxes for international shipments. By 2 weeks before the end of March companies will be stopping production, flights will be cancelled and the country will be in chaos. May is the last person to lead the country in such a scenario. If you think we are heading for a chaotic no deal then bet on May leaving before end of March.
She's ideal. She won't even blink an eyelid as things fall apart around her.
Your argument she exercised A50 is of course inaccurate in so far as 498 mps instructed A50 to be exercised with default no deal. You can say they didn't know what they were doing but the HOC voted for the action by a large margin. A50 was also served a long time after Corbyn had demanded it to be served
A50 was exercised by May after steering the necessary agreement through by Parliament. It’s not like Parliament instructed May to do it.
May chose the timing.
The timing was irrelevant. The EU flatly refused to discuss anything, including what would and would not be possible, until we had triggered Article 50. There would have been no difference whatsoever in outcome if we had delayed further.
The EU played hardball, and we didn’t. We sacrificed our only real leverage.
The rest is detail.
We also undermined our own side by sacking advisers who offered a realistic understanding of the task and entrusting it to ministers who assumed the EU would offer everything they wanted and could not be bothered with "details" such as the Irish border.
What do we think the chance of the new Cooper-Boles amendment passing are ?
I think we need to individually examine MPs that changed their votes between Cooper-Boles I and Spelman. I doubt for example my MP John Mann will go for the Cooper-Boles II amendment even though he voted for Spelman.
Very high I think. Tory MPs (and some ministers) like Richard Harrington are very likely to back it this time, unless there is some movement in the negotiations in the meantime.
That 'almost certainly' excludes leaving on time I think ?
I'm not sure.
She really has needlessly boxed herself in.
She's boxed
The fact she is still trying to force her will is depressing beyond measure.
There was a way.
It required accepting the results of the ref. Reaching out for cross-party consensus. Seeking the closest possible ties with the EU. Reassuring Remainers. Using the rhetoric of
This is May’s wholly-owned crisis.
Your argument she exercised A50 is of course inaccurate in so far as 498 mps instructed A50 to be exercised with default no deal. You can say they didn't know what they were doing but the HOC voted for the action by a large margin. A50 was also served a long time after Corbyn had demanded it to be served
A50 was exercised by May after steering the necessary agreement through by Parliament. It’s not like Parliament instructed May to do it.
May chose the timing.
No one objected at the time
Many on here did. Ken Clarke did. You did not, because you were in the first flush of the Brexit sickness.
You are hurting and I understand that and I am just as concerned about brexit but I do try to make arguments without making it personal
Soz, Big G.
I am merely rebutting in very forceful terms the idea that May lacks culpability for where we are right now - you and me - North Wales and North London: up the shittiest of creeks with the nariest of paddles.
We haven’t even *got* to the reports from Ford. Too common now to comment on...
"Refusing to accept something is pretty much the exact opposite of sour grapes."
Indeed it is, and as a pedant myself, I salute you, but what they're doing is worse. They are the fox that's continually trying to scramble up the tree despite the flaws in that tactic.
As a parent (as Andrea would say) you have to be firm with children. They do get tired and ratty and need boundaries. "That's enough, it's been decided, you're going to bed now."
Eyeballs roll as Tyndall rocks up to repeat for the 100th time a favourite gammon trope.
Actually, the public have never had a chance to vote between two known and stable outcomes. May’s Deal v Remain would be a very satisfactorily democratic outcome, not that I expect it to happen.
Nope. You don't get to interpret the vote that way any more than the ERG get to decide on the purity of the form of Brexit. You and they are both extremists who deserve nothing but scorn. The vote was Remain or Leave. That is it. Stop making a mockery of democracy by trying to overturn a vote before it has even been enacted.
A delay is not an outcome. There's only 3 end states, revoke, some type of deal or no deal.
A delay to kick the can further is pointless, why would anyone do this?
Unless either the HoC or EU backs down, well, you get the idea.......
Why would anyone do it? Well, there's no majority for Deal or Revoke, so until that changes the only end state is No Deal. This is really, really bad, so any government with self-preservation instincts will try to avoid getting to the end state for as long as possible, ideally until either something changes allowing one of the other two end states or the whole shitshow becomes somebody else's problem.
The limit to the can kicking would presumably be the Euro elections.
I don't think that's clear. I think we could see any of the following responses from the EU side to a request for an extension without a plausible plan: 1) Refuse the whole thing (currently the official position) 2) Agree but only up to the EU elections (Verhofstadt has made noises about not wanting to extend past there even with a good reason, but he doesn't have a veto on extending) 3) Agree to an extension and keep agreeing new ones pretty much indefinitely
I think (2) is actually the least likely of the three: Extending once gets you through the big psychological hurdle and raises the possibility that Brexit may just keep not happening, which everyone will probably find they prefer to the alternatives. So you'd start with a short extension, but when that one ran out of road you'd go ahead and do another one.
There is much talk about how May might “split the Tory party”. I don’t buy it. The Tories have gone from being pro-Europe and socially liberal, to anti-Europe and anti-business in the space of just a few years with no obvious signs of fracture.
The only outcome at this stage which right royally fucks the party is “No Deal” which of course would contaminate the party for a generation - think Poll Tax on steroids.
All other outcomes, including May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Extend could be sold to the Party. Even Revoke (we need a tea break to think) could be managed with sufficient consideration.
The Tories aren’t anti business (yes I know Boris).
They have made a call (rightly or wrongly) that their interpretation of Brexit means that restricting FoM is more important than preserving the trading advantages of the SM.
I don’t see that as a change in their DNA, just a tricky choice with consequences
"Corbyn says Grayling said that the taxpayer would not lose out from the Seaborne Freight contract. But £800,000 was spent on consultants.
May says the SNP asked about this yesterday. The money would have been spent by consultants whoever got the contract."
Wait, what? Is that really May's answer? Is it just me or does that make no sense at all?
Who are these mystery consultants that receive Gov't largesse whatever the weather ?
I assume this means that they spent 800k on a process that resulted in three firms (including Seaborne) receiving contracts. If they'd only awarded the other two (and no-one is challenging those, which were much higher value than Seaborne) then the 800k would still have been payable.
I see, that makes sense, though I find it a little hard to believe that getting all the way to the contract stage with Seaborne added nothing to the bill.
That's fair. Could've been fixed fee, on the basis of say 2-4 contracts? Maybe the consultants were on a fixed fee and the lawyers on a per contract basis. Or maybe all three firms had such similar contracts that an extra one didn't impact the bill. I'm just guessing.
"Refusing to accept something is pretty much the exact opposite of sour grapes."
Indeed it is, and as a pedant myself, I salute you, but what they're doing is worse. They are the fox that's continually trying to scramble up the tree despite the flaws in that tactic.
But as a parent (as Andrea would say) you have to be firm with children. They do get tired and ratty and need boundaries. "That's enough, it's been decided, you're going to bed now."
If that mental imagery makes you happy, I won't begrudge you it. Here in the real world, though, I think it's admirable for people to keep fighting for their policies until the bitter end. I'm not completely on board with the People's Vote crowd, but I respect them much more than I would if they'd just slunk away to lick their wounds
Time is not a friend of May. The economy has survived much longer than expected but will go into deep freeze soon. Couriers are letting us know now the last date they will accept boxes for international shipments. By 2 weeks before the end of March companies will be stopping production, flights will be cancelled and the country will be in chaos. May is the last person to lead the country in such a scenario. If you think we are heading for a chaotic no deal then bet on May leaving before end of March.
And the effects are spreading into sectors that do not trade internationally - my company works only in the U.K. but contracts are being pulled by some clients especially foreign financial institutions based here. An overseas bank with a long standing contract pulled out of a £35k deal yesterday.
If the aim of a second referendum is to get people's approval for this deal or not then the choice should be between this deal or no deal. Remain should not be a choice as that question has already been asked and answered.
I'm totally on board with this logic and I think we should apply it to GEs too. First everyone gets to vote with two options: "Conservatives" or "Not Conservative". Then every constituency that voted "Not Conservative" votes again, choosing between the remaining candidates. It doesn't matter if "Conservative" beats all of the individual remaining candidates in the second vote, because that question has already been asked and answered.
A50 was exercised by May after steering the necessary agreement through by Parliament. It’s not like Parliament instructed May to do it.
May chose the timing.
It's completely ridiculous to claim she rushed it. She waited nearly a year, for heaven's sake. Together with the transition period her timetable means five years to implement the referendum decision.
The issue wasn't the timing, it was the EU's absolute refusal to start negotiations before Article 50 was triggered, combined with their refusal even then to discuss the long-term relationship until very late in the process. Delaying triggering Article 50 wouldn't have helped - it's as daft to claim it would have done as it is for the ERGers to claim that the whole problem has been civil service treachery and a Remainer being in charge of the negotiations, or that somehow Cameron should have decided what the Leave campaign's exit plan should be.
Two potential counter-arguments to this: 1) The main "it was rushed" complaint really comes down to how little preparation was done in the period leading up to A50, particularly getting a rough consensus in cabinet or parliament as to what Brexit should look like. A year of very intense administrative preparation and political consensus-forming might have been enough, three years with less focus might have been insufficient time. 2) The Referendum wasn't a "who should the government be" election campaign (or at least wasn't intended to be, and Remain, Cameron and Osborne may all have suffered from whatever extent that it turned into a chance-to-kick-the-government exercise) so the idea that "leavers" as some kind of collective - a quite diverse range of people with quite different visions of what Leave should look like - should be or have been the ones held responsible for formulating government policy, or the lack thereof, has always struck me as odd. There were certainly a range of proposals put forward, many quite naturally contradictory, and obviously few that would appeal to people who would rather remain anyway. But it's part of a government's job to have contingency plans (and Cameron could have done rather more on this front) and a government's job to pick a course through the options available to it and sell them to the public and to parliament (in May's case, she seems to be struggling to achieve this even with her own cabinet).
Eyeballs roll as Tyndall rocks up to repeat for the 100th time a favourite gammon trope.
Actually, the public have never had a chance to vote between two known and stable outcomes. May’s Deal v Remain would be a very satisfactorily democratic outcome, not that I expect it to happen.
Nope. You don't get to interpret the vote that way any more than the ERG get to decide on the purity of the form of Brexit. You and they are both extremists who deserve nothing but scorn. The vote was Remain or Leave. That is it. Stop making a mockery of democracy by trying to overturn a vote before it has even been enacted.
The only mockery of democracy here is the railroading of public consent currently undertaken by May and the Brexit gang.
You think everyone who disagrees with you is an extremist, Mr T, which is a fascinating psychological paradox.
A delay is not an outcome. There's only 3 end states, revoke, some type of deal or no deal.
A delay to kick the can further is pointless, why would anyone do this?
Unless either the HoC or EU backs down, well, you get the idea.......
Why would anyone do it? Well, there's no majority for Deal or Revoke, so until that changes the only end state is No Deal. This is really, really bad, so any government with self-preservation instincts will try to avoid getting to the end state for as long as possible, ideally until either something changes allowing one of the other two end states or the whole shitshow becomes somebody else's problem.
The limit to the can kicking would presumably be the Euro elections.
... Verhofstadt has made noises about not wanting to extend past there even with a good reason, but he doesn't have a veto on extending ...
I think the word he used was "unthinkable". That may be a translation.
"Corbyn says Grayling said that the taxpayer would not lose out from the Seaborne Freight contract. But £800,000 was spent on consultants.
May says the SNP asked about this yesterday. The money would have been spent by consultants whoever got the contract."
Wait, what? Is that really May's answer? Is it just me or does that make no sense at all?
Who are these mystery consultants that receive Gov't largesse whatever the weather ?
I assume this means that they spent 800k on a process that resulted in three firms (including Seaborne) receiving contracts. If they'd only awarded the other two (and no-one is challenging those, which were much higher value than Seaborne) then the 800k would still have been payable.
I see, that makes sense, though I find it a little hard to believe that getting all the way to the contract stage with Seaborne added nothing to the bill.
That's fair. Could've been fixed fee, on the basis of say 2-4 contracts? Maybe the consultants were on a fixed fee and the lawyers on a per contract basis. Or maybe all three firms had such similar contracts that an extra one didn't impact the bill. I'm just guessing.
Yep, to be fair I really don't have any experience of these things so I'm not well placed to guess at the plausibility of pricing models.
A50 was exercised by May after steering the necessary agreement through by Parliament. It’s not like Parliament instructed May to do it.
May chose the timing.
It's completely ridiculous to claim she rushed it. She waited nearly a year, for heaven's sake. Together with the transition period her timetable means five years to implement the referendum decision.
The issue wasn't the timing, it was the EU's absolute refusal to start negotiations before Article 50 was triggered, combined with their refusal even then to discuss the long-term relationship until very late in the process. Delaying triggering Article 50 wouldn't have helped - it's as daft to claim it would have done as it is for the ERGers to claim that the whole problem has been civil service treachery and a Remainer being in charge of the negotiations, or that somehow Cameron should have decided what the Leave campaign's exit plan should be.
The main "it was rushed" complaint really comes down to how little preparation was done in the period leading up to A50, particularly getting a rough consensus in cabinet or parliament as to what Brexit should look like. A year of very intense administrative preparation and political consensus-forming might have been enough, three years with less focus might have been insufficient time.
What would have been the point of spending a year getting a consensus on the UK's position, if you trigger Article 50 and the EU just say "no, that breaches our red lines"?
There is much talk about how May might “split the Tory party”. I don’t buy it. The Tories have gone from being pro-Europe and socially liberal, to anti-Europe and anti-business in the space of just a few years with no obvious signs of fracture.
The only outcome at this stage which right royally fucks the party is “No Deal” which of course would contaminate the party for a generation - think Poll Tax on steroids.
All other outcomes, including May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Extend could be sold to the Party. Even Revoke (we need a tea break to think) could be managed with sufficient consideration.
On the EU, the party has moved with its voters, over the course of 27 years.
If the aim of a second referendum is to get people's approval for this deal or not then the choice should be between this deal or no deal. Remain should not be a choice as that question has already been asked and answered.
I'm totally on board with this logic and I think we should apply it to GEs too. First everyone gets to vote with two options: "Conservatives" or "Not Conservative". Then every constituency that voted "Not Conservative" votes again, choosing between the remaining candidates. It doesn't matter if "Conservative" beats all of the individual remaining candidates in the second vote, because that question has already been asked and answered.
(I assume that if a future Labour government adopts this practice, PB Tories won't support overturning results obtained this way, because the important thing is to respect democracy)
A delay is not an outcome. There's only 3 end states, revoke, some type of deal or no deal.
A delay to kick the can further is pointless, why would anyone do this?
Unless either the HoC or EU backs down, well, you get the idea.......
Why would anyone do it? Well, there's no majority for Deal or Revoke, so until that changes the only end state is No Deal. This is really, really bad, so any government with self-preservation instincts will try to avoid getting to the end state for as long as possible, ideally until either something changes allowing one of the other two end states or the whole shitshow becomes somebody else's problem.
The limit to the can kicking would presumably be the Euro elections.
... Verhofstadt has made noises about not wanting to extend past there even with a good reason, but he doesn't have a veto on extending ...
I think the word he used was "unthinkable". That may be a translation.
A50 was exercised by May after steering the necessary agreement through by Parliament. It’s not like Parliament instructed May to do it.
May chose the timing.
It's completely ridiculous to claim she rushed it. She waited nearly a year, for heaven's sake. Together with the transition period her timetable means five years to implement the referendum decision.
The issue wasn't the timing, it was the EU's absolute refusal to start negotiations before Article 50 was triggered, combined with their refusal even then to discuss the long-term relationship until very late in the process. Delaying triggering Article 50 wouldn't have helped - it's as daft to claim it would have done as it is for the ERGers to claim that the whole problem has been civil service treachery and a Remainer being in charge of the negotiations, or that somehow Cameron should have decided what the Leave campaign's exit plan should be.
The main "it was rushed" complaint really comes down to how little preparation was done in the period leading up to A50, particularly getting a rough consensus in cabinet or parliament as to what Brexit should look like. A year of very intense administrative preparation and political consensus-forming might have been enough, three years with less focus might have been insufficient time.
What would have been the point of spending a year getting a consensus on the UK's position, if you trigger Article 50 and the EU just say "no, that breaches our red lines"?
It's better for everyone to know it's No Deal 2 years before we leave than 2 days.
that question has already been asked and answered.
And it could be asked again.
Strange that everyone who claims another vote would have a greater margin for Leave is determined not to prove it...
As a matter of interest why do you think there is not the support in the HOC for another referendum and who do you blame for this lack of support
I was surprised at how little support for a second referendum there is in the Commons.
I think if Corbyn and May both supported, they'd be able to bring enough of their parties along with them to get a 2nd ref. If only May supported... I'm not sure, but I still think it's possible that there'd be a huge Labour rebellion. If only Corbyn supported, definitely not.
What would have been the point of spending a year getting a consensus on the UK's position, if you trigger Article 50 and the EU just say "no, that breaches our red lines"?
It wasn't particularly a mystery what the options were that the EU would accept. You could tell by looking at the deals they'd made with other countries. The only part that wasn't quite clear was whether they'd end up selling out Ireland.
Two potential counter-arguments to this: 1) The main "it was rushed" complaint really comes down to how little preparation was done in the period leading up to A50, particularly getting a rough consensus in cabinet or parliament as to what Brexit should look like. A year of very intense administrative preparation and political consensus-forming might have been enough, three years with less focus might have been insufficient time. 2) The Referendum wasn't a "who should the government be" election campaign (or at least wasn't intended to be, and Remain, Cameron and Osborne may all have suffered from whatever extent that it turned into a chance-to-kick-the-government exercise) so the idea that "leavers" as some kind of collective - a quite diverse range of people with quite different visions of what Leave should look like - should be or have been the ones held responsible for formulating government policy, or the lack thereof, has always struck me as odd. There were certainly a range of proposals put forward, many quite naturally contradictory, and obviously few that would appeal to people who would rather remain anyway. But it's part of a government's job to have contingency plans (and Cameron could have done rather more on this front) and a government's job to pick a course through the options available to it and sell them to the public and to parliament (in May's case, she seems to be struggling to achieve this even with her own cabinet).
Yes, those are potential counter-arguments, but I don't think they make too much sense. Theresa May's Lancaster House speech (which incidentally was widely praised) laid down the broad outlines of what she was trying to do, two months before Article 50 was triggered. I really don't think the UK could have done much more preparation because it's a negotiation:it needed discussion with the EU which they refused to have until trigger date (and not even then on the substantive long-term relationship).
On the Cameron side, I think the idea that he could have defined Brexit is verging on barmy. The Leavers couldn't define it, indeed still can't, and they squabble amongst themselves and even squabble with their own previous statements, but they would have been absolutely unanimous in trashing any attempt by the Cameron government to pin it down.
You keep saying this. You are too kind to her. Sure those are factors. But they were entirely predictable. She utterly failed to take any of these into account, ploughed her own solitary furrow without involving anyone else, refused to listen or to talk to anyone else, sacked or ignored those with knowledge and expertise who could have helped, showed a contempt for Parliament and is now reduced to talking about non-existent negotiations in a manner which, were she an ordinary member of the public, would have her family and friends wondering whether she needed professional help.
She has utterly failed in basic political tradecraft.
I don't disagree. As I've posted before, her personality is completely unsuited to a hung parliament, and she's very poor at bringing people with her even when she's right.
But that doesn't alter the fact that she is right that there's no alternative to the EU's deal. Crashing out is unthinkable, revocation would be a democratic outrage, and the EU won't budge. It really is as simple as that, and therefore the entire crisis - and it really is a crisis - is caused by MPs refusing, for contradictory and in some cases entirely cynical reasons, to ratify the deal which would avert the crisis. Yes, sure, if she had been defter and more skilled at stroking their egos and making them feel loved, she might have got more support from them. But they are not children, and this is a real-life crisis in which they should forget about whether they feel loved and just get on with ending the uncertainty and taking 'no deal' off the table in the only way available.
It’s not a question of making MPs feel loved or stroking their egos. She utterly failed to take account of anyone’s views other than her own - or rather whoever wrote her speeches for her in June 2016 and later to the Tory conference.
And a second referendum to get people’s consent or not to this deal is not a democratic outrage. It is an obvious option. It is one she has ruled out. Why? Because she cares more about sticking to a date (talk about focusing on the unimportant) and because she is a bully who thinks that getting her own way is the only thing that matters. A deal that she bullies Parliament into accepting out of fear will not stick. It simply means that the arguments will continue elsewhere and the lack of real consent to what she is doing will continue to poison British politics.
The reason why a second referendum is toxic is because it smacks of the losing side trying to change the rules after the event
If the structure had always been a 2 part approach it would have been democratic.
But it’s not - it’s an attempted do over by people who wish (and always wanted) to remain
A delay is not an outcome. There's only 3 end states, revoke, some type of deal or no deal.
A delay to kick the can further is pointless, why would anyone do this?
Unless either the HoC or EU backs down, well, you get the idea.......
Why would anyone do it? Well, there's no majority for Deal or Revoke, so until that changes the only end state is No Deal. This is really, really bad, so any government with self-preservation instincts will try to avoid getting to the end state for as long as possible, ideally until either something changes allowing one of the other two end states or the whole shitshow becomes somebody else's problem.
The limit to the can kicking would presumably be the Euro elections.
... Verhofstadt has made noises about not wanting to extend past there even with a good reason, but he doesn't have a veto on extending ...
I think the word he used was "unthinkable". That may be a translation.
But it's a very strong word, isn't it? I mean, he is in contact with the people who will make the decision - and it has to be unanimous. If a group of people have to make a decision, and it has to be unanimous, and if someone familiar with their thinking says it is "unthinkable" they will decide in a certain way, isn't it reasonable to conclude that it's at least unlikely they will do so?
A50 was exercised by May after steering the necessary agreement through by Parliament. It’s not like Parliament instructed May to do it.
May chose the timing.
It's completely ridiculous to claim she rushed it. She waited nearly a year, for heaven's sake. Together with the transition period her timetable means five years to implement the referendum decision.
The issue wasn't the timing, it was the EU's absolute refusal to start negotiations before Article 50 was triggered, combined with their refusal even then to discuss the long-term relationship until very late in the process. Delaying triggering Article 50 wouldn't have helped - it's as daft to claim it would have done as it is for the ERGers to claim that the whole problem has been civil service treachery and a Remainer being in charge of the negotiations, or that somehow Cameron should have decided what the Leave campaign's exit plan should be.
The main "it was rushed" complaint really comes down to how little preparation was done in the period leading up to A50, particularly getting a rough consensus in cabinet or parliament as to what Brexit should look like. A year of very intense administrative preparation and political consensus-forming might have been enough, three years with less focus might have been insufficient time.
What would have been the point of spending a year getting a consensus on the UK's position, if you trigger Article 50 and the EU just say "no, that breaches our red lines"?
The process of forging that consensus would then tell you how you could bend it to reach an agreement with the EU, but you surely can't do that without forming a consensus first.
Apart from anything else all the sides involved in forming the consensus would have had to abandon, at least partially, their initial position. At the moment May's government and the EU are the only actors who have compromised. Everyone else is still holding out for total victory. Compromise takes practice.
What do we think the chance of the new Cooper-Boles amendment passing are ?
I think we need to individually examine MPs that changed their votes between Cooper-Boles I and Spelman. I doubt for example my MP John Mann will go for the Cooper-Boles II amendment even though he voted for Spelman.
Very high I think. ?
I'm not sure.
She really has needlessly boxed herself in.
She's boxed
The fact she is still trying to force her will is depressing beyond measure.
There
Your argument she exercised A50 is of course inaccurate in so far as 498 mps instructed A50 to be exercised with default no
A50 was exercised by May after steering the necessary agreement through by Parliament. It’s not like Parliament instructed May to do it.
May chose the timing.
No one objected at the time
Many on here did. Ken Clarke did. You did not, because you were in the first flush of the Brexit sickness.
You are hurting and I understand that and I am just as concerned about brexit but I do try to make arguments without making it personal
Soz, Big G.
I am merely rebutting in very forceful terms the idea that May lacks culpability for where we are right now - you and me - North Wales and North London: up the shittiest of creeks with the nariest of paddles.
We haven’t even *got* to the reports from Ford. Too common now to comment on...
I share your concerns especially with Airbus here in North Wales and I have believed all along that TM's deal should have passed and provided some relief with a transistion period and guaranteeing EU citizens rights here in the UK, as well as UK citizens in the EU
I blame both extreme sides of leave and remain for this mess and I expect TM to avoid no deal. I reject ERG and if they cause a no deal I will resign from my party
And this has been my consistent view and I really do understand the hurt so many are feeling. If and when we leave I will not celebrate but do see it as a democratic act and expect many to start a campaign to rejoin
that question has already been asked and answered.
And it could be asked again.
Strange that everyone who claims another vote would have a greater margin for Leave is determined not to prove it...
As a matter of interest why do you think there is not the support in the HOC for another referendum and who do you blame for this lack of support
I was surprised at how little support for a second referendum there is in the Commons.
I think if Corbyn and May both supported, they'd be able to bring enough of their parties along with them to get a 2nd ref. If only May supported... I'm not sure, but I still think it's possible that there'd be a huge Labour rebellion. If only Corbyn supported, definitely not.
The problem with the People’s Vote is they have failed to reach out to Brexiters. A People’s Vote makes no sense unless it is understood as a way to reach a public consensus on Brexit that Parliament is denying us through incompetence and gameplaying.
As we all know, Corbyn will never support a 2nd ref. It is not in his interests and he is totally uninterested in anything but his own political advantage.
May could, if it presented a way out of the impasse.
A50 was exercised by May after steering the necessary agreement through by Parliament. It’s not like Parliament instructed May to do it.
May chose the timing.
It's completely ridiculous to claim she rushed it. She waited nearly a year, for heaven's sake. Together with the transition period her timetable means five years to implement the referendum decision.
The issue wasn't the timing, it was the EU's absolute refusal to start negotiations before Article 50 was triggered, combined with their refusal even then to discuss the long-term relationship until very late in the process. Delaying triggering Article 50 wouldn't have helped - it's as daft to claim it would have done as it is for the ERGers to claim that the whole problem has been civil service treachery and a Remainer being in charge of the negotiations, or that somehow Cameron should have decided what the Leave campaign's exit plan should be.
The main "it was rushed" complaint really comes down to how little preparation was done in the period leading up to A50, particularly getting a rough consensus in cabinet or parliament as to what Brexit should look like. A year of very intense administrative preparation and political consensus-forming might have been enough, three years with less focus might have been insufficient time.
What would have been the point of spending a year getting a consensus on the UK's position, if you trigger Article 50 and the EU just say "no, that breaches our red lines"?
To be fair, many of the EU's red lines have been pretty logical, self-consistent and eminently foreseeable. And a rough vision of where we want to end up, in terms of single market, customs union, the Four Freedoms and so on, would have been helpful.
My personal inclination is that the parties should have taken about a year to get their positions together, then we should have had a general election, with the winner getting to implement whatever Brexit plan they successfully sold to the public (and it would have been up to them to time Article 50 accordingly). I'd have been happy for Civil Service resources to have been available to opposition parties to help them get some of the heavier-duty policy analysis done so they were readier for the challenge once in government.
This would have got around some of the problems that stem from the Referendum not being an election, and the Leave campaign not having a manifesto or the right to form a government and implement a plan. Of course, no guarantee of avoiding a hung parliament...
If the aim of a second referendum is to get people's approval for this deal or not then the choice should be between this deal or no deal. Remain should not be a choice as that question has already been asked and answered.
I'm totally on board with this logic and I think we should apply it to GEs too. First everyone gets to vote with two options: "Conservatives" or "Not Conservative". Then every constituency that voted "Not Conservative" votes again, choosing between the remaining candidates. It doesn't matter if "Conservative" beats all of the individual remaining candidates in the second vote, because that question has already been asked and answered.
Would that be some form of reverse AV?
If the leading candidate scores more than 50% they are elected, otherwise they are eliminated and their votes redistributed until one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote.
There is much talk about how May might “split the Tory party”. I don’t buy it. The Tories have gone from being pro-Europe and socially liberal, to anti-Europe and anti-business in the space of just a few years with no obvious signs of fracture.
The only outcome at this stage which right royally fucks the party is “No Deal” which of course would contaminate the party for a generation - think Poll Tax on steroids.
All other outcomes, including May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Extend could be sold to the Party. Even Revoke (we need a tea break to think) could be managed with sufficient consideration.
The Tories aren’t anti business (yes I know Boris).
I don't think that's true. As @HYUFD would point out, the Conservatives are an alliance of the upper classes and members of the other classes. It's tribal. If the tribe thinks that business are a priority then the Conservatives will prioritise business. If the tribe thinks that a culture war is a priority, then the culture war will be prioritised.
Upthread @AndyJS linked to a YouTube that he thought informative. I had a quick peek and it was all anti-muslims, political correctness, anti "woke" comedy, and so on. I didn't have the heart to find out if it was US funded like ReasonUK and Turning Point UK. It didn't talk about jobs.
This is currently the Conservatives' strength and weakness. If the culture war is a priority for a plurality then an election can be fought and won on that basis, and they will win. If we no-deal and industry goes off a cliff, then that may change BUT IF AND ONLY IF the tribe is affected. If it isn't, then it will carry on regardless.
So at the moment I do think the Tories are anti-business. Or to be more precise, business is not a priority for the tribe.
If the aim of a second referendum is to get people's approval for this deal or not then the choice should be between this deal or no deal. Remain should not be a choice as that question has already been asked and answered.
I'm totally on board with this logic and I think we should apply it to GEs too. First everyone gets to vote with two options: "Conservatives" or "Not Conservative". Then every constituency that voted "Not Conservative" votes again, choosing between the remaining candidates. It doesn't matter if "Conservative" beats all of the individual remaining candidates in the second vote, because that question has already been asked and answered.
And indeed the Conservatives should never be put on the ballot paper at any future election either in a constituency where they had been rejected. That would be undemocratic.
The point of delaying (further) A50 was not just to get a consensus here. It was to flush out some form of commitment to a trading relationship with the EU post Brexit.
In essence, this whole shitshow is being done in reverse so that the EU can use “No Deal” as a threat to suborn the UK’s negotiating power.
A50 was exercised by May after steering the necessary agreement through by Parliament. It’s not like Parliament instructed May to do it.
May chose the timing.
It's completely ridiculous to claim she rushed it. She waited nearly a year, for heaven's sake. Together with the transition period her timetable means five years to implement the referendum decision.
The issue wasn't the timing, it was the EU's absolute refusal to start negotiations before Article 50 was triggered, combined with their refusal even then to discuss the long-term relationship until very late in the process. Delaying triggering Article 50 wouldn't have helped - it's as daft to claim it would have done as it is for the ERGers to claim that the whole problem has been civil service treachery and a Remainer being in charge of the negotiations, or that somehow Cameron should have decided what the Leave campaign's exit plan should be.
The main "it was rushed" complaint really comes down to how little preparation was done in the period leading up to A50, particularly getting a rough consensus in cabinet or parliament as to what Brexit should look like. A year of very intense administrative preparation and political consensus-forming might have been enough, three years with less focus might have been insufficient time.
What would have been the point of spending a year getting a consensus on the UK's position, if you trigger Article 50 and the EU just say "no, that breaches our red lines"?
The process of forging that consensus would then tell you how you could bend it to reach an agreement with the EU, but you surely can't do that without forming a consensus first.
Apart from anything else all the sides involved in forming the consensus would have had to abandon, at least partially, their initial position. At the moment May's government and the EU are the only actors who have compromised. Everyone else is still holding out for total victory. Compromise takes practice.
Well, that's a fair point, except that in hindsight we know what would have happened in practice: the ERG would've refused to compromise at all, the Remainers would've therefore also refused to compromise at all, and meanwhile the political pressure to "just get on with it" would've become unbearable.
Also worth noting that when we triggered Article 50, we had a good relationship with the Irish PM, and broad bilateral agreement that the NI border wasn't going to present an unsolvable problem.
that question has already been asked and answered.
And it could be asked again.
Strange that everyone who claims another vote would have a greater margin for Leave is determined not to prove it...
As a matter of interest why do you think there is not the support in the HOC for another referendum and who do you blame for this lack of support
I was surprised at how little support for a second referendum there is in the Commons.
Everybody knows it's going to nark off Leave enthusiasts so not many people will want to admit to supporting it unless there's a serious chance of it actually happening.
There is much talk about how May might “split the Tory party”. I don’t buy it. The Tories have gone from being pro-Europe and socially liberal, to anti-Europe and anti-business in the space of just a few years with no obvious signs of fracture.
The only outcome at this stage which right royally fucks the party is “No Deal” which of course would contaminate the party for a generation - think Poll Tax on steroids.
All other outcomes, including May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Extend could be sold to the Party. Even Revoke (we need a tea break to think) could be managed with sufficient consideration.
The Tories aren’t anti business (yes I know Boris).
They have made a call (rightly or wrongly) that their interpretation of Brexit means that restricting FoM is more important than preserving the trading advantages of the SM.
I don’t see that as a change in their DNA, just a tricky choice with consequences
The Conservatives are at best indifferent to business. Right now they have an impressive variety of business organisations screaming at them as a consequence.
There is much talk about how May might “split the Tory party”. I don’t buy it. The Tories have gone from being pro-Europe and socially liberal, to anti-Europe and anti-business in the space of just a few years with no obvious signs of fracture.
The only outcome at this stage which right royally fucks the party is “No Deal” which of course would contaminate the party for a generation - think Poll Tax on steroids.
All other outcomes, including May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Extend could be sold to the Party. Even Revoke (we need a tea break to think) could be managed with sufficient consideration.
The Tories aren’t anti business (yes I know Boris).
I don't think that's true. As @HYUFD would point out, the Conservatives are an alliance of the upper classes and members of the other classes. It's tribal. If the tribe thinks that business are a priority then the Conservatives will prioritise business. If the tribe thinks that a culture war is a priority, then the culture war will be prioritised.
Upthread @AndyJS linked to a YouTube that he thought informative. I had a quick peek and it was all anti-muslims, political correctness, anti "woke" comedy, and so on. I didn't have the heart to find out if it was US funded like ReasonUK and Turning Point UK. It didn't talk about jobs.
This is currently the Conservatives' strength and weakness. If the culture war is a priority for a plurality then an election can be fought and won on that basis, and they will win. If we no-deal and industry goes off a cliff, then that may change BUT IF AND ONLY IF the tribe is affected. If it isn't, then it will carry on regardless.
So at the moment I do think the Tories are anti-business. Or to be more precise, business is not a priority for the tribe.
In the past, the average Conservative voter would have taken the view that their interests, and the interests of big business, were in alignment. They probably don't, now.
If the aim of a second referendum is to get people's approval for this deal or not then the choice should be between this deal or no deal. Remain should not be a choice as that question has already been asked and answered.
I'm totally on board with this logic and I think we should apply it to GEs too. First everyone gets to vote with two options: "Conservatives" or "Not Conservative". Then every constituency that voted "Not Conservative" votes again, choosing between the remaining candidates. It doesn't matter if "Conservative" beats all of the individual remaining candidates in the second vote, because that question has already been asked and answered.
And indeed the Conservatives should never be put on the ballot paper at any future election either in a constituency where they had been rejected. That would be undemocratic.
As long as you apply that to Labour, Lib Dems, SNP, PC, UUP DUP SF as well.
It’s not a question of making MPs feel loved or stroking their egos. She utterly failed to take account of anyone’s views other than her own - or rather whoever wrote her speeches for her in June 2016 and later to the Tory conference.
And a second referendum to get people’s consent or not to this deal is not a democratic outrage. It is an obvious option. It is one she has ruled out. Why? Because she cares more about sticking to a date (talk about focusing on the unimportant) and because she is a bully who thinks that getting her own way is the only thing that matters. A deal that she bullies Parliament into accepting out of fear will not stick. It simply means that the arguments will continue elsewhere and the lack of real consent to what she is doing will continue to poison British politics.
The reason why a second referendum is toxic is because it smacks of the losing side trying to change the rules after the event
If the structure had always been a 2 part approach it would have been democratic.
But it’s not - it’s an attempted do over by people who wish (and always wanted) to remain
Clearly it is true that those asking for a 2nd referendum are remainers wanting to reverse the result, but that doesn't mean it is illegitimate. If polls showed that 99% either wanted to remain now or wanted a 2nd referendum would it still be wrong? I don't think so. So although your argument is valid it is not the be all and end all of the issue. Clearly there is a valid argument from the other side that when we know the details of Brexit and its consequences we should confirm or reject it.
Regarding the impact of a 2nd referendum I believe that if leave wins (even by a small margin) we would then have to honour that result. If remain wins by a reasonable (not sure what this is) margin the result would be respected.
The dodgy area is if Remain wins by a small margin and the argument just continues. Bring on number 3!
The point of delaying (further) A50 was not just to get a consensus here. It was to flush out some form of commitment to a trading relationship with the EU post Brexit.
In essence, this whole shitshow is being done in reverse so that the EU can use “No Deal” as a threat to suborn the UK’s negotiating power.
The Conservatives are at best indifferent to business. Right now they have an impressive variety of business organisations screaming at them as a consequence.
That's not quite right. There remains a very strong pro-business element in the party, which is well represented amongst Tory MPs and ministers (Phil Hammond, Greg Clark, Amber Rudd, David Gauke, and many more).
It’s not a question of making MPs feel loved or stroking their egos. She utterly failed to take account of anyone’s views other than her own - or rather whoever wrote her speeches for her in June 2016 and later to the Tory conference.
And a second referendum to get people’s consent or not to this deal is not a democratic outrage. It is an obvious option. It is one she has ruled out. Why? Because she cares more about sticking to a date (talk about focusing on the unimportant) and because she is a bully who thinks that getting her own way is the only thing that matters. A deal that she bullies Parliament into accepting out of fear will not stick. It simply means that the arguments will continue elsewhere and the lack of real consent to what she is doing will continue to poison British politics.
The reason why a second referendum is toxic is because it smacks of the losing side trying to change the rules after the event
If the structure had always been a 2 part approach it would have been democratic.
But it’s not - it’s an attempted do over by people who wish (and always wanted) to remain
Clearly it is true that those asking for a 2nd referendum are remainers wanting to reverse the result, but that doesn't mean it is illegitimate. If polls showed that 99% either wanted to remain now or wanted a 2nd referendum would it still be wrong? I don't think so. So although your argument is valid it is not the be all and end all of the issue. Clearly there is a valid argument from the other side that when we know the details of Brexit and its consequences we should confirm or reject it.
Regarding the impact of a 2nd referendum I believe that if leave wins (even by a small margin) we would then have to honour that result. If remain wins by a reasonable (not sure what this is) margin the result would be respected.
The dodgy area is if Remain wins by a small margin and the argument just continues. Bring on number 3!
If a double referendum had been agreed at the outset, then the margin for Leave would have been much greater, first time around.
"Corbyn says Grayling said that the taxpayer would not lose out from the Seaborne Freight contract. But £800,000 was spent on consultants.
May says the SNP asked about this yesterday. The money would have been spent by consultants whoever got the contract."
Wait, what? Is that really May's answer? Is it just me or does that make no sense at all?
They paid someone (presumably a big4) to run the process and do the diligence. It was that assessment not the answer that cost the money
If their due diligence said to award the contract to a company without ships and without any agreements to lease ships then surely the consultants have not done what they were paid for and we should get at least a partial refund?
If a double referendum had been agreed at the outset, then the margin for Leave would have been much greater, first time around.
Also the Leave side wouldn't have believed in the result of the negotiations: They'd have said the deal the PM negotiated was a setup to make people vote for Remain in the second referendum, and once you voted Leave, you'd have the real negotiation where the German car makers would be chewing Angela Merkel's ear off demanding concessions etc etc.
So although a two-referendum process is obviously better, it wouldn't have worked if it had been announced up-front.
There is much talk about how May might “split the Tory party”. I don’t buy it. The Tories have gone from being pro-Europe and socially liberal, to anti-Europe and anti-business in the space of just a few years with no obvious signs of fracture.
The only outcome at this stage which right royally fucks the party is “No Deal” which of course would contaminate the party for a generation - think Poll Tax on steroids.
All other outcomes, including May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Extend could be sold to the Party. Even Revoke (we need a tea break to think) could be managed with sufficient consideration.
The Tories aren’t anti business (yes I know Boris).
They have made a call (rightly or wrongly) that their interpretation of Brexit means that restricting FoM is more important than preserving the trading advantages of the SM.
I don’t see that as a change in their DNA, just a tricky choice with consequences
Consequences = fuck business
That doesn’t make them “anti business”
It means that they have made a decision which weighs the perceived interests of business against the perceived interest of the voters and come down on the side of the voters.
Still amazed at the odds available on leaving on March 29th - 9/4 on Betfair which seems pretty generous
I got £500 at 9/4 on a March 29th departure. I can go for, ooh, tens of minutes, nearly a hour, without mentioning it.
I was wondering why you kept harping on about it. Didn't realise it was such a large amount! Remind me of your reasoning?
I have mentioned previously that there is an element of insurance betting in my gambling. In this specific instance I wish to insure against no deal. So the question becomes how best to do that.
Due to a quirk which I do not understand, the Betfred odds on LeaveOnTime regardless of deal are better than the others, which are LeaveOnTimeWithDeal or LeaveOnTimeWithNoDeal. There is no explicit odds on LeaveWithNoDeal regardless of departure time, but that eventuality is covered by Remain and the return is poor. So I bet on LeaveOnTime as a proxy for LeaveWithNoDeal.
The problem is, it's entirely possible that we extend and then no deal, which is the only eventuality I haven't planned for. The only odds that cover that event are Remain and the return would be too small. So I am anxious.
[In passing I need to point out that I avoid online betting for various reasons. A better plan might have been constructed had I relaxed that restriction]
It means that they have made a decision which weighs the perceived interests of business against the perceived interest of the voters and come down on the side of the voters.
If the aim of a second referendum is to get people's approval for this deal or not then the choice should be between this deal or no deal. Remain should not be a choice as that question has already been asked and answered.
I'm totally on board with this logic and I think we should apply it to GEs too. First everyone gets to vote with two options: "Conservatives" or "Not Conservative". Then every constituency that voted "Not Conservative" votes again, choosing between the remaining candidates. It doesn't matter if "Conservative" beats all of the individual remaining candidates in the second vote, because that question has already been asked and answered.
(I assume that if a future Labour government adopts this practice, PB Tories won't support overturning results obtained this way, because the important thing is to respect democracy)
If that is the electoral system that parliament votes for then they will accept it.
The point of delaying (further) A50 was not just to get a consensus here. It was to flush out some form of commitment to a trading relationship with the EU post Brexit.
In essence, this whole shitshow is being done in reverse so that the EU can use “No Deal” as a threat to suborn the UK’s negotiating power.
It means that they have made a decision which weighs the perceived interests of business against the perceived interest of the voters and come down on the side of the voters.
The Conservatives are at best indifferent to business. Right now they have an impressive variety of business organisations screaming at them as a consequence.
That's not quite right. There remains a very strong pro-business element in the party, which is well represented amongst Tory MPs and ministers (Phil Hammond, Greg Clark, Amber Rudd, David Gauke, and many more).
But they are powerless to prevent the government killing business. This government is responsible for the single most anti-business decision the UK has ever made.
There is much talk about how May might “split the Tory party”. I don’t buy it. The Tories have gone from being pro-Europe and socially liberal, to anti-Europe and anti-business in the space of just a few years with no obvious signs of fracture.
The only outcome at this stage which right royally fucks the party is “No Deal” which of course would contaminate the party for a generation - think Poll Tax on steroids.
All other outcomes, including May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Extend could be sold to the Party. Even Revoke (we need a tea break to think) could be managed with sufficient consideration.
The Tories aren’t anti business (yes I know Boris).
I don't think that's true. As @HYUFD would point out, the Conservatives are an alliance of the upper classes and members of the other classes. It's tribal. If the tribe thinks that business are a priority then the Conservatives will prioritise business. If the tribe thinks that a culture war is a priority, then the culture war will be prioritised.
Upthread @AndyJS linked to a YouTube that he thought informative. I had a quick peek and it was all anti-muslims, political correctness, anti "woke" comedy, and so on. I didn't have the heart to find out if it was US funded like ReasonUK and Turning Point UK. It didn't talk about jobs.
This is currently the Conservatives' strength and weakness. If the culture war is a priority for a plurality then an election can be fought and won on that basis, and they will win. If we no-deal and industry goes off a cliff, then that may change BUT IF AND ONLY IF the tribe is affected. If it isn't, then it will carry on regardless.
So at the moment I do think the Tories are anti-business. Or to be more precise, business is not a priority for the tribe.
In the past, the average Conservative voter would have taken the view that their interests, and the interests of big business, were in alignment. They probably don't, now.
You said in two sentences what took me four paragraphs...
It means that they have made a decision which weighs the perceived interests of business against the perceived interest of the voters and come down on the side of the voters.
Destroying business doesn't help voters
Businesses don’t vote...
Their owners do, as do their employees, and their families too.
Businesses and their owners do have a tendency to donate to the Tory party.
On the current polls the centre right would be around 42% the left around 38% with the more extreme right on around 9%. Could be like Andalucia just a few weeks ago.
It means that they have made a decision which weighs the perceived interests of business against the perceived interest of the voters and come down on the side of the voters.
Destroying business doesn't help voters
Businesses don’t vote...
Employees, employers, small traders and bosses all do though.
There is much talk about how May might “split the Tory party”. I don’t buy it. The Tories have gone from being pro-Europe and socially liberal, to anti-Europe and anti-business in the space of just a few years with no obvious signs of fracture.
The only outcome at this stage which right royally fucks the party is “No Deal” which of course would contaminate the party for a generation - think Poll Tax on steroids.
All other outcomes, including May’s Deal, Corbyn’s Deal, Extend could be sold to the Party. Even Revoke (we need a tea break to think) could be managed with sufficient consideration.
The Tories aren’t anti business (yes I know Boris).
I don't think that's true. As @HYUFD would point out, the Conservatives are an alliance of the upper classes and members of the other classes. It's tribal. If the tribe thinks that business are a priority then the Conservatives will prioritise business. If the tribe thinks that a culture war is a priority, then the culture war will be prioritised.
Upthread @AndyJS linked to a YouTube that he thought informative. I had a quick peek and it was all anti-muslims, political correctness, anti "woke" comedy, and so on. I didn't have the heart to find out if it was US funded like ReasonUK and Turning Point UK. It didn't talk about jobs.
This is currently the Conservatives' strength and weakness. If the culture war is a priority for a plurality then an election can be fought and won on that basis, and they will win. If we no-deal and industry goes off a cliff, then that may change BUT IF AND ONLY IF the tribe is affected. If it isn't, then it will carry on regardless.
So at the moment I do think the Tories are anti-business. Or to be more precise, business is not a priority for the tribe.
I think your conclusion is fair. @Gardenwalker was implying that it was permanent
Post Brexit I suspect that the Tories will have a more pro business agenda than Labour
Yes, those are potential counter-arguments, but I don't think they make too much sense. Theresa May's Lancaster House speech (which incidentally was widely praised) laid down the broad outlines of what she was trying to do, two months before Article 50 was triggered. I really don't think the UK could have done much more preparation because it's a negotiation:it needed discussion with the EU which they refused to have until trigger date (and not even then on the substantive long-term relationship).
On the Cameron side, I think the idea that he could have defined Brexit is verging on barmy. The Leavers couldn't define it, indeed still can't, and they squabble amongst themselves and even squabble with their own previous statements, but they would have been absolutely unanimous in trashing any attempt by the Cameron government to pin it down.
The EU has been extremely unhelpful in a way that has ultimately not done them any favours, but I'm not sure that nor Lancaster House exculpates May. While that speech laid down the broad outlines of what she wanted to achieve, had the plan received a sufficiently thorough analysis? Were the cabinet properly schooled in it, was there consensus there about which principles had a bit of "give" and which were set in stone? Had she made enough efforts to get her party on-side for it? She certainly hadn't put it to the people to get a mandate for her plan, rather than for Brexit as an amorphous concept. She set some red lines in it that have significantly influenced the course of the Brexit process and particularly when you consider how she got to be PM, I can't help but think it would have been a good idea for these to have had some kind of democratic road-testing (whether with the electorate or in the House). Aside from setting out where we want to be, the lack of No Deal prep can't be said to have strengthened the government's hand in the negotiations when they did start.
As for Cameron - contingency planning wouldn't necessarily mean having a complete Secret Shadow Brexit Plan ready to go, and I accept that after losing the referendum he would not have been in a good position to implement one even if he'd wanted to. However, contingency planning does mean thinking about what the consequences of losing might have been and preparing accordingly. We ended up with a government that the electorate had committed to leaving the EU, but which lacked much of the apparatus or capacity that was needed to actually do so competently (e.g. trade negotiators).
It means that they have made a decision which weighs the perceived interests of business against the perceived interest of the voters and come down on the side of the voters.
Destroying business doesn't help voters
If destroying business weakens the voters for the other parties, then it isn't a problem.
Comments
May seems determined to beat her predecessor to the top of the worst modern PM league.
But, as I've said before, parliament could easily vote for another referendum if it wanted to. It shows no signs of doing so. I really don't mind what MPs do as long as we avoid crashing out with no deal, but they need to do something. At least Theresa May, for all her many faults, has a workable proposal. No-one else seems to.
It’s not like Parliament instructed May to do it.
May chose the timing.
"Want, want, want."
"No, Elizabeth Violet, no means no."
"I'll scweam and scweam until I'm sick."
The only chance of a second referendum is if the options are two sorts of Leave, thereby treating the first referendum as a run-off.
Yes let’s gamble on a start up in case of no deal.
May says the SNP asked about this yesterday. The money would have been spent by consultants whoever got the contract."
Wait, what? Is that really May's answer? Is it just me or does that make no sense at all?
The issue wasn't the timing, it was the EU's absolute refusal to start negotiations before Article 50 was triggered, combined with their refusal even then to discuss the long-term relationship until very late in the process. Delaying triggering Article 50 wouldn't have helped - it's as daft to claim it would have done as it is for the ERGers to claim that the whole problem has been civil service treachery and a Remainer being in charge of the negotiations, or that somehow Cameron should have decided what the Leave campaign's exit plan should be.
The rest is detail.
"That England that was wont to conquer others ..."
Actually, the public have never had a chance to vote between two known and stable outcomes. May’s Deal v Remain would be a very satisfactorily democratic outcome, not that I expect it to happen.
They have made a call (rightly or wrongly) that their interpretation of Brexit means that restricting FoM is more important than preserving the trading advantages of the SM.
I don’t see that as a change in their DNA, just a tricky choice with consequences
Strange that everyone who claims another vote would have a greater margin for Leave is determined not to prove it...
I am merely rebutting in very forceful terms the idea that May lacks culpability for where we are right now - you and me - North Wales and North London: up the shittiest of creeks with the nariest of paddles.
We haven’t even *got* to the reports from Ford. Too common now to comment on...
"Refusing to accept something is pretty much the exact opposite of sour grapes."
Indeed it is, and as a pedant myself, I salute you, but what they're doing is worse. They are the fox that's continually trying to scramble up the tree despite the flaws in that tactic.
As a parent (as Andrea would say) you have to be firm with children. They do get tired and ratty and need boundaries. "That's enough, it's been decided, you're going to bed now."
1) Refuse the whole thing (currently the official position)
2) Agree but only up to the EU elections (Verhofstadt has made noises about not wanting to extend past there even with a good reason, but he doesn't have a veto on extending)
3) Agree to an extension and keep agreeing new ones pretty much indefinitely
I think (2) is actually the least likely of the three: Extending once gets you through the big psychological hurdle and raises the possibility that Brexit may just keep not happening, which everyone will probably find they prefer to the alternatives. So you'd start with a short extension, but when that one ran out of road you'd go ahead and do another one.
1) The main "it was rushed" complaint really comes down to how little preparation was done in the period leading up to A50, particularly getting a rough consensus in cabinet or parliament as to what Brexit should look like. A year of very intense administrative preparation and political consensus-forming might have been enough, three years with less focus might have been insufficient time.
2) The Referendum wasn't a "who should the government be" election campaign (or at least wasn't intended to be, and Remain, Cameron and Osborne may all have suffered from whatever extent that it turned into a chance-to-kick-the-government exercise) so the idea that "leavers" as some kind of collective - a quite diverse range of people with quite different visions of what Leave should look like - should be or have been the ones held responsible for formulating government policy, or the lack thereof, has always struck me as odd. There were certainly a range of proposals put forward, many quite naturally contradictory, and obviously few that would appeal to people who would rather remain anyway. But it's part of a government's job to have contingency plans (and Cameron could have done rather more on this front) and a government's job to pick a course through the options available to it and sell them to the public and to parliament (in May's case, she seems to be struggling to achieve this even with her own cabinet).
You think everyone who disagrees with you is an extremist, Mr T, which is a fascinating psychological paradox.
https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1085458645280788482
But like I say, he doesn't have a veto.
On the Cameron side, I think the idea that he could have defined Brexit is verging on barmy. The Leavers couldn't define it, indeed still can't, and they squabble amongst themselves and even squabble with their own previous statements, but they would have been absolutely unanimous in trashing any attempt by the Cameron government to pin it down.
If the structure had always been a 2 part approach it would have been democratic.
But it’s not - it’s an attempted do over by people who wish (and always wanted) to remain
Apart from anything else all the sides involved in forming the consensus would have had to abandon, at least partially, their initial position. At the moment May's government and the EU are the only actors who have compromised. Everyone else is still holding out for total victory. Compromise takes practice.
As we all know, Corbyn will never support a 2nd ref. It is not in his interests and he is totally uninterested in anything but his own political advantage.
May could, if it presented a way out of the impasse.
My personal inclination is that the parties should have taken about a year to get their positions together, then we should have had a general election, with the winner getting to implement whatever Brexit plan they successfully sold to the public (and it would have been up to them to time Article 50 accordingly). I'd have been happy for Civil Service resources to have been available to opposition parties to help them get some of the heavier-duty policy analysis done so they were readier for the challenge once in government.
This would have got around some of the problems that stem from the Referendum not being an election, and the Leave campaign not having a manifesto or the right to form a government and implement a plan. Of course, no guarantee of avoiding a hung parliament...
https://twitter.com/DeItaOne/status/1095650207386271745
If the leading candidate scores more than 50% they are elected, otherwise they are eliminated and their votes redistributed until one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote.
It could produce some really interesting results.
Upthread @AndyJS linked to a YouTube that he thought informative. I had a quick peek and it was all anti-muslims, political correctness, anti "woke" comedy, and so on. I didn't have the heart to find out if it was US funded like ReasonUK and Turning Point UK. It didn't talk about jobs.
This is currently the Conservatives' strength and weakness. If the culture war is a priority for a plurality then an election can be fought and won on that basis, and they will win. If we no-deal and industry goes off a cliff, then that may change BUT IF AND ONLY IF the tribe is affected. If it isn't, then it will carry on regardless.
So at the moment I do think the Tories are anti-business. Or to be more precise, business is not a priority for the tribe.
https://twitter.com/jameschappers/status/1095667342598696961
In essence, this whole shitshow is being done in reverse so that the EU can use “No Deal” as a threat to suborn the UK’s negotiating power.
Also worth noting that when we triggered Article 50, we had a good relationship with the Irish PM, and broad bilateral agreement that the NI border wasn't going to present an unsolvable problem.
I think there are a number of factions.
Brexiteers obviously don't want a vote, in case we vote "the wrong way" next time.
Corbyn doesn't want a vote for the same reason. Maybe Labour MPs are shy out of "party" loyalty?
May doesn't want a vote because she has spent her entire premiership demonising everyone who didn't vote Leave last time
Does that add up to a majority in the house?
But I suspect not many seats would change hands.
Regarding the impact of a 2nd referendum I believe that if leave wins (even by a small margin) we would then have to honour that result. If remain wins by a reasonable (not sure what this is) margin the result would be respected.
The dodgy area is if Remain wins by a small margin and the argument just continues. Bring on number 3!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/03/eu-commission-still-refuses-uk-talks-before-article-50-triggered
So although a two-referendum process is obviously better, it wouldn't have worked if it had been announced up-front.
It means that they have made a decision which weighs the perceived interests of business against the perceived interest of the voters and come down on the side of the voters.
Due to a quirk which I do not understand, the Betfred odds on LeaveOnTime regardless of deal are better than the others, which are LeaveOnTimeWithDeal or LeaveOnTimeWithNoDeal. There is no explicit odds on LeaveWithNoDeal regardless of departure time, but that eventuality is covered by Remain and the return is poor. So I bet on LeaveOnTime as a proxy for LeaveWithNoDeal.
The problem is, it's entirely possible that we extend and then no deal, which is the only eventuality I haven't planned for. The only odds that cover that event are Remain and the return would be too small. So I am anxious.
[In passing I need to point out that I avoid online betting for various reasons. A better plan might have been constructed had I relaxed that restriction]
Although they might rebrand themselves...
Businesses and their owners do have a tendency to donate to the Tory party.
Nissan has clearly voted. Rolls Royce have voted with their feet. Airbus have signalled their intent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Spanish_general_election
Post Brexit I suspect that the Tories will have a more pro business agenda than Labour
As for Cameron - contingency planning wouldn't necessarily mean having a complete Secret Shadow Brexit Plan ready to go, and I accept that after losing the referendum he would not have been in a good position to implement one even if he'd wanted to. However, contingency planning does mean thinking about what the consequences of losing might have been and preparing accordingly. We ended up with a government that the electorate had committed to leaving the EU, but which lacked much of the apparatus or capacity that was needed to actually do so competently (e.g. trade negotiators).