/ Inevitably of hard Brext?

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
kevin stephens - on 16 Mar 2019

The prognosis is grim. The Brexit extension will give the Tories time for their inevitable leadership election. The MPs will whittle candidates to 2, one of which will be Boris. The final selection will be by the constituency associations which have been swelled by UKIP entryists. So Boris will be PM. Boris will call snap election which Labour will lose because of Corbyn. Then we will have no deal Brexit

Report
bouldery bits - on 16 Mar 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

Dont be silly.

Maybe there'll be a thermonuclear war instead?

Report
Robert Durran - on 16 Mar 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

> The Brexit extension..........

Assuming May doesn't succeed in bribing and blackmailing her way to getting her deal through - I fear she might well do so.

> So Boris will be PM. Boris will call snap election which Labour will lose because of Corbyn. Then we will have no deal Brexit

One would hope that with an extension and everything still to play for, an election would be fought overwhelmingly on Brexit lines with people holding their nose and voting for Corbyn (or, in Scotland, the SNP - as I would) and that another hung parliament would lead to another referendum or, failing that, a sensible soft Brexit compromise.

The real horror would be if May gets her deal through then steps aside to let Boris or some other nasty lying piece of work negotiate what form Brexit actually takes.

Post edited at 19:38
Report
Duncan Bourne - on 16 Mar 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

I would say no body in their right mind would vote for Boris

Then I remembered Trump

Report
kevin stephens - on 16 Mar 2019
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Unfortunately in the swing seats he may be more popular than Corbyn, particularly with UKIP taking some Labour votes. On the other hand if Tom Watson replaced Corbyn....

Post edited at 19:52
Report
john arran - on 16 Mar 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

Thatcher's coup de grace was to fool millions of working class people into thinking they were middle class and that privatisation of the nation's assets would benefit them, rather than benefitting mainly the landowners and executives. It's Farage's coup de grace to convince these exact same people that Brexit will be in their interest rather than that of the disaster capitalists at the helm.

Boris seems to be a political opportunist rather than someone with skin in the game (hence why it took him so long to pick a side before the referendum.) I expect that if he were given the keys to No 10 he'd be looking for any way to cancel or soften Brexit, pinning the blame on forces beyond his control while reaping the massive economic benefit of Remaining.

Report
kevin stephens - on 16 Mar 2019
In reply to john arran:

But he has just had a proper haircut which is very worrying 

Report
Rob Exile Ward on 16 Mar 2019
In reply to john arran:

I've pondered that - the only chance Boris has of redeeming himself and/or leaving a legacy is by reversing Brexit. I suspect he knows that, too.

Report
Gordon Stainforth - on 16 Mar 2019
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

That's an awesome scenario ... but just possible, because he's so egocentric (and, of course, he's flipped diametrically once already).

Report
Gordon Stainforth - on 16 Mar 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

I think it's quite possible, indeed quite likely, that Bercow will prevent the third vote .. because it's against the Parliamentary rulebook to bring back a matter in the same session, unless it's substantially different.

Report
kevin stephens - on 16 Mar 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Can’t happen, the conservative associations  will only elect a hard Brexit party leader so if Boris wants the job he’ll have to follow the line

Post edited at 20:42
Report
kevin stephens - on 16 Mar 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

As always it will depend on the DUP

Report
Gordon Stainforth - on 16 Mar 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

It won't if the Speaker doesn't allow it.

Report
Gordon Stainforth - on 16 Mar 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

> Can’t happen, the conservative associations  will only elect a hard Brexit party leader so if Boris wants the job he’ll have to follow the line

But he might follow the line to start with, to get into power, then later change spectacularly ... ??

Report
kevin stephens - on 16 Mar 2019
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

If the DUP comes around (I don’t think it will) then Bercow won’t get away with it because he hasn’t already given advance notice. However he will be able to say third is last. Peston doesn’t think 3rd vote will happen because DUP won’t find a way to support the deal. I think they will go for the extension on basis of time to develop technical solutions to border; software written by Unicorn Systems ltd

Report
Robert Durran - on 16 Mar 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

> I think they will go for the extension on basis of time to develop technical solutions to border.

But I don't think the EU will grant the extension on that basis.

Report
kevin stephens - on 16 Mar 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

Eu wants to prevent Brexit so a pretext will be found, probably something woolly like “time to develop cross Parliament concensus “ which of course will be different to DUP’s justification for continuing to prop up the Tories but not May’s deal.

Report
Robert Durran - on 16 Mar 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

> Eu wants to prevent Brexit so a pretext will be found, probably something woolly like “time to develop cross Parliament concensus “ which of course will be different to DUP’s justification for continuing to prop up the Tories but not May’s deal.

If there were no extension we would be heading for No Deal oin 29th, which gives the intriguing (and truly wonderful) possibility of parliament revoking Article 50 to avoid the unthinkable - I heard Michael Portillo say he thought this a possibility.

Report
kevin stephens - on 16 Mar 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

That’s an interesting scenario particularly as unanimity is required by the 26 to allow extension. I don’t think the MP votes stack up to revoke article 50. There is a suggestion that a no deal Brexit should go ahead just to prove that unicorns don’t exist, with a referendum to rejoin within months

Post edited at 21:28
Report
Michael Hood - on 16 Mar 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

Technically, is there anything to stop the UK revoking article 50, and the next day invoking article 50 again for another 2 year countdown?

Maybe we should threaten the EU with that although I've no idea what we should be using this threat for

Report
john arran - on 17 Mar 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

> Eu wants to prevent Brexit so a pretext will be found, probably something woolly like “time to develop cross Parliament concensus “ 

I don't think that would be acceptable to all 27 as there's no certain outcome. I think any extension would be contingent on a referendum if no deal is agreed by a set date.

That would effectively ruin the chances of agreeing a poor deal

Report
Andy Farnell on 17 Mar 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

As everyone knows, the only good brexit is no brexit.

Andy F

Report
Andy Hardy on 17 Mar 2019
In reply to Andy Farnell:

You are Colin Casserole and I claim my 5 euros 😉

Report
alan moore - on 17 Mar 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> people holding their nose and voting for Corbyn (or, in Scotland, the SNP - as I would)

Surely voting SNP is going to reduce the Labour vote and let the Tories in again?

At a time when petty Nationalism has caused all this trouble, surely voting for a different group of petty nationalists is just worsening the problem?

Report
Gordon Stainforth - on 17 Mar 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

> If the DUP comes around (I don’t think it will) then Bercow won’t get away with it because he hasn’t already given advance notice. However he will be able to say third is last. Peston doesn’t think 3rd vote will happen because DUP won’t find a way to support the deal. I think they will go for the extension on basis of time to develop technical solutions to border; software written by Unicorn Systems ltd

I don't think you are correct on this. Parliamentary rules state clearly that something cannot be voted on twice in a single  Parliamentary Session unless it is substantially different. Mrs May was very lucky to get a second vote in this session on the basis that she had tweaked it with some 'legally binding changes' (actually I believe this was a false claim). On top of all that, the defeats both times were massive (by 230 and 149 votes). Unless the agreement has been substantially changed, e.g. something has been offered to the DUP, like a change to the backstop, then there are no grounds whatever for her to have yet another vote on it. Even the right-wing Spectator says it would be wrong.

Your wording is very odd too. 'Bercow won't get away with it.' His job is to uphold parliamentary procedure. He would be giving advanced notice if he decides tomorrow (but I think Mrs May would have to come forward with a modified agreement which we haven't heard yet, which the DUP had agreed to).

You then say, very curiously, that 'he will be able to say third is last'. It sounds as if you're just making up a rule of your own which doesn't actually exist. 

I agree with you that it's very unlikely that the DUP will be persuaded, unless they are given a huge bribe for a second time. (BTW, it's incredible that Mrs. May requests an 'honourable compromise' when she herself is so morally corrupt.)

One very sinister plan I've heard is that the ERG may vote for Mrs May's agreement if they are given assurances that she will leave office by the summer ... the idea being that they would then be able to overturn it later ... Nothing surprises me any more, so corrupt has this government become, and so subversive of parliamentary democracy.

Report
Robert Durran - on 17 Mar 2019
In reply to alan moore:

> Surely voting SNP is going to reduce the Labour vote and let the Tories in again?

Possibly, but Labour are not being an effective opposition and I'm not sure they would be an effective government. I think the priority at this point should be to have as many committed anti Brexit MPs as possible in parliament - party lines have become somewhat irrelevant

> At a time when petty Nationalism has caused all this trouble, surely voting for a different group of petty nationalists is just worsening the problem?

There is undoubtedly an element of petty Nationalism in the SNP, but not, I think, in the leaderhip. I want to live in a strong Scotland within a strong UK within a strong EU, but if Brexit means that is not going to be possible, I will probably have to make a choice between a weak UK and the EU and I know which, in principle, I favour.

Post edited at 10:48
Report
Doug on 17 Mar 2019

To hear a comic Belgian commentary listen to http://rtbf-pod.l3.freecaster.net/pod/rtbf/geo/open/I/Ik87AhDsBK.mp3

(its in French & maybe needs some knowledge of Belgium to get the most out of the humour, I also thought they might have been more aware that England isn't Great Britain or the UK)

As for events at Westminster, I'm between crying & laughing with no idea what I'll be doing at the end of the month if its a no-deal Brexit on the 29th

Report
tom_in_edinburgh - on 17 Mar 2019
In reply to alan moore:

> Surely voting SNP is going to reduce the Labour vote and let the Tories in again?

How do you figure that?   The SNP are far more likely to get elected in Scottish constituencies than Labour.    It is voting Labour - who have no chance in most constituencies in Scotland - that slightly increases the risk of the Tories getting in.

The other problem is Corbyn refusing to co-ordinate with the SNP MPs at Westminster to oppose Brexit.  

Report
Offwidth - on 17 Mar 2019
alan moore - on 17 Mar 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Hello Tom; guessed you wouldn't be far away.

Perhaps you have to be a immigrant to see UKIP and SCOTKIP as two sides of the same coin. The fact that the SNP's recent raising of a socialist banner was all they needed to do to take the Labour vote is all the more sinister in this respect.

Report
Robert Durran - on 17 Mar 2019
In reply to alan moore:

> Perhaps you have to be a immigrant to see UKIP and SCOTKIP as two sides of the same coin.

UKIP are (or have certainly become) nasty right wing xenophobic bigots. The SNP are a progressive, outward looking, inclusive party who celebrate immigration. They could hardly be more different coins. That is not to say there is not an unsavoury Little Scotlander element within the SNP (which notably and unsettlingly reared its ugly head during the independence referendum), but they are far from mainstream, though I do think the leadership should do more to distance themselves from them.

Report
alan moore - on 17 Mar 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

I empathise, 100% with your frustrations at the British government. What I find impossible to accept is that a party that runs on a separatist/nationalist agenda can ever be genuinely progressive, outward looking, or inclusive.

I think Brexit and Brixit and driven by the same motivations, and voting numbers for each were largely the same in Scotland.

Report
Robert Durran - on 17 Mar 2019
In reply to alan moore:

> I empathise, 100% with your frustrations at the British government. What I find impossible to accept is that a party that runs on a separatist/nationalist agenda can ever be genuinely progressive, outward looking, or inclusive.

The SNP are looking to cut loose from a separatist UK and to rejoin an inclusive EU. Brexit is a complete game changer. I was vehemently against independence in the referendum, but I could see myself, just possibly, voting, with a very heavy heart, for independence next time round.

Report
skog on 17 Mar 2019
In reply to alan moore:

The Tories, and, sadly Labour, are separatists now, on the larger scale.

The SNP - in its current form - are separatists only on the scale of the UK, and very much more unionist at the European level.

There are certainly petty separatist, isolationist elements in the SNP, just as there are progressive unionist elements in Lab and Con, but they aren't anywhere close to running the show.

Much of the unionism in Lab and Con is actually just UK nationalism, and an increasing amount of the 'separatism' in the SNP is actually rather unionistic.

Strange times!

Report
John Stainforth - on 17 Mar 2019
In reply to skog:

What we have now in Westminster is a kind of uneasy coalition between a far-right nationalist party and a rather socialist non-opposition. I don't no why they don't collectively call themselves the National-Socialists, and I was trying to think of some catchy abbreviation for that... until I remembered it's been used before.

Post edited at 14:16
Report
tom_in_edinburgh - on 17 Mar 2019
In reply to alan moore:

> I empathise, 100% with your frustrations at the British government. What I find impossible to accept is that a party that runs on a separatist/nationalist agenda can ever be genuinely progressive, outward looking, or inclusive.

It's not as simple as separatist/unionist as absolutes, it is about how many layers of government hierarchy are necessary or useful.   Scotland needs to be part of a larger unit to provide an integrated market and economic clout in the world stage.   The EU provides a far larger market than the UK with far less interference in Scotland's affairs than Westminster.    We don't gain anything by having a three layer hierarchy where we get to the EU through London, we'd be better off with a two layer hierarchy where Scotland and rUK are peers and we are a member state of the EU in our own right.

When you look at the detail the Brexiteer proposal to remove the UK from the EU and the SNP proposal to remove Scotland from the UK are completely different.   The SNP were proposing an extremely soft exit from the UK while remaining in the EU.   They weren't going to mess with people's residency and freedom of movement rights or put customs barriers in the way of trade. 

Post edited at 14:29
Report
john arran - on 17 Mar 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It's not as simple as separatist/unionist as absolutes, it is about how many layers of government hierarchy are necessary or useful.   Scotland needs to be part of a larger unit to provide an integrated market and economic clout in the world stage.   The EU provides a far larger market than the UK with far less interference in Scotland's affairs than Westminster.

This.

Report
Robert Durran - on 17 Mar 2019
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>  SNP were proposing an extremely soft exit from the UK while remaining in the EU.   They weren't going to mess with people's residency and freedom of movement rights or put customs barriers in the way of trade. 

The problem is that the harder the Brexit, the harder, by definition, the exit from the UK of a Scotland in the EU. We're screwed either way.

Report
tom_in_edinburgh - on 17 Mar 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> The problem is that the harder the Brexit, the harder, by definition, the exit from the UK of a Scotland in the EU. We're screwed either way.

I think that is absolutely true.    But I think an independent Scotland run from Holyrood would make more rational decisions going forward than a post Brexit UK run by either the Brexiteers or Corbyn and that we are better off getting out before they make things worse.

Report
jkarran - on 18 Mar 2019
In reply to kevin stephens:

> The prognosis is grim.

Yes. I think it's fair to say brexit if it is delivered will be delivered by someone from the lunatic fringe of the Conservatives or a pandering opportunistic shit like Johnson, quite possibly backed by a party with a significant new majority of new purple tories. I fear Labour's failure to take a bold or even coherent position on brexit has destroyed them.

My hope is the more sensible within the Conservative party and the EU see this coming too and put in place what few locks they can in the dying days of the May government to guide and constrain the future process. I don't actually have much hope but this is the only one I'm left with, that our PM and government is sensible and realistic. I barely believe it.

That said, the situation is still evolving and the simple fact remains the right way to choose a route out of this mess, the impasse between public and parliament is the way we got into it, democratically. We are gravitating slowly toward that position. Whether we get there... I wouldn't want to bet on it.

The final glimmer of hope is that no-deal or a devastating hard brexit delivered by a parliamentary failure or an obvious coup from the right of the Conservatives will be more fragile, more easily reversed when the pain comes than it would with explicit informed consent from the public. We will disown it and punish those who inflicted it when it brings restrictions of freedom, price rises, recession and job losses.

All in all, you're right, our future looks very bleak indeed.

jk

Post edited at 09:29
Report
Dave Garnett - on 18 Mar 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> But I don't think the EU will grant the extension on that basis.

I am really beginning to expect the worst.  The attitude in the EU is hardening and even friendly players are exasperated that Brexit is preventing other important business being conducted.  A very short extension won't be offered unless May can explain a clear and deliverable plan (which she still doesn't have) and a long extension would be unacceptable to many EU states for the reasons above and probably to the Conservatives here because it would mean participating in the EU elections.

I think some in the EU (Tusk, for instance) are attracted by the idea of offering only very a long, say 2-year, extension in the belief that a change of government, a general shift in opinion and a second referendum might have happened in that time.  However, I sense that we have finally managed to exhaust all the goodwill we had inside the EU and many just want it over, even at the cost of a no-deal Brexit.

Report
Robert Durran - on 18 Mar 2019
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> I sense that we have finally managed to exhaust all the goodwill we had inside the EU and many just want it over, even at the cost of a no-deal Brexit.

In which case we would have to hope that, finally staring down the barrel of the gun, parliament revokes article 50, possibly with the proviso of another properly thought out referendum say in five years time.

Post edited at 11:41
Report
Dave Garnett - on 18 Mar 2019
In reply to Robert Durran:

> In which case we would have to hope that, finally staring down the barrel of the gun, parliament revokes article 50, possibly with the proviso of another properly thought out referendum say in five years time.

I can't see this happening.  It's the right thing to do, but too many are hung up on superficial, newly-discovered and rather selective Will of the People qualms.  There's a fundamental clash of two models of democracy and too few politicians with the courage, principles and understanding to do the logical thing for the good of the country, even if it costs them their job.   

Report
Doug on 18 Mar 2019
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> ...even if it costs them their job.   

although seemingly happy for others to lose theirs !

Report
Offwidth - on 15:53 Mon
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Amazing!.... and my apologies. Bercow rules out a 3rd vote

Report
Oceanrower - on 16:02 Mon
In reply to Offwidth:

Didn't think he'd have the balls for that.

Mind you, I have no doubt they'll change a few words and find a way to get it on the books...

Report
Robert Durran - on 16:06 Mon
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Didn't think he'd have the balls for that.

Indeed! Wow!

> Mind you, I have no doubt they'll change a few words and find a way to get it on the books...

But it will still be "substantially" the same which is all that matters.

Report
jkarran - on 16:10 Mon
In reply to Offwidth:

So the next vote on May's deal has to be significantly different in some way, it seems very likely the EU are done moving on this and I can't imagine May has much appetite left for time wasting if her plan to keep presenting the same deal until parliament blinks is genuinely no longer viable... so now what? Is this the moment something actually changes?

jk

Report
Oceanrower - on 16:13 Mon
In reply to jkarran:

I'm going to have to eat my words. In fact many words, if Bercow actually does something useful and stops this time wasting farce...

Post edited at 16:14
Report
skog on 16:15 Mon
In reply to Offwidth:

I'm way past being able to understand the consequences of what's going on - but at first thought, that would appear to make May's deal less likely, and all of no deal, no brexit, and lengthy delay more likely.

But I suspect the EU aren't really up for extending article 50, there's no clear plan so it's not obviously of any benefit to do so - and it only takes one member state to veto that. So lengthy delay might have to mean repealing article 50, and I can't see parliament doing that.

So, putting it all together, I feel able to say with confidence ...

... that I've still absolutely no idea what's going to happen.

Report
kevin stephens - on 16:21 Mon
In reply to Offwidth:

I'm surprised and impressed to be proved wrong.  I don't think it would make a practical difference as there doesn't seem to be enough support for May to risk a 3rd vote.  But it's great to see the rug pulled from beneath the DUP's brinkmanship

Report
john arran - on 19:48 Mon
In reply to skog:

The only way the other EU members will approve an extension is if it is conditional on a vote before the end of the extended period, after which things will be as close to decided as they're ever going to be. I can't see May revoking A50 but I can see her agreeing a conditional extension. So that's what will happen.

Report
Tony Jones on 20:52 Mon
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I think it's quite possible, indeed quite likely, that Bercow will prevent the third vote .. because it's against the Parliamentary rulebook to bring back a matter in the same session, unless it's substantially different.


Wow! I know where I'll be looking for my political punditry from now on. Well done for predicting that one Gordon. (And well done Bercow for ploughing a furrow through this constitutional mess.)

Report
Dave Garnett - on 22:16 Mon
In reply to jkarran:

> So the next vote on May's deal has to be significantly different in some way,

Or, this session of  Parliament is prorogued and they open a new session next week.  The rule seems to say that the same bill can’t be reconsidered in the same session...

Report
pasbury on 23:59 Mon
In reply to Dave Garnett:

And yet a second vote by the electorate will ’destroy faith in our democracy’.

You couldn’t make this shit up.

Report
pasbury on 00:09 Tue
In reply to Tony Jones:

> Wow! I know where I'll be looking for my political punditry from now on. Well done for predicting that one Gordon. (And well done Bercow for ploughing a furrow through this constitutional mess.)

Indeed, I hope he has activated smug mode.

I thought it was a very long shot indeed that Bercow would stick his head that far out of the trenches. Thank god he has!

So now what?

Hard to predict as most productive actions that may have been passed in the house (by amendments) have also been defeated, e.g. the Benn amendment.

Does that mean they can’t be put to another vote - I assume the wording of these is easier to change in order to circumvent the restriction.

The commons have really backed themselves into a corner.

I think that Bercow’s statement is more and more brilliant the more I think about it’s consequences.

Report
john arran - on 06:03 Tue
In reply to pasbury:

> Hard to predict as most productive actions that may have been passed in the house (by amendments) have also been defeated, e.g. the Benn amendment.

> Does that mean they can’t be put to another vote - I assume the wording of these is easier to change in order to circumvent the restriction.

I think by definition the same amendment cannot be brought again because the bill it seeks to amend itself cannot. But I see no reason why similar wording could  not be added onto a different bill by amendment.

Report
Michael Hood - on 07:51 Tue
In reply to all:

Can you imagine what history lessons are going to look like in 50-100 years when they look back at this.

Kids might actually find it interesting because you just couldn't make it up

(I'm being a bit naughty here by implying that history is always boring, when I full well know that it can be fascinating when properly taught. But I'm sure you get my drift)

Report
Dave Garnett - on 08:58 Tue
In reply to pasbury:

> I think that Bercow’s statement is more and more brilliant the more I think about it’s consequences.

Indeed.  It's high stakes poker, but occurs to me that all the EU needs to do is refuse to allow any kind of extension (which, given the level of frustration, isn't impossible).  Parliament has already voted not to allow a no-deal Brexit, so the only option would be a vote to revoke Art 50.

Report
skog on 09:18 Tue
In reply to Dave Garnett:

I fear that's wishful thinking.

Parliament has voted against a no deal brexit, but that doesn't actually stop it happening - it's still the default if nothing else is passed by them in the tiny amount of time remaining.

Would they really vote to revoke article 50? I'm struggling to believe it.

Report
pasbury on 09:31 Tue
In reply to skog:

I expect the EU will offer a longish extension with some conditions.

Back around, 'sigh'...

Report
jkarran - on 09:35 Tue
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Indeed.  It's high stakes poker, but occurs to me that all the EU needs to do is refuse to allow any kind of extension (which, given the level of frustration, isn't impossible).  Parliament has already voted not to allow a no-deal Brexit, so the only option would be a vote to revoke Art 50.

I don't think May is strong enough personally or politically to revoke A50, she'll let the clock tick over. Unfortunately I do think we might get to test that, I do hope I'm wrong.

I can't see May and the EU leaders finding common ground on an extension, it's going to come with terms she can't accept. Best we can hope for is she decides to see if parliament can accept them but that too seems a forlorn hope, they simply are not capable of acting rationally as a group for lack of vision, lack of leadership and residual tribalism.

We've put ourselves in a terrible position.

jk

Post edited at 09:36
Report
skog on 09:37 Tue
In reply to pasbury:

Yeah, that, or no deal, seem most likely to me now.

But it does seem to shift daily!

Report
Gordon Stainforth - on 09:39 Tue
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Can you imagine what history lessons are going to look like in 50-100 years when they look back at this.

One blessing I suppose is that it might possibly lead to more history being taught in schools, particularly regarding the evolution of parliamentary democracy and our (unwritten) constitution, about which a terrifyingly large majority of our populace appear to be woefully ignorant.

Report
Dave Garnett - on 09:52 Tue
In reply to skog:

> Would they really vote to revoke article 50? I'm struggling to believe it.

Me too, but there was a pretty healthy majority who voted against crashing out.  Revoking our application under Art 50 is the only remaining act that is within the power of parliament and which accords with a previous resolution.  I can just about imagine a last minute panic on March 29 when they finally realise this and, maybe with a lot of squirming and promising to make a further application under Art 50 when the political situation allows...

Of course, given what's happened over the last 2 years, only the most rabid of the ERG will be in a hurry to do that, and who knows what the world will look like after one (or more) general elections, two (or more) leadership contests, action by the European Commission to put a time limit on how frequently Art 50 can be invoked? I really think they will want to tighten up on this, and maybe define some sort of exit procedure with specific requirements to demonstrate a workable mandate and putting a hard time limit on how long the whole thing can take. 

Post edited at 09:55
Report
john arran - on 09:55 Tue
In reply to jkarran:

> I can't see May and the EU leaders finding common ground on an extension, it's going to come with terms she can't accept. Best we can hope for is she decides to see if parliament can accept them but that too seems a forlorn hope, they simply are not capable of acting rationally as a group for lack of vision, lack of leadership and residual tribalism.

All she needs to do is to ask for an extension to facilitate renegotiating. Both the ERG and Corbynites will then delude themselves and their supporters into thinking that will allow them to get their own flavour unicorn so will support it. If there's a vote on whatever's on the table by the end of the extension then EU will be happy with it too. Nothing positive will be agreed in the extension period and the People will reject it.

Report
jkarran - on 10:26 Tue
In reply to john arran:

> All she needs to do is to ask for an extension to facilitate renegotiating. Both the ERG and Corbynites will then delude themselves and their supporters into thinking that will allow them to get their own flavour unicorn so will support it. If there's a vote on whatever's on the table by the end of the extension then EU will be happy with it too. Nothing positive will be agreed in the extension period and the People will reject it.

Why would the EU agree to renegotiate? May as yet has no mandate from the public or parliament to change her 'red lines', even if she did I think we've probably broken faith with the EU, I doubt anyone seriously believes this government and parliament can ultimately deliver anything but deadlock and the resulting 'no-deal'.

jk

Report
john arran - on 10:31 Tue
In reply to jkarran:

> Why would the EU agree to renegotiate?

Partly because no-deal crash isn't in their interests either, and partly by May having to issue some carefully chosen lies about cross-party cooperation, which will be taken by some as meaning that her lines may not be so red, thereby pretending there's something substantially different on the table on the UK side.

Report
kevin stephens - on 07:01 Wed
pasbury on 16:29 Wed
In reply to kevin stephens:

So a short extension has been requested and agreed on condition that May's terrible (though largely consistent with the hardish brexit advertised by the leave campaign) deal is passed in parliament.

This is about the worst outcome I can imagine - now parliament is being blackmailed not only by the government but by the EU as well!

Unless one reads between the lines and sees the possibility of a long delay.

Edit: Tusk has not agreed but has said 'will be possible'

Post edited at 16:31
Report
skog on 17:12 Wed
In reply to pasbury:

Right, looks as if this is it then. The EU's fed up, but probably still leaving the door open for a long delay with an election or referendum in the meantime, in the off chance.

I reckon May will now force parliament to choose between her deal and a no deal brexit (she'd rather shaft the moderates than the hard right), and that any attempts to stop her doing this will be foiled.

I think parliament will probably choose her deal, but I can still see it being no deal instead, in which case, 29th March probably will be brexit day after all.

Heh, I wonder how wrong this post will look by this time tomorrow? But it does feel like we're probably reaching the end now.

Report
HansStuttgart - on 17:23 Wed
In reply to skog:

> Right, looks as if this is it then. The EU's fed up, but probably still leaving the door open for a long delay with an election or referendum in the meantime, in the off chance.

> I reckon May will now force parliament to choose between her deal and a no deal brexit (she'd rather shaft the moderates than the hard right), and that any attempts to stop her doing this will be foiled.

Which amendment would Corbyn prefer before LAB votes for the deal?

A second referendum tagged on

or

A bit of tweaking on the PD to enable a softer brexit

Or is he now so completely outplayed that he has to vote for the deal as it is?

Report
john arran - on 17:30 Wed
In reply to skog:

> I reckon May will now force parliament to choose between her deal and a no deal brexit

Not strictly true. They will be asked - once again - to either support her deal or not support it. Your assumption that not supporting it means a no-deal inevitability is very different from the apparent interpretation - and certainly the hope - of many members of parliament.

Report
skog on 17:38 Wed
In reply to john arran:

Well, we'll see. I can't see any real cause for optimism, though.

Report
skog on 18:17 Wed
In reply to HansStuttgart:

> Which amendment would Corbyn prefer before LAB votes for the deal?

Sorry, missed your post.

I think it's safe to discount Corbyn, he won't do anything which risks him being seen as damaging or jeopardising brexit, and he won't let himself be seen to support anything he can be held accountable for later. He just wants to maximise his chance of winning a general election after brexit happens.

Report
pasbury on 18:43 Wed
In reply to skog:

I really wonder what electoral mandate there would be for the negotiated deal, in the circumstances in which it might be passed, as a ‘delivery’ of Brexit?

what a shit show.

Report
skog on 18:45 Wed
In reply to pasbury:

Yeah.

Report
john arran - on 18:51 Wed
In reply to pasbury:

> I really wonder what electoral mandate there would be for the negotiated deal, in the circumstances in which it might be passed, as a ‘delivery’ of Brexit?

Are you suggesting that it might not be what each and every Brexit voter had in mind 3 years ago? Surely not!

Report
pasbury on 20:50 Wed
In reply to john arran:

> Are you suggesting that it might not be what each and every Brexit voter had in mind 3 years ago? Surely not!

Ha! 

Far be it from me to read every leave voter’s mind as it was in June 2016. But I would guess none of them had quite this consequence in mind.

We have since made quite of an art of bloody-mindedness.

Post edited at 20:50
Report
HansStuttgart - on 22:54 Wed
In reply to skog:

> Sorry, missed your post.

huh? You are responding within an hour....

> I think it's safe to discount Corbyn, he won't do anything which risks him being seen as damaging or jeopardising brexit, and he won't let himself be seen to support anything he can be held accountable for later. He just wants to maximise his chance of winning a general election after brexit happens.

I think the EU might try to force him off the fence. For example by issuing a statement that there will be no extension unless the WA is accepted by parliament and issuing a clarification that the LAB policy of a permanent customs union is perfectly possible with the current deal.

Report
pasbury on 23:03 Wed
In reply to HansStuttgart:

I don’t think the EU give a flying f*ck about Corbyn; he has nothing constructive to say and has no power to do anything. He might have had more clout if he had placed himself in a position of proper opposition, he hasn’t therefore he is irrelevant.

Report
HansStuttgart - on 23:16 Wed
In reply to pasbury:

> I don’t think the EU give a flying f*ck about Corbyn; he has nothing constructive to say and has no power to do anything. He might have had more clout if he had placed himself in a position of proper opposition, he hasn’t therefore he is irrelevant.


he has the power to vote the deal through, which is what the EU is after.

Report
Michael Hood - on 07:50 Thu
In reply to pasbury:

> what a shit show.

I've totally lost any grudging respect i had for May.

Report
profitofdoom on 08:09 Thu
In reply to skog:

> Corbyn.... just wants to maximise his chance of winning a general election after brexit happens.

That is precisely how I read it. I'm sick of the whole lot of them HONESTLY it's time for me to go and hide in a bothy in the far north for 6 months or so.... with 40 tins of spam and 12 bags of granary flour

Report
skog on 08:15 Thu
In reply to HansStuttgart:

To be clear, we're talking about the man who stormed out of a meeting with the PM last night when he discovered that Independent Group MPs were in attendance.

A meeting where it just so happened that all of the other party leaders were presenting a united front calling for another referendum.

Report
john arran - on 09:09 Thu
In reply to skog:

Corbyn has actually been, and continues to be, a bigger hurdle than May to the people getting a say in whether or not the outcome of UK-EU withdrawal negotiations is in line with what they expected when they voted three years ago.

Report
jkarran - on 11:25 Thu
In reply to skog:

> I think it's safe to discount Corbyn, he won't do anything which risks him being seen as damaging or jeopardising brexit... He just wants to maximise his chance of winning a general election after brexit happens.

Which is why I've written to my Labour MP this morning explaining that this is utterly unacceptable and despite my respect for her, unless Corbyn is marginalised and Labour policy changes both rapidly and visibly it is a policy that will see me reluctantly join another part and campaign against her in the looming GE.

jk

Post edited at 11:27
Report

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.