UKH

I must say I'm rather dismayed by the wholly negative reactions from all the parties I heard interviewed.

While her offer has many failings it seems to me that they could be addressed if approaches were made in a positive manner. I am beginning to doubt the sincerity of any of the various factions in Westminster.

It's new and  bold, you know, new and bold.

In other words nothing has changed

You haven't doubted the sincerity before now?  Apart from a few individuals, all of the factions have pretty much from the start put their own interests above getting a sensible compromise for the UK.

I haven't looked at it in any detail but if it was altered so that a vote for it was linked firmly with a confirmatory referendum leave/deal/WTO with preference votes then that might be the best chance for avoiding an automatic WTO in the autumn under confirmed Brexiteer PM Johnson or other (how can they consider a populist bufoon). Labour should go for that though many Tories won't, If it didn't then it would have to bear some of the blame. Pigs might fly, I hope.

Really ? It took you a while 😃

I'm not at all sure that's true - I don't think other parties were even asked to contribute until AFTER she came back with her deal drafted. She seems to have expected to be able to force through whatever she wanted, and not known what to do when she couldn't.

Article 50 should not have been invoked until there was a position agreed that had majority support in parliament, it's a bit rich criticising parties and factions now, for not supporting a deal which contains terms they've been very clearly opposed to all along.

I guess they're either insincere, or very sincere about their own point of view, because for any voters who share their points of view, for them to compromise would feel insincere - which is the root of the mess the country/politics is currently in.

You cannot polish a turd. Though Mrs May has spent nearly a year trying to, testament to her stubbornness and lack of imagination.

Well put.  I think for me the insincerity has come from the pretense of people/factions wanting to appear willing to compromise when in reality they never had any intention of compromise.  They have used this pretense to try to move towards outcomes of no deal brexit (in the case of ERG) or bringing down the government (in the case of labour).  In reply to skog - my view is that whilst I agree Article 50 should not have been invoked until a position had been agreed, in reality agreement would never have been reached due to the inherent insincerity amongst MPs.  Agreement was never going to have been reached however this was approached.

I suppose one of the big issues is that UK politics is not used to compromise politics since one party has typically been in a significant majority and most of their MPs have been willing to follow the whip (the Tory/Lib Dem coalition being the obvious example where some compromises did happen).  So now that a compromise of real importance is needed the government/PM have no clue how to go about achieving it.  This has allowed self interest to come to the fore instead of the national good.

Fine, but why don't the SNP/Plaid/Lib Dems, who just want a second referendum say, ok if you definitely tie a second referendum to approval of your deal then we'll vote in favour of the motion.

That would give them what they have been asking for.

I don't think you're taking "new and bold" literally enough.  She's changed the font.  And added some clip art of a dog.  It's a completely different document now.

That's not what the new deal is offering though. Mrs May's offer is to allow parliament another vote on whether there will be another referendum on the deal.

As kier starmer said on the news this morning, it's a meaningless offer, as this could have been added as an amendment by parliament. So really, no concessions have really been made other than some additional guarantees for workers rights.

Yep, I suspect that has a lot to do with it. Although I don't think May can simply be excused on that basis - she doesn't appear to have made any real attempt at conusultation or compromise in the first place.

The SNP position has been consistent - they won't support deal that doesn't leave Scotland in both the Single Market and the Customs Union.

Later on, they joined in the support for a second referendum, but they've never dropped that original stance.

So they are quite right to continue opposing a deal that takes us out of the Single Market (and probably the Customs Union), and it can't come as a surprise to parliament that they do so.

I don't know Plaid's stance, but the Lib Dems have put a second referendum as their top priority, with the stated aim of preventing brexit if possible. On that basis, perhaps they could offer to support May's deal tied to a referendum between that and remain - but that wasn't actually on offer here. Are you sure they haven't offered this to her? (Also - I'm not sure there are enough Lib Dem MPs to swing it anyway.)

That's pretty much what they have been saying.  The problem is that Theresa May isn't interested.  If she did it that way she might get a majority but most of the Tories would be voting against it and it would be other parties voting for it.

She's determined to take her party with her and win based on Tory/DUP votes which means she can't offer any substantive concessions.   All she has is bullsh*t and running down the clock so there is no time for a second referendum and the MPs are back with a last minute choice between her deal or no deal in the autumn.

Even if Boris is elected Tory leader the balance of votes in parliament and the timeline to the next deadline haven't changed.

It's her opening negotiating position. Why can't the other parties just say "ok, that's a start but you also need to do x,y and z"?

The motion she puts before parliament will be subject to a three line whip. That's what's different from an amendment.

So if they want a second referendum where one of the options is Remain in the EU, what would be the other option?

Largely agree, with MP's / parties opposing the deal for their own political ends rather than the good of the nation. 

In my view, nothing much has changed since the deal was first announced. We either leave with the deal as negotiated or we leave with no deal and work things out as we go. 

The government has demonstrated over and over that they are unable or unwilling to decide so as I see it we have two options: Either the Queen intervenes and forces parliament to pick what she deems the better option. Or the more democratic but much more hassle option of have the public decide between the deal as presented or leave now on WTO rules and let the UK and EU work things out gradually.   

Personally, I'd prefer to leave with the deal as although it's far from ideal, it'll at least smooth things over while we sort out a proper trade deal. But at this stage in the game, the protracted uncertainty of how we're going to leave is probably doing more harm than just leaving without a deal and getting on with things.    

It's probably a question of trust.

Yes but you can nail things down by putting them into legislation.

A referendum without the option to Remain is a non starter and not what she's offering anyway.

I don't know - what I do know is that nothing has been offered at any point that comes close.

It's entirely reasonable to carry on opposing something you've always been clear about, and were elected in part on the basis of, opposing.

May hasn't actually offered another referendum, remember - she'd have to do so, and also make clear that one of the options on the ballot would be remain (or just conceivably the "Norway Option"), AND make sure that it would actually happen (rather than her being deposed and the idea dropped), before any of the remain-leaning parties could reasonably support her.

Haha,

*** SUMMON THE QUEEN *** klaxon!

Yes, I know she's playing with words but why doesn't someone stand up and tell her "you haven't gone far enough but if a confirmatory referendum with the option to remain included is put on the table then we have the basis of an agreement." She has often said that Parliament are very good at telling her what they don't want but never tell her what they do want. Looks like she's right again.

Are you sure they haven't?

And if they haven't, well, she's a big girl now - maybe she could just suggest it rather than waiting passively and hoping someone else will speak up? She's the Prime Minister, after all!

Or we accept that the deal offered is rubbish, that no deal is just as rubbish so we revoke article 50, have another referendum and if the vote is to leave then start another lot of negotiations, this time with a cross party team that has the backing, at the outset, from all parties.

Unfortunately, that bridge has been crossed. We decided to leave, after that it is just a matter of, on what terms. 

No bridge has been crossed yet... Feb/March shenanigans showed that. The longer this goes on the less of a mandate the vote gives leavers, all major parties will be conscious of that.

Well, that's the sort of comment you'd expect from a boulderer ! 

What have Labour and the Tories been doing for the last 6 weeks if not that? The idea that she should be opening negotiations at this stage is risible nonsense. 

Brexit has stalled; the xenophobes need to get used to the idea that it's not going to happen. 

I'm pretty sure that's what Labour have been saying, or at least "we want something concrete to vote on" Tess, since they started joint negotiations, but as with now, she's simply been on repeat, with her, "this is the best deal".

Even the DUP have deserted her.

To be fair to Labour, to get the legislation through while Theresa is PM would be to rush it. That would mean it would not get the necessary scrutiny and any safeguards might not be worth the paper. Jez is right, this time.

I agree with the first part, but the counter argument is that the UK parliament would have agreed on a position that is far in unicorn land, then invoked a50, and then ended up in a very similar position as now.

I don't agree with the second part. It is perfectly valid to criticize those who voted for the a50 notification and against the deal. They put the UK in this situation and now won't take responsibility to improve it. In my view Ken Clarke is the only MP who votes correctly: against the a50 notification and for the deal. So against an automatic process that leaves the UK in a much worse situation, for making sure that (most of, unfortunately) citizen's rights and border communities in NI are protected from however Brexit turns out.

Maybe the two weeks are there to negotiate xyz. A second referendum attached to WA absolutely and better economic possibilities.

What is Corbyn's idea of a general election going to achieve cause even if a Liberal Democrat government got in you still have to get the referendum of 2016 dealt with, with a new referendum and two ideas to vote on in that referendum? Still in the same position.

These Eu results will show what a General election may produce in MP disposition with perhaps harder Farage style people in Parliament to contend with.

If you look at the polls about 30% of Labour voters won't vote Labour in the EU elections but that number drops to 10 or 15% when they are asked how they'll vote in a GE. The same is broadly true for the tories except they have more desertions and fewer returning for a GE.

Of course if Labour screw up the chance of getting a second referendum I imagine they'll go the same way as the tories.

If leave voters are  defining Leave variously they could now show it in the EU election:- May is playing to the electoral gallery by mooting the idea of a  type of customs union with the possibility of a referendum  to challenge No deal Brexit /WTO rules. It is an option for Leave voters that didn't exist a few days ago, { Corbyn's position is facing in  two directions & unlikely to attract Leave voters} The EU result could actually be very different from the polls and lead Parliament forward. I'm pretty interested in the results on Sunday cause I think people are treating it as a referendum on Brexit.

The latest polls make for grim reading. Labour would be barely 10% ahead of the Brexit party in a general election.

So we are now entering a vicious dynamic, the next government is likely to be lead by a hard Brexiteer, which in turns makes labour MPs even less likely to help unlocking the Brexit deadlock, which in turns alienates more voters.

The possibility of having Farage as PM soon if that continues. A really frightening prospect.

If that is the case (which I doubt), it's woefully unsuccessful. No one, on any side, cares remotely what May thinks. 

I'm genuinely not quite sure of Labour's actual position, as it seems easy to find senior members declaring that it's a variety of contradictory things. But I suppose we really have to go by what the leadership say.

The last I'd heard, it was firstly that, yes, the UK is leaving the EU, and that they'd like it to be something quite like May's deal but with our own version of the customs union tacked on and some additional guarantees around workers' rights - and that if they can't get that they support putting it back to the people in another referendum, but are quite conspicuously not saying that Remain should be one of the options on the ballot.

I don't mind admitting that it's all getting quite confusing, though - maybe I've just missed Corbyn or his team saying what they supported having such a referendum ask?

I know a conservative who is aparty activist and I think there is a lot of fluidity in their thoughts on the definition of Brexit- much more than the conservative cabinet suggests. There could be a difference within the electorate which is quite surprising.

You'd obviously have to end up with an absolute majority for one option. So a 2nd preference, type vote or possible more than one round of voting would be needed. At least we'd know what the current majority want in the light of more knowledge of the implications. I think there is a high chance Leavers/WTO would win (Farage claims so anyway), in which case  Remainers would  have to accept it. If we drop out, without testing that most still want to, there will be probably be resentment from grouchy Remainers like me for decades. Likewise Leavers would hopefully be more accepting if it was proved the current majority was against them