Tories back May!!
The warfare will continue all the way to march!
Brexit process
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
Lord Beria3
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 20:57
- Location: Moscow Russia
- Contact:
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13500
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
-
Lord Beria3
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 20:57
- Location: Moscow Russia
- Contact:
-
Little John
So, do we have a consensus that May is trying to push it to the wire so that MP's are left with the stark choice of her deal, no deal or no Brexit?
Given that they are mostly remainers of one degree or another, May is presumably banking on them not voting for no deal. But, neither will they vote to revoke Brexit for fear of the backlash amongst the public. So, May's gamble is that they will vote for her deal as their least worst option.
If the above analysis of her strategy is correct, then it comes down to (a) whether or not that strategy will work and, more importantly (b) whether or not the DUP think it will work. If they don't, then there is no reason for them to do anything other than vote her deal down when the time comes. On the other hand, if they do, then they must hold their noses and join Labour in a vote of no confidence in her government before parliament gets to vote on the deal.
Given that they are mostly remainers of one degree or another, May is presumably banking on them not voting for no deal. But, neither will they vote to revoke Brexit for fear of the backlash amongst the public. So, May's gamble is that they will vote for her deal as their least worst option.
If the above analysis of her strategy is correct, then it comes down to (a) whether or not that strategy will work and, more importantly (b) whether or not the DUP think it will work. If they don't, then there is no reason for them to do anything other than vote her deal down when the time comes. On the other hand, if they do, then they must hold their noses and join Labour in a vote of no confidence in her government before parliament gets to vote on the deal.
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13500
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
-
vtsnowedin
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
Please excuse my ignorance but despite reading quite a bit here and elsewhere after the referendum I haven't been able to sort out all the implications of the various options.
So suppose you have a hard Brexit with no deal? What happens? Will not someone in the UK want to buy something produced in what remains of the EU? Will the EU refuse to sell it? Will the UK refuse to allow it's import? Will not the reverse also hold true? If the EU insists on some finicky higher standard will it not get sold to the USA or Australia?
I think the whole crisis put forward by remainer's is overblown. You can settle what goods cross the border and which people can come and go pretty easily if you want to.
So suppose you have a hard Brexit with no deal? What happens? Will not someone in the UK want to buy something produced in what remains of the EU? Will the EU refuse to sell it? Will the UK refuse to allow it's import? Will not the reverse also hold true? If the EU insists on some finicky higher standard will it not get sold to the USA or Australia?
I think the whole crisis put forward by remainer's is overblown. You can settle what goods cross the border and which people can come and go pretty easily if you want to.
-
Little John
-
Little John
It is completely overblown in economic terms. In political terms, so far as Ireland is concerned, it is a real issue. But, one for which there would be a definite solution if the will had been there on the part of either the British political class or the EU's political class.vtsnowedin wrote:Please excuse my ignorance but despite reading quite a bit here and elsewhere after the referendum I haven't been able to sort out all the implications of the various options.
So suppose you have a hard Brexit with no deal? What happens? Will not someone in the UK want to buy something produced in what remains of the EU? Will the EU refuse to sell it? Will the UK refuse to allow it's import? Will not the reverse also hold true? If the EU insists on some finicky higher standard will it not get sold to the USA or Australia?
I think the whole crisis put forward by remainer's is overblown. You can settle what goods cross the border and which people can come and go pretty easily if you want to.
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13500
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
No deal means we trade on WTO rules. That means much higher tariffs on certain goods, but the real problems are the ones caused by required (supposedly) checks at the ports. We currently have frictionless trade with Europe, and a no deal would lead to each goods vehicle having to have quite a lot of paperwork,etc... The fear is that our ports will clog up.vtsnowedin wrote: So suppose you have a hard Brexit with no deal? What happens? Will not someone in the UK want to buy something produced in what remains of the EU? Will the EU refuse to sell it? Will the UK refuse to allow it's import? Will not the reverse also hold true? If the EU insists on some finicky higher standard will it not get sold to the USA or Australia?
The truth is that nobody knows what would actually happen in the event of a no deal brexit. That is the real problem: businesses like plenty of time to plan for such things, and they're still asking the government for basic information now, because the government has done very little preparatory work, because it never took the option seriously.I think the whole crisis put forward by remainer's is overblown. You can settle what goods cross the border and which people can come and go pretty easily if you want to.
-
Lord Beria3
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 20:57
- Location: Moscow Russia
- Contact:
Eurointelligence latest...
Signs of a slowly emerging Brexit compromise
In the midst of predictable sound and fury, we were struck by a couple of developments that might tell us how the Brexit standoff could eventually be resolved. During the hours before the announcement of Theresa May’s uncomfortably narrow 200 to 117 victory in the Tories’ confidence vote, she had a 45-minute conversation with Arlene Foster and Nigel Dodds, leader and parliamentary leader of the DUP respectively. When we listened to Dodds last night, we noted a change in tone.
He was not only polite, but also appeared to have dropped the specific demand of a formal change in the withdrawal treaty and now seems content with more general changes that would satisfy the DUP’s demands. This is a big step. What matters to the DUP and to May herself is that there must be a clear commitment by the EU that the backstop is temporary. It is possible that the EU and the UK may agree a form of words this week, but it is perhaps more probable that talks go down to the wire and extend well into the early months of next year. If language can be found to accommodate the DUP’s position, we would expect the internal Tory opposition to the deal to crumble as well, though not to disappear entirely.
Yesterday’s Tory leadership vote was a secret ballot. At least one of the 117 who voted against the Prime Minister already said he would now support her. The Daily Mail and the Daily Express are, for once, united in their support for May, and were calling on MPs to get on with it. Not everybody who cast a secret vote against May yesterday will want to choose the more public display of voting in the No lobby when the meaningful vote finally comes. Support by the DUP is essential. May needs the DUP in order to govern. Her government would fall if parliament were to approve a deal the DUP rejects. If she succeeds, we would expect the old rule-of-thumb for parliamentary rebellions to reappear: the actual size of rebellion is usually one quarter of what it appears to be in the beginning. So we are looking at 25-30 die-hard Tory rebels who will clearly not support May’s deal whatever the DUP decides. She would, of course, still need opposition MPs for her deal to pass.
Herein lies the second important development yesterday, a slow but discernible opening by both May and the Labour Party towards a cross-party compromise. May said so in her speech after the vote that the process to agree a deal
"...must start here in Westminster with politicians on all sides coming together and acting in the national interest."
This is new language. We noted a statesmanlike John McDonnell mirroring this openness by saying that the Labour Party was also open to a deal, though we take this statement with a grain of salt. The problem is that Labour’s position on Brexit has its own internal inconsistencies. It is also possible that the Labour leadership might want to leverage its position by first voting against the deal. Despite the delay, we think it is possible that there may be two votes on the deal - possibly followed by a short extension in the Art. 50 to make room for ratification.
There is room to accommodate some of Labour’s positions on Brexit in the political declaration, in particular on workers’ right and the environment. No harm would be done if the declaration were opened up to alternative designs for the future relationship, like Labour’s customs union or the Norway option. We doubt that on close inspection any of the alternatives would be deemed superior to May’s own deal. But there is no harm in including them as options.
Also don’t discount the power of the moderates in both parties. We noted a conversation between Tory MP Nicky Morgan and Labour’s Caroline Flint, who represent moderate views in their parties. They are much closer to each other than to the extremes in their respective parties. We were in particular struck by Flint's characterisation of Labour supporters of a second referendum, which she referred to as extremists.
As we are entering the final stretches of the Brexit process, May’s job will be to assemble a piecemeal political majority for her Brexit deal. We are more optimistic today that this is possible than we were yesterday, as some of the positions are softening. But at this stage we are not yet close. This will take time, and it may go all the way until March 29 in which case the Brexit timetable would need to be extended by a little to make room for ratification.
During the meeting of the 1922 backbench committee, May said that she would respect the members’ wish that she would not fight the 2022 elections. There was some debate on whether this statement was categorical, some thought it might be. We believe that a successful Brexit deal has the potential to change her position in the party, but for the moment we don’t believe this is a particularly important development, especially since yesterday’s vote has now removed the possibility of another backbench revolt for a year.
Signs of a slowly emerging Brexit compromise
In the midst of predictable sound and fury, we were struck by a couple of developments that might tell us how the Brexit standoff could eventually be resolved. During the hours before the announcement of Theresa May’s uncomfortably narrow 200 to 117 victory in the Tories’ confidence vote, she had a 45-minute conversation with Arlene Foster and Nigel Dodds, leader and parliamentary leader of the DUP respectively. When we listened to Dodds last night, we noted a change in tone.
He was not only polite, but also appeared to have dropped the specific demand of a formal change in the withdrawal treaty and now seems content with more general changes that would satisfy the DUP’s demands. This is a big step. What matters to the DUP and to May herself is that there must be a clear commitment by the EU that the backstop is temporary. It is possible that the EU and the UK may agree a form of words this week, but it is perhaps more probable that talks go down to the wire and extend well into the early months of next year. If language can be found to accommodate the DUP’s position, we would expect the internal Tory opposition to the deal to crumble as well, though not to disappear entirely.
Yesterday’s Tory leadership vote was a secret ballot. At least one of the 117 who voted against the Prime Minister already said he would now support her. The Daily Mail and the Daily Express are, for once, united in their support for May, and were calling on MPs to get on with it. Not everybody who cast a secret vote against May yesterday will want to choose the more public display of voting in the No lobby when the meaningful vote finally comes. Support by the DUP is essential. May needs the DUP in order to govern. Her government would fall if parliament were to approve a deal the DUP rejects. If she succeeds, we would expect the old rule-of-thumb for parliamentary rebellions to reappear: the actual size of rebellion is usually one quarter of what it appears to be in the beginning. So we are looking at 25-30 die-hard Tory rebels who will clearly not support May’s deal whatever the DUP decides. She would, of course, still need opposition MPs for her deal to pass.
Herein lies the second important development yesterday, a slow but discernible opening by both May and the Labour Party towards a cross-party compromise. May said so in her speech after the vote that the process to agree a deal
"...must start here in Westminster with politicians on all sides coming together and acting in the national interest."
This is new language. We noted a statesmanlike John McDonnell mirroring this openness by saying that the Labour Party was also open to a deal, though we take this statement with a grain of salt. The problem is that Labour’s position on Brexit has its own internal inconsistencies. It is also possible that the Labour leadership might want to leverage its position by first voting against the deal. Despite the delay, we think it is possible that there may be two votes on the deal - possibly followed by a short extension in the Art. 50 to make room for ratification.
There is room to accommodate some of Labour’s positions on Brexit in the political declaration, in particular on workers’ right and the environment. No harm would be done if the declaration were opened up to alternative designs for the future relationship, like Labour’s customs union or the Norway option. We doubt that on close inspection any of the alternatives would be deemed superior to May’s own deal. But there is no harm in including them as options.
Also don’t discount the power of the moderates in both parties. We noted a conversation between Tory MP Nicky Morgan and Labour’s Caroline Flint, who represent moderate views in their parties. They are much closer to each other than to the extremes in their respective parties. We were in particular struck by Flint's characterisation of Labour supporters of a second referendum, which she referred to as extremists.
As we are entering the final stretches of the Brexit process, May’s job will be to assemble a piecemeal political majority for her Brexit deal. We are more optimistic today that this is possible than we were yesterday, as some of the positions are softening. But at this stage we are not yet close. This will take time, and it may go all the way until March 29 in which case the Brexit timetable would need to be extended by a little to make room for ratification.
During the meeting of the 1922 backbench committee, May said that she would respect the members’ wish that she would not fight the 2022 elections. There was some debate on whether this statement was categorical, some thought it might be. We believe that a successful Brexit deal has the potential to change her position in the party, but for the moment we don’t believe this is a particularly important development, especially since yesterday’s vote has now removed the possibility of another backbench revolt for a year.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13500
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
Beria
I don't know who is writing these "Eurointelligence briefings", but they fundamentally do not understand British politics. The one outcome that is absolutely not going to happen is for May's deal to get through Parliament with that backstop in place. There is absolutely no sign of any emerging compromise, from any side.
There is a strange, stunned atmosphere on social media at the moment. A lot of people have no idea what is going to happen next, but if there's an emerging consensus then it is that the deadlock has got worse and we're heading towards a no deal unless either the DUP or ERG buckles and agree to back an opposition VonC and force a general election.
I don't know who is writing these "Eurointelligence briefings", but they fundamentally do not understand British politics. The one outcome that is absolutely not going to happen is for May's deal to get through Parliament with that backstop in place. There is absolutely no sign of any emerging compromise, from any side.
There is a strange, stunned atmosphere on social media at the moment. A lot of people have no idea what is going to happen next, but if there's an emerging consensus then it is that the deadlock has got worse and we're heading towards a no deal unless either the DUP or ERG buckles and agree to back an opposition VonC and force a general election.
-
Little John
LB, these"Eurointelligence reports" remind me of weather readers who sound full of confidence each day they put the forecast out for the week ahead. But, as each day passes, they subtly change their weekly forecast in the hope nobody notices that, by the end, of the week, what they said at the beginning had little bearing on what finally happens. But, all the while, they try and give the impression they are capable of forecasting future events to a degree far beyond their capacity.
I see exactly the same phenomena with a lot of economic commentators.
I am seeing the same here.
Like the weather, we can say with some confidence what the precise weather is likely to be tomorrow or what it is more or less likely to be in winter as opposed to summer. But, all of the stuff that happens in between those two temporal extremes is speculation. And speculation is fine, so long as it does not puff itself up to try and sound like it is more than speculation.
Everything else is bullshit.
I see exactly the same phenomena with a lot of economic commentators.
I am seeing the same here.
Like the weather, we can say with some confidence what the precise weather is likely to be tomorrow or what it is more or less likely to be in winter as opposed to summer. But, all of the stuff that happens in between those two temporal extremes is speculation. And speculation is fine, so long as it does not puff itself up to try and sound like it is more than speculation.
Everything else is bullshit.
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13500
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
Actually I'll offer another, possibly rather far-out suggestion about what might happen.
I think the UK political system is now completely deadlocked, with no obvious way out. And I think the EU can see this, and is growing increasingly alarmed. The EU has always seen a no-deal outcome as vanishingly unlikely, because it thinks the short-term damage to the UK is likely to be so enormous that no UK government would allow it happen. May has never been serious about letting it happen.
But I don't think the EU foresaw a situation like the one we actually have, where the entire political system is broken in a way which does not permit the GE or referendum that can break the deadlock.
And I think the truth is that a no-deal brexit at this time, with the EU facing a whole raft of political and economic problems elsewhere, is an existential threat to the EU. It's actually much more serious for them than they or most other commentators have let on. This was reflected in the ECJ decision to allow the UK to cancel brexit and remain on current terms, with no fannying around or trying to gain an advantage from it.
It is just possible that if the EU comes to the conclusion that the UK cannot prevent a no-deal brexit, it will make some major concession on the backstop and allow the deal to get through parliament.
I think the UK political system is now completely deadlocked, with no obvious way out. And I think the EU can see this, and is growing increasingly alarmed. The EU has always seen a no-deal outcome as vanishingly unlikely, because it thinks the short-term damage to the UK is likely to be so enormous that no UK government would allow it happen. May has never been serious about letting it happen.
But I don't think the EU foresaw a situation like the one we actually have, where the entire political system is broken in a way which does not permit the GE or referendum that can break the deadlock.
And I think the truth is that a no-deal brexit at this time, with the EU facing a whole raft of political and economic problems elsewhere, is an existential threat to the EU. It's actually much more serious for them than they or most other commentators have let on. This was reflected in the ECJ decision to allow the UK to cancel brexit and remain on current terms, with no fannying around or trying to gain an advantage from it.
It is just possible that if the EU comes to the conclusion that the UK cannot prevent a no-deal brexit, it will make some major concession on the backstop and allow the deal to get through parliament.
A GE will not bring any political change because both parties are just marketing/ppe machines with no principles. Even if jc was Mandella, nothing useful can be achieved. All gov was destroyed by the media, whitehall and the city.UndercoverElephant wrote:Actually I'll offer another, possibly rather far-out suggestion about what might happen.
I think the UK political system is now completely deadlocked, with no obvious way out. And I think the EU can see this, and is growing increasingly alarmed. The EU has always seen a no-deal outcome as vanishingly unlikely, because it thinks the short-term damage to the UK is likely to be so enormous that no UK government would allow it happen. May has never been serious about letting it happen.
But I don't think the EU foresaw a situation like the one we actually have, where the entire political system is broken in a way which does not permit the GE or referendum that can break the deadlock.
And I think the truth is that a no-deal brexit at this time, with the EU facing a whole raft of political and economic problems elsewhere, is an existential threat to the EU. It's actually much more serious for them than they or most other commentators have let on. This was reflected in the ECJ decision to allow the UK to cancel brexit and remain on current terms, with no fannying around or trying to gain an advantage from it.
It is just possible that if the EU comes to the conclusion that the UK cannot prevent a no-deal brexit, it will make some major concession on the backstop and allow the deal to get through parliament.