We will see!
I know the DUP and elements within the parliamentary Tory party are upset about the backstop but I wasn't aware that Labour were so upset by it.
Brexit process
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
Lord Beria3
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 20:57
- Location: Moscow Russia
- Contact:
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13501
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
We are entering the domain of the surreal, Beria. The Guardian currently has her losing by 180 votes:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rexit-deal
Meanwhile, after the letter addressed to the public, she's challenged Corbyn to a live TV debate and is planning a one-woman national tour to promote her deal:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/pr ... t-advisers
She's completely lost the plot. Nobody believes in this deal anymore except for her, and what she's doing to defend it is beyond desperation. It's embarrassing to watch.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rexit-deal
Meanwhile, after the letter addressed to the public, she's challenged Corbyn to a live TV debate and is planning a one-woman national tour to promote her deal:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/pr ... t-advisers
She's completely lost the plot. Nobody believes in this deal anymore except for her, and what she's doing to defend it is beyond desperation. It's embarrassing to watch.
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13501
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13501
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
How about this then:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium-europe
Is she using her now-familiar tactic of "give me X or you get Y" on her own MPs? "Vote for my deal, or it's a general election"???
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium-europe
Sounds insane, but from May's point of view, maybe it isn't. A second referendum will take months to organise, but an election can be called on December 12th for January or February. When her deal fails miserably in Parliament, she'll face demands to resign or call that referendum, but will refuse to do either. So instead of trying to get it through on a second vote, why not call an election instead? Opposition will bite her arm off, so she only needs half her own party to agree to it. If the result of the election is a tory victory, based on a campaign involving a defence of the deal, then her new clutch of MPs will have to vote for it. If Labour wins then it is no longer her or the tories problem. And if it is another hung parliament? No way the tories can continue, because the DUP won't do another deal with them, which means a Corbyn-led minority government has to find a way to deal with the mess.Is May Launching a Stealth Campaign for a Brexit Election?
Is she using her now-familiar tactic of "give me X or you get Y" on her own MPs? "Vote for my deal, or it's a general election"???
I have no idea - but then neither does anyone else. Either she's totally detached from reality (a strong possibility) or she actually does have a clue how parliament are likely to behave at the eleventh hour. Evidence would suggest she's not the most cunning, politically astute operator though... however who knows what her real motivations are in any of this.UndercoverElephant wrote:How?? Or are you being facetious again?clv101 wrote: Indeed - she may get it through!!
Whatever happens, the clock is ticking and we'll find out soon.
-
Lord Beria3
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 20:57
- Location: Moscow Russia
- Contact:
It's interesting.
Political commentators and observers tend to think she has no chance if getting this deal through parliament whether 1st or 2nd go.
City analysts tend to assume that a deal will be agreed, likely early next year, by parliament even if it is rejected first time around.
Somebody is right!!!
Political commentators and observers tend to think she has no chance if getting this deal through parliament whether 1st or 2nd go.
City analysts tend to assume that a deal will be agreed, likely early next year, by parliament even if it is rejected first time around.
Somebody is right!!!
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13501
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
I think maybe you underestimate how important 'power' is to the average Tory MP. With the threat of party splits and a Corbyn government I'd expect pretty much every Tory to support May at the eleventh hour.UndercoverElephant wrote:We might just be about to witness the tory party tear itself to pieces with Corbyn waiting in the wings, ready to dismantle four decades of Thatcherism. I cannot see a way out of for them which is not disastrous.Little John wrote:Oh what a jolly game eh!
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13501
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
The problem with this, for them, is that it doesn't solve their problems. Ultimately it makes them worse, because almost 100 MPs, from all wings of the party, have already said the deal is apocalyptically bad for country. And given that they are right, then if parliament agrees to this deal based almost entirely on tory votes, the tories would be seen to be selling out the future of the UK in order to save their own skins for a relatively short period. Corbyn would win the next election anyway, and the tories will forever be blamed for totally f***ing up a Brexit that they themselves caused in the first place.clv101 wrote:With the threat of party splits and a Corbyn government I'd expect pretty much every Tory to support May at the eleventh hour.
In the medium and long term, supporting May's deal is at least as politically suicidal as not supporting it.
-
careful_eugene
- Posts: 647
- Joined: 26 Jun 2006, 15:39
- Location: Nottingham UK
Yes, this would be really funny if we were watching it unfold in another country.Little John wrote:Oh what a jolly game eh!
For me, the worst part of all of this is the division and bad feeling between people. That won't go away after March regardless of what happens.
Paid up member of the Petite bourgeoisie
-
Lord Beria3
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 20:57
- Location: Moscow Russia
- Contact:
Eurointelligence latest...
What really happens when the Commons vote No
We would like to update to our previous assertion that virtually all Brexit journalism and political commentary is based on a failure to have read Art. 50. Things have moved on. Right now, most of the commentary is based on failing to grasp the difference between the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. If you don’t like Theresa May’s version of the future relationship and prefer an alternative relationship, you should still ratify the withdrawal agreement and try to amendment the political declaration. Or simply accept both, and change the political declaration later as it is not legally binding. But if the withdrawal agreement is rejected, there can be no EEA or customs union afterwards. The political reality is that the EU will not accept any future relationship that is not based on this particular withdrawal treaty.
To know what will happen in case of a no vote it is essential to focus on procedures. We heard LibDem leader Vince Cable last night saying that the House of Commons would simply instruct the prime minister to extend Article 50. For now, there is no majority for such an instruction, though we do not rule out that this might change. The UK government, however, cannot extend Article 50. It can only make a request to the European Council to do so. And the European Council would have to accept the request by unanimity. Just imagine what would happen if Theresa May wrote to the European Council saying that she was instructed to apply for an extension for Article 50 to allow for a future referendum. Do you not think that the European Council would ask her what her own views were on this matter? Would she campaign for staying in the EU? Do you really think the European Council would extend the Brexit deadline given her declared policy?
What about the most extreme Remain scenario of outright revocation? The government has received the following legal advice on this matter.
“For the issue of revocability of the Notice to become live, Parliament must first have directed the Government, against the Government’s settled policy and against the popular answer provided by the Referendum, unilaterally to revoke the Notice. Second, either an EU Member State or the EU Parliament must then object to the United Kingdom’s attempt unilaterally to revoke. Third, all attempts at finding a consensus for revocation must fail, so that the effect of revoking the Notice becomes a live issue. If that stage were reached, any such live issue and dispute would be at the inter-state or EU institutional level. At that time it would fall to be adjudicated by the CJEU in a direct action.�
The parliament’s right to instruct the government is thus accepted in principle. But we see effectively no way for either a referendum or outright revocation without the explicit support of the government, because the UK parliament has no right to instruct the European Council. So what will need to happen first is for the UK parliament to bring about a change in the government. That process, in turn, is regulated by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011. If May herself were to ask for an election, she would require support from two thirds of all MPs as happened in 2017. Alternatively, the parliament can pass a motion of no-confidence in the government with a simple majority. This in turn would trigger a 14-day procedure for an alternative government to be formed. If this fails, new elections ensue. In 2017, the gap between May’s original announcement to seek an election and the elections themselves was approximately 50 days. If the procedure were triggered in December or early January, elections could be held before March 29. We see no problem in the European Council agreeing to a short extension of, say, a few weeks to re-negotiate the political declaration. There is no will, and no time, to re-negotiate the withdrawal treaty itself.
The reason we are pointing to these procedural aspects it that they allow us to rule out certain popular scenarios, like Cable’s naive view of the parliament as the backseat driver, or that the EU will accept an extension to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. We see the following as plausible options - in the sense that they have a probability greater than zero:
1.Parliament approves the withdrawal agreement and political declaration on December 11, the scheduled date.
2.Parliament approves the withdrawal agreement on a second vote after Theresa May secures changes to the political declaration.
3.Parliament fails to approve withdrawal agreement on second vote, no-deal Brexit follows.
4.First-round defeat triggers Tory leadership campaign, and May wins. Back to scenarios 2 or 3.
5.First-round defeat triggers Tory leadership campaign and May loses. A new Tory prime minister takes office in January or February. Back to scenarios 2 or 3.
6.Early elections before Brexit under provisions of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act: this will most likely be a vote between conflicting views of the future relationship (current plan, EEA/Efta, customs union). Winner renegotiates political declaration. Back to scenarios 2 and 3.
7.no-Brexit process: election results in a government that supports a second referendum, backed by a majority of MPs. Government requests Art. 50 extension for up to one year. EU would accept the request. Second referendum is held. Remain wins and Brexit is revoked; otherwise back to options 2 and 3.
This is it. No-Brexit remains an option, but note it would require a very precise sequence of events:
1.defeat of the bill;
2.early elections;
3.Labour victory;
4.change in Labour’s position on Brexit;
5.request and acceptance of Article 50 extension for a second referendum;
6.a majority in favour of Remain.
If the chain breaks in any of the links we are back to scenarios 2 and 3 above: deal vs no-deal.
What really happens when the Commons vote No
We would like to update to our previous assertion that virtually all Brexit journalism and political commentary is based on a failure to have read Art. 50. Things have moved on. Right now, most of the commentary is based on failing to grasp the difference between the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. If you don’t like Theresa May’s version of the future relationship and prefer an alternative relationship, you should still ratify the withdrawal agreement and try to amendment the political declaration. Or simply accept both, and change the political declaration later as it is not legally binding. But if the withdrawal agreement is rejected, there can be no EEA or customs union afterwards. The political reality is that the EU will not accept any future relationship that is not based on this particular withdrawal treaty.
To know what will happen in case of a no vote it is essential to focus on procedures. We heard LibDem leader Vince Cable last night saying that the House of Commons would simply instruct the prime minister to extend Article 50. For now, there is no majority for such an instruction, though we do not rule out that this might change. The UK government, however, cannot extend Article 50. It can only make a request to the European Council to do so. And the European Council would have to accept the request by unanimity. Just imagine what would happen if Theresa May wrote to the European Council saying that she was instructed to apply for an extension for Article 50 to allow for a future referendum. Do you not think that the European Council would ask her what her own views were on this matter? Would she campaign for staying in the EU? Do you really think the European Council would extend the Brexit deadline given her declared policy?
What about the most extreme Remain scenario of outright revocation? The government has received the following legal advice on this matter.
“For the issue of revocability of the Notice to become live, Parliament must first have directed the Government, against the Government’s settled policy and against the popular answer provided by the Referendum, unilaterally to revoke the Notice. Second, either an EU Member State or the EU Parliament must then object to the United Kingdom’s attempt unilaterally to revoke. Third, all attempts at finding a consensus for revocation must fail, so that the effect of revoking the Notice becomes a live issue. If that stage were reached, any such live issue and dispute would be at the inter-state or EU institutional level. At that time it would fall to be adjudicated by the CJEU in a direct action.�
The parliament’s right to instruct the government is thus accepted in principle. But we see effectively no way for either a referendum or outright revocation without the explicit support of the government, because the UK parliament has no right to instruct the European Council. So what will need to happen first is for the UK parliament to bring about a change in the government. That process, in turn, is regulated by the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011. If May herself were to ask for an election, she would require support from two thirds of all MPs as happened in 2017. Alternatively, the parliament can pass a motion of no-confidence in the government with a simple majority. This in turn would trigger a 14-day procedure for an alternative government to be formed. If this fails, new elections ensue. In 2017, the gap between May’s original announcement to seek an election and the elections themselves was approximately 50 days. If the procedure were triggered in December or early January, elections could be held before March 29. We see no problem in the European Council agreeing to a short extension of, say, a few weeks to re-negotiate the political declaration. There is no will, and no time, to re-negotiate the withdrawal treaty itself.
The reason we are pointing to these procedural aspects it that they allow us to rule out certain popular scenarios, like Cable’s naive view of the parliament as the backseat driver, or that the EU will accept an extension to renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. We see the following as plausible options - in the sense that they have a probability greater than zero:
1.Parliament approves the withdrawal agreement and political declaration on December 11, the scheduled date.
2.Parliament approves the withdrawal agreement on a second vote after Theresa May secures changes to the political declaration.
3.Parliament fails to approve withdrawal agreement on second vote, no-deal Brexit follows.
4.First-round defeat triggers Tory leadership campaign, and May wins. Back to scenarios 2 or 3.
5.First-round defeat triggers Tory leadership campaign and May loses. A new Tory prime minister takes office in January or February. Back to scenarios 2 or 3.
6.Early elections before Brexit under provisions of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act: this will most likely be a vote between conflicting views of the future relationship (current plan, EEA/Efta, customs union). Winner renegotiates political declaration. Back to scenarios 2 and 3.
7.no-Brexit process: election results in a government that supports a second referendum, backed by a majority of MPs. Government requests Art. 50 extension for up to one year. EU would accept the request. Second referendum is held. Remain wins and Brexit is revoked; otherwise back to options 2 and 3.
This is it. No-Brexit remains an option, but note it would require a very precise sequence of events:
1.defeat of the bill;
2.early elections;
3.Labour victory;
4.change in Labour’s position on Brexit;
5.request and acceptance of Article 50 extension for a second referendum;
6.a majority in favour of Remain.
If the chain breaks in any of the links we are back to scenarios 2 and 3 above: deal vs no-deal.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
Yes, and it's only going to get worse once the economic impacts start kicking in...careful_eugene wrote:Yes, this would be really funny if we were watching it unfold in another country.Little John wrote:Oh what a jolly game eh!
For me, the worst part of all of this is the division and bad feeling between people. That won't go away after March regardless of what happens.
Ironically, the majority of the impact will be felt by the ones at the bottom of the pile - the ones who predominantly voted for it...
Will the blame go to David Cameron for opening the can of worms ?
Or will the blame be directed at 'Vote Leave' for raising unrealistic expectations ?
Or will Mrs May take the brunt of it....?
Or will it be a great success ?
Only history will tell us.
-
woodburner
- Posts: 4124
- Joined: 06 Apr 2009, 22:45
I don’t see either way will make much difference. The worst off will always get the worst deal, the rich won’t care, and some will get richer. I don’t see why you say leave voters will be at the bottom of the pile, that is not relevant. The economy of the west has been teetering on the cliff edge for years, and I can’t understand why it has not fallen over before now. Being in the EU or not will make little difference. The US is not in the EU, but it has unsustainable debt.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein