Monday 17 December 2018

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 6:56 am

Morning all

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 6:57 am

May on trust:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 85916.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“Another vote which would do irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics, because it would say to millions who trusted in democracy, that our democracy does not deliver.

Who or what exactly are these millions she refers to?

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 6:58 am

The millions who allegedly trust in our democracy I mean.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 7:16 am

Good-morning, everyone

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 7:18 am

Full speech: Sir Ivan Rogers on Brexit
Published: December 13, 2018

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13 ... on-brexit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We've likely had this already
I've just read it

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 7:21 am

X

Piece of piss.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 7:22 am

X

Just in case there is another one.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 7:23 am

"It is, in the end, the total absence of a serious realistic plan for the process of Brexit as well as a serious coherent conception of a post Brexit destination, which has delivered this denouement to stage 1 of what will be, whether Brexit proponents like it or not, a much longer process.

For the next stage, we need much less self-absorption, a vastly clearer, less self-deceiving understanding of the incentives on the other side of the table, and a less passive approach to the construction of the process. We need serious substance not plausible bullshit.
---
...I thought the days when we had persuaded ourselves that we would win a tournament if we could just exhibit more “passion” than the opponents had gone. It really helps, in a negotiation, actually to know what you are doing and be stone cold sober about the real interests of the other players."

- Sir Ivan Rogers
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13 ... on-brexit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 7:26 am

Managed to leave the eighth Toffee Crisp until later.I am in awe of my self control.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 7:27 am

You have to buy more than one multi pack by law.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 7:28 am

It's now later.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 7:29 am

"My real objection is to the style of argument espoused both by the pro “no deal” Right and by Downing Street which says that no other model but their own is a potentially legitimate interpretation of the Will of the People – which evidently only they can properly discern."

-Sir Ivan Rogers

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 7:30 am

HindleA wrote:Managed to leave the eighth Toffee Crisp until later.I am in awe of my self control.

That sounds tasty

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 7:30 am

I need some breakfast

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 7:36 am

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46586603" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HS2 likely to be over-budget because they haven't calculated the costs of compulsory purchase correctly.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 7:46 am

"For all the imperfections of the Single Market, services trade between Member States is, in many sectors, freer than it is between the federal states of the US, or the states in Canada. The US Government is unable, even if it were willing, to deliver on commitments in many areas in international negotiations, just as it cannot bind its states on government procurement, on which many federal states are as protectionist as it gets."

-Ivan Rogers

good point
he's right

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 8:15 am

tinyclanger2 wrote:May on trust:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 85916.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“Another vote which would do irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics, because it would say to millions who trusted in democracy, that our democracy does not deliver.
Who or what exactly are these millions she refers to?

"You can’t possibly run one of the largest and most complex trade negotiations on the planet, and leave most supposed insiders, let alone a much wider public, in the dark about the extremely difficult choices we shall face.
---
...real honesty with the public is the best – the only – policy if we are to get to the other side of Brexit with a healthy democracy, a reasonably unified country and a healthy economy.
---
...we got sophistry, evasions, euphemisms and sometimes straight denials at home, whilst in the EU, the PM and senior Ministers several times appeared to be backsliding on clear commitments as soon as they saw draft legal texts giving effect to agreements they had struck...
---
...the whole conduct of the negotiation has further burned through trust in the political class."

- Rogers

Post by **adam** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 8:20 am

HindleA wrote:Managed to leave the eighth Toffee Crisp until later.I am in awe of my self control.

Are they the honeycomb ones? I could never have left the eighth of them.

More tales of the unexpected...

Online fashion store Asos has rocked the UK retail sector by issuing a profits warning, and warning that trading has taken a nasty plunge in the run-up to Christmas.

City traders are predicting that Asos’s shares will tumble by 15% to 20% when trading begins, in under half an hour.

Shares in Asos have plunged by 35% at the start of trading in London.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 8:26 am

“Once inside a Cotswold garden stood a Bijou shepherd’s shed
On a daybed lay a posh bloke with a condom on his head
Deep outside the shit lay piled
David Cameron proudly smiled”

Steve Bell
17 December 2018

Steve Bell’s If ... proud David Cameron relaxes in his shed

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-his-shed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 8:49 am

adam wrote:
HindleA wrote:Managed to leave the eighth Toffee Crisp until later.I am in awe of my self control.
Are they the honeycomb ones? I could never have left the eighth of them.

More tales of the unexpected...

Online fashion store Asos has rocked the UK retail sector by issuing a profits warning, and warning that trading has taken a nasty plunge in the run-up to Christmas.

City traders are predicting that Asos’s shares will tumble by 15% to 20% when trading begins, in under half an hour.

Shares in Asos have plunged by 35% at the start of trading in London.

I'm sincerely sorry
I've something to share related to this news
the citizen household's energy, water and other household essential costs have increased but thus far, wages have not
one of the consequences of this fiscal constraint meant we didn't purchase anything from Asos

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 8:58 am

An exchange from Twitter

Andrew Adonis
This isn’t happening. Norway Plus is even worse than Mrs May’s deal & won’t fly. The only sensible idea out there now Nicky is a people’s vote with an option to Remain
Nicky Morgan MP
To be clear I do not think a second referendum is a sensible idea at all and it is not what I’m working for - the consensus that needs to be built in Parliament can only be around Norway Plus - and proper cross party discussions should open sooner rather than later
@PaulfrYorkshire
Replying to @Andrew_Adonis
But at least @NickyMorgan01 is exploring the idea of consensus.
She deserves a hearing.
Are we sure repeated referendums between extreme positions will get us out of this mess?

Andrew Adonis
Remain is hardly an ‘extreme position’

@PaulfrYorkshire
Remain without reform is by definition an extreme position in this debate.
It may not feel so to you and me, but we should try and understand how it looks to those who don't have a sense of belonging in the EU.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 10:35 am

Good morning

We are currently in a period of many opinions and the papers are full of potential scenarios but none of them look that realistic or plausible to me.

I have come up with my own view of what I would hope could happen to see what people think and to criticise as required. There are two assumptions - there is definitely a change of PM and probably would need a GE before March 29th. That is a big assumption and if it diooesn't happen then ignore it. the second is that A50 is unilaterally revocable until the end of a transition

This is what I would like to see

Vote of no confidence in Government
General election with Labour able to form the Government
Labour accept the current WA as the exit document but declare that they will not invoke the backstop - if no deal ready then will ask for transition period to be extended
Tear up the political declaration and start renegotiating the desired future state
Leave on March 29th
Set up a cross-party 'Future State Negotiating Team' headed up be Keir Starmer and reporting directly to Parliament. Mandate to negotiate something based on the 6 Labour tests
If necessary prolong transition - very likely to be honest
If deal can be done then sign it. If deal cannot be done then propose revocation of A50 and remain with verification by referendum against whatever deal is available at the time

I will explain my workings

Time is very short and it is difficult to see us fitting everything in before March 29th and delaying the deadline may be feasible but again unlikely. The WA is flawed but the biggest issue is that the future state and that could be torn up without affecting the WA itself and so avoid annoying the EU too much. The backstop could be neutralised by extension of the transition and there could be a strong political commitment to a deal that would remove any need for new hard borders. The political agreement can then be rediscussed with a new focus.

The idea of a new referendum now is popular with some people but not convinced it will actually decide anything and will not move us on

For the future state we need to have a credible negotiating team involving more than the Government and it should report to Parliament so that it is relatively outside party politics. Starmer seems the obvious one to lead it. This would have a fixed time to deliver. Ideally 2 years but may be longer

Any deal would meet some defined criteria - based on Labour's tests perhaps - with an option to revoke A50 if that cannot be achieved. The revocation would likely need ratification by a referendum to be considered legitimate

There are some flaws in the - to get a change in Government it may require a vote against May's deal but then a resurrection of a part of it. I am not sure if this would work politically. Actually, all this could be done by the Tories as well but I don't think they would. There may be some legal diffculties I have completely ignored out of ignorance and it would require some compromise on all sides - we should look to remove the tribal politics out of this.

The time to have the negotations is very optimistic and so the proposal for how that would work may not be realistic but it could be a way to sneak in a revocation after a time of 3 years including a transition extension

I am a firm believer the EU wiould respond more positively if we actually 'left' on March 29th in a managed way rather than prevaricating. It would also probably prefer a more professional approach to the negotiations and a cross-party parliamentary dimension as well. I am sure they have learnt that May's opaque approach to things does not work.

The one thing we have over them is the ECJ ruling on revocation - without that we would be left hanging but they know that we can do that and so opens up some possibilities that could be exploited ethically

Post by **adam** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 10:47 am

This sounds much more confrontational than I mean it too, I know, but even though I understand it is the economically least damaging option, I think it is politically absurd to actively promote the idea of some kind of 'Norway' deal (aside from the fact that it seems very clear that EEA/EFTA membership is not available too us) when the effect of that would be to actively damage our sovereignty in a way that EU membership never has. I (think) I have been slow to talk about further referenda because I don't think it's a good idea to just think that we can go back and have another go, but the point becomes when we know what the situation actually is - when this is the actual end point - then there is a good reason to go back and say 'this is what leaving means - becoming a rule taker without a say and still taking something of an economic hit' and pointing out that this is so clearly and obviously worse than where we are now that it makes no sense at all to go ahead without considering that maybe leaving simply isn't worth it.

I'm very aware that the outcome of a further referendum could be to leave however/whatever/ at the most damaging end of things - and if people have the chance to vote for that and they vote for it then that's what we do. We'll be back on bended knee begging for a change in very little time. I think it would probably also be extremely damaging to go forward to a public vote offering a choice between a deal parliament had rejected or remain - i think you would have to have some kind of other leave option, however ridiculous.

I also think - and I know that nobody knows anything here, this is just opinion - but I also think that one thing the last week or so has demonstrated again is how hugely unlikely it is that the government would lose a confidence vote in the commons. After 2017, I do not believe that the tories will risk throwing away power when they don't need to. The only way they could reasonably lose a confidence vote is if May's deal goes through - because then the DUP have indicated they would abandon her, but the only way it will go through will be if the opposition support it. That seems machiavellian in the extreme.

Post by **adam** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 10:53 am

If I was a leave campaigner trying to sort this out, I would be promoting the idea of a NI referendum on May's deal - because at every other stage of devolution we've asked the region/nation to vote on it, not the whole UK. So the argument would go that as May's deal runs an enormous risk of breaking NI away from the trading relationships of the rest of the UK, it shouldn't happen unless they vote to do so, but they should be given the opportunity to do so. Aside from that Parliament can sort it out. If NI voted yes then I suspect she would carry parliament.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 10:56 am

@adam

I think there is some deliberate confusion in the media about Norway plus. I think when Nicky Morgan uses it she means to have our own agreement that looks something like a Norway arrangement. The Norway won't let us argument is (and now I'm sounding confrontational) a bit facile!

So, what about my proposal of an interim Norway Plus (that doesn't mean being in the same organisation as Norway) for a few years to be followed by a "Peoples Vote" to leave properly or stay in whatever the EU has become? I think a lot of the objections to Norway plus would be easier to deal with if it were time limited (cf. backstop), but it would avoid us going straight to a potentially damaging second referendum now.

For me, something has to shift. Remain as a status quo we voted to leave over two years ago just doesn't feel like a winning team to me.... Which is why my other proposal is May's Deal vs. Remain & Reform on the referendum, with some clearly defined reforms we hope to achieve and that appear achievable.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 11:01 am

Sorry I'll stop at some point, but the other thing is that May must be made to bring the Meaningful Vote back to the House.

The Benn amendment was all set to pass that would have outlawed No Deal. That surely would have been a prize worth winning and at least rule out one scenario?

Post by **adam** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 11:03 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:@adam

I think there is some deliberate confusion in the media about Norway plus. I think when Nicky Morgan uses it she means to have our own agreement that looks something like a Norway arrangement. The Norway won't let us argument is (and now I'm sounding confrontational) a bit facile!

So, what about my proposal of an interim Norway Plus (that doesn't mean being in the same organisation as Norway) for a few years to be followed by a "Peoples Vote" to leave properly or stay in whatever the EU has become? I think a lot of the objections to Norway plus would be easier to deal with if it were time limited (cf. backstop), but it would avoid us going straight to a potentially damaging second referendum now.

For me, something has to shift. Remain as a status quo we voted to leave over two years ago just doesn't feel like a winning team to me.... Which is why my other proposal is May's Deal vs. Remain & Reform on the referendum, with some clearly defined reforms we hope to achieve and that appear achievable.

I take the point about Norway - I think there is a small level of relevance here because we're talking about something bespoke rather than something that's already there which makes it more complicated but you have a very good point. I suppose that it it was a question of joining then we'd effectively have some kind of 'bespoke' status decided in those negotiations anyway.

The issue with remain and reform is that this means leaving and waiting, and I don't believe - partly just generally but specifically because of how the UK government have behaved for the last year or two - that a semi-detached or detached UK are going to get a seat at the table dealing with these reforms. I am generalising now, I know, and it's possible that if we'd announced this as the big idea 18 months ago it might have been very different, but it feels very much like if we start saying to the EU states 'we're leaving but we need to be part of the discussions about what you could now do to make us stay' they will say 'No' and if we say 'we're leaving but please can you consider these things amongst yourselves because they might make us stay' they will say 'No'.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 11:07 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:@adam

I think there is some deliberate confusion in the media about Norway plus. I think when Nicky Morgan uses it she means to have our own agreement that looks something like a Norway arrangement. The Norway won't let us argument is (and now I'm sounding confrontational) a bit facile!

So, what about my proposal of an interim Norway Plus (that doesn't mean being in the same organisation as Norway) for a few years to be followed by a "Peoples Vote" to leave properly or stay in whatever the EU has become? I think a lot of the objections to Norway plus would be easier to deal with if it were time limited (cf. backstop), but it would avoid us going straight to a potentially damaging second referendum now.

For me, something has to shift. Remain as a status quo we voted to leave over two years ago just doesn't feel like a winning team to me.... Which is why my other proposal is May's Deal vs. Remain & Reform on the referendum, with some clearly defined reforms we hope to achieve and that appear achievable.

Paul

How does this work?

The transistion period is on current terms and the future state would only kick in at the end of whatever transition period. Once that new deal is signed then we are out and the 'leave properly' question becomes moot.

As far as I can see there is no time for us to test the deal we come to and then decide if we like it or not. Have I misunderstood?

I can see a referendum on the final deal itself being arguably a good idea but only if the rejection of it led to the possibility of revocation of A50 which would require it to be done before the end of the transition or any extension.

I do like this Remain and Reform tagline though - it would give some strength to the argument to remain from the left

I remember arguing on here ages back that this whiole concept of the SM as a singkle entity that you join was a flawed one and it seems that we are now seeing this with all this different ways being proposed to interaxct with it - inside or outside of the EEA. The more I have come to look though I cannot see any deal with limits economic damage but maintains sovereignty - we have to give up one or the other and it will be worse than we have now.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 11:09 am

adam wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:@adam

I think there is some deliberate confusion in the media about Norway plus. I think when Nicky Morgan uses it she means to have our own agreement that looks something like a Norway arrangement. The Norway won't let us argument is (and now I'm sounding confrontational) a bit facile!

So, what about my proposal of an interim Norway Plus (that doesn't mean being in the same organisation as Norway) for a few years to be followed by a "Peoples Vote" to leave properly or stay in whatever the EU has become? I think a lot of the objections to Norway plus would be easier to deal with if it were time limited (cf. backstop), but it would avoid us going straight to a potentially damaging second referendum now.

For me, something has to shift. Remain as a status quo we voted to leave over two years ago just doesn't feel like a winning team to me.... Which is why my other proposal is May's Deal vs. Remain & Reform on the referendum, with some clearly defined reforms we hope to achieve and that appear achievable.
I take the point about Norway - I think there is a small level of relevance here because we're talking about something bespoke rather than something that's already there which makes it more complicated but you have a very good point. I suppose that it it was a question of joining then we'd effectively have some kind of 'bespoke' status decided in those negotiations anyway.

The issue with remain and reform is that this means leaving and waiting, and I don't believe - partly just generally but specifically because of how the UK government have behaved for the last year or two - that a semi-detached or detached UK are going to get a seat at the table dealing with these reforms. I am generalising now, I know, and it's possible that if we'd announced this as the big idea 18 months ago it might have been very different, but it feels very much like if we start saying to the EU states 'we're leaving but we need to be part of the discussions about what you could now do to make us stay' they will say 'No' and if we say 'we're leaving but please can you consider these things amongst yourselves because they might make us stay' they will say 'No'.

Thanks.

I was thinking that the campaigners for remain & reform would have some backing from the EU27 before the Referendum, so the options for Reform were explicit. For example, and controversially, the possibility of a new deal on freedom of movement.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 11:12 am

@hsom
Once we're in transition the A50 period is over and revocation off the table, sadly.
We'd have to apply to rejoin.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 11:14 am

@howsilly

I don't know how it works. But we, the people, should be able to describe the shape of things that we want and let the politicians and lawyers sort it out. It doesn't seem an impossibility to me that we could temporarily become Norwayish to allow a period of calm and reflection. I'm no cheerleader for Nicky Morgan but she is trying to look for consensus and, as I said to Adonis, I don't think she should be dismissed with the contempt he showed her.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 11:40 am

gilsey wrote:@hsom
Once we're in transition the A50 period is over and revocation off the table, sadly.
We'd have to apply to rejoin.

Just looked back. You are right...apologies

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 11:51 am

Morning all.

Well, who'd have thunk it - if you account for student loans the same way that companies treat debts likely to be doubtful, you end up adding to the current deficit!

Student loan change adds £12bn to deficit

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-46591500

A change in how student loans are recorded in the public finances will add £12bn to the deficit, after an Office for National Statistics ruling.

The amount expected not to be repaid, which could be 45% of lending, will now be reported as public spending.

Student lending will now significantly push up the deficit - providing an incentive to cut tuition fees.

The government said the change would be taken into account by the tuition fees review, due to report early next year.

Labour's shadow education secretary, Angela Rayner, said the ruling proved that the "student loans system is a fiscal illusion which flatters the government's record".

The decision by the statistics agency tackles an anomaly in which the cost of lending to students has been missing from the public finances.

I'm only surprised that it's taken the ONS this long to realise the implications of a rising %age likely to be written off.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 12:39 pm

You can say that again, howsilly

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 12:46 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:You can say that again, howsilly

Haha.

On mobile and can't find how to delete. If PfY or Dan would be so kind

Post by **refitman** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 1:31 pm

howsillyofme1 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:You can say that again, howsilly
Haha.

On mobile and can't find how to delete. If PfY or Dan would be so kind

Sorted

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 2:01 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Sorry I'll stop at some point, but the other thing is that May must be made to bring the Meaningful Vote back to the House.

The Benn amendment was all set to pass that would have outlawed No Deal. That surely would have been a prize worth winning and at least rule out one scenario?

If May failed to negotiate a deal, I believe legislation passed in the withdrawal act compelled her to make a statement to the house by 21 Jan 2019. If she did negotiate a deal but it was rejected by parliament she had 21 days to make a statement to the house and the recent Grieve amendment meant parliament would then have a say.

However, what I'm not sure of is what happens if she has a deal but doesn't present it to the house. Does by 21 Jan still stand? Or can she delay beyond? Will the Grieve amendment still apply if/when it finally does come to the house or will the Grieve amendment need to be passed again along with new schedules?

What is clear is that this delay is absolutely unacceptable. I shall be very disappointed if Parliament allows May to go into Christmas recess without holding a vote on the withdrawal agreement. The negotiation has ended, May has a deal, she needs to present her deal to parliament, no excuses. If she doesn't and parliament fails to find a way to hold her to account, it does not bode well for the future of our representative democracy.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 2:05 pm

Willow904 wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Sorry I'll stop at some point, but the other thing is that May must be made to bring the Meaningful Vote back to the House.

The Benn amendment was all set to pass that would have outlawed No Deal. That surely would have been a prize worth winning and at least rule out one scenario?
If May failed to negotiate a deal, I believe legislation passed in the withdrawal act compelled her to make a statement to the house by 21 Jan 2019. If she did negotiate a deal but it was rejected by parliament she had 21 days to make a statement to the house and the recent Grieve amendment meant parliament would then have a say.

However, what I'm not sure of is what happens if she has a deal but doesn't present it to the house. Does by 21 Jan still stand? Or can she delay beyond? Will the Grieve amendment still apply if/when it finally does come to the house or will the Grieve amendment need to be passed again along with new schedules?

What is clear is that this delay is absolutely unacceptable. I shall be very disappointed if Parliament allows May to go into Christmas recess without holding a vote on the withdrawal agreement. The negotiation has ended, May has a deal, she needs to present her deal to parliament, no excuses. If she doesn't and parliament fails to find a way to hold her to account, it does not bode well for the future of our representative democracy.

I think that is what Yvette Cooper was trying to clarify, but I don't know how far she got!

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 2:20 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:The millions who allegedly trust in our democracy I mean.

Well, when you put it like *that* one can see the problem

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 2:26 pm

From the G:

Downing Street said there would be an announcement “shortly” about how an extra £2bn will be allocated for no-deal Brexit planning

But we have a deal!!!!

FFS.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 3:22 pm

So, Labour's next ploy.

Ask May to bring the WA back to the House immediately or they will table a no confidence vote in her.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 3:28 pm

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

@HenryNewman
Follow Follow @HenryNewman
More
I understand why some are pushing an indicative vote but I think it's misguided & messy

The best thing is head off for a Christmas break & encourage MPs to spend the time thinking carefully

Meanwhile reports of the death of May's deal are greatly exaggerated

A thread

Interesting twitter thread to sit alongside the above about "no deal" preparations. May raises the spectre of "no deal" while slowly working on her backbenchers to accept the deal. Her deal or no deal remains the plan and delay allows her more time to sell it. Of course, she's had a whole year to sell it, because the bare bones were essentially already agreed, but I guess it's only now she's faced off a leadership challenge she can confidently push her real deal instead of pretending she's signed up to nothing of the sort to prevent being ousted by the hard Brexiteers.

Plus this:

@HenryNewman
2h2 hours ago
More
Labour's laughable Brexit policy if it has any coherence at all is still premised on accepting a backstop - said @JennyChapman

And if you're going to do that you are basically looking at something very close to May's deal with extra promises in the Political Declaration

I wouldn't call Labour's Brexit policy laughable, but I do struggle to see how it would produce something substantively different to May's deal at this point of the process. Which means Labour are really objecting to May rather than her actual deal. Which is fair enough and I get why they don't want to help her get it through parliament, but if by rejecting it we end up crashing out with no deal, I feel it's harder to justify that when the withdrawal deal itself isn't really the issue but the future relationship. Which is another way of saying I don't really understand why anyone other than those who want to stop Brexit completely or those who don't care about the damage they do to the country, would reject this deal. The deal secures transition but sets nothing in stone. Even if May negotiates a horrible future relationship it should still be possible to stop or reverse it. The damage from crashing out will be harder to repair, imo. I know that we could face another cliff edge at the end of transition but two years is a long time in which to wilfully ignore reality. The DUP are already having to face up to what the Brexit they campaigned for will actually mean for NI rather than what they would like it to mean.

Ultimately, we decided to leave the EU when parliament gave May permission to trigger article 50. That is why, however horrible the withdrawal agreement may appear, we have so few genuine options other than accept it. Because, in a way, we already have, by deciding to leave the EU.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 3:40 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:So, Labour's next ploy.

Ask May to bring the WA back to the House immediately or they will table a no confidence vote in her.

I'm not sure I see the point.

She's been a lame duck PM since she lost her majority. If she hasn't been humiliated into resignation by her own backbenchers I can't see her being overly bothered by the opposition's poor opinion of her.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 3:45 pm

two years is a long time in which to wilfully ignore reality

It's less than ~~twice what~~ we've had already.
This morning I had the TV on for a few short periods and I saw John Whittingdale on Sky, Andrew Bridgen on BBC24 and Tim Martin on (I think) BBC2, all still wilfully ignoring reality.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 3:47 pm

May says MPs will vote on Brexit deal in week beginning Monday 14 January

Operation "wear them down" commences.

I'm sure May's well known charm and wit will win everyone round.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 3:53 pm

gilsey wrote:
two years is a long time in which to wilfully ignore reality
It's less than twice what we've had already.
This morning I had the TV on for a few short periods and I saw John Whittingdale on Sky, Andrew Bridgen on BBC24 and Tim Martin on (I think) BBC2, all still wilfully ignoring reality.

Just thought I'd try optimism for a change

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 4:28 pm

Willow904 wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:So, Labour's next ploy.

Ask May to bring the WA back to the House immediately or they will table a no confidence vote in her.
I'm not sure I see the point.

She's been a lame duck PM since she lost her majority. If she hasn't been humiliated into resignation by her own backbenchers I can't see her being overly bothered by the opposition's poor opinion of her.

The "point" is only symbolic admittedly, but if this is passed with the help of unhappy DUP and Tory MPs its quite a powerful symbolism.

The difference now with previously is that many on all sides are coming to think that she treats parliament with contempt.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 4:51 pm

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory Brexiter, congratulated May on winning the no confidence vote last week. He says she know how has his confidence. (That is not what he said the morning after, when he told the Today programme that, even though she won, she should still resign.) He says a second referendum would be a “losers’ vote”, and would encourage the Scottish nationalists to hold a second independence referendum.

May agrees, and thanks him for his supportive comment.

Looks like all the second referendum talk is doing its job of spooking the leavers. And "no deal" is clearly being used to blackmail the remainers. Not sure how she wins over the DUP, though.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 5:19 pm

Did he say he would now vote for her deal?

Without that, supportive words (even cloyingly so) don't really have that much meaning.

Post by **refitman** » Mon 17 Dec, 2018 6:26 pm

Corbyn announces he is tabling a motion of no confidence in Theresa May personally

The statement is now over. Jeremy Corbyn rises to make a point of order. He says putting off the vote until January is unacceptable. He says he will table a motion saying the House has no confidence in the PM because of May’s failure to hold a meaningful vote immediately.

PS. PTO