Thursday 17th January 2019
Posted: Thu 17 Jan, 2019 7:04 am
Morning all.
Inbred Lawson in a muddle (7,5).Willow904 wrote:Morning.
Government minister being interviewed on R4 this morning (sorry, don't know who, I wasn't entirely awake) getting a really hard time over May's apparent intractability. He wasn't able to offer any areas of compromise at all. The idea of not being able to do independent trade deals if we were in a customs union came up a lot as "not delivering Brexit".
Signs at the moment are that she's simply going to come back to Parliament with the same deal until the clock runs out. If she does ever shift position my money would be on a further referendum. If parliament wants a soft Brexit they're going to have to find a way to do it without her, I suspect.
(cJA edit)adam wrote:I'm not certain but as I understand it the DUP would be perfectly happy to leave with no deal, perfectly happy for the Good Friday Agreement to fall.
---
(cJA edit)adam wrote:---
The one 'political' mis-step I think Corbyn made is that he gifted one response to his detractors by saying 'no talks until you take no deal off the table' - this is the man who always insisted it was right to talk to anyone (except the right wouldn't say 'anyone' they would say 'IRA Murderers') without any preconditions, but he won't keep to the same standards for this crisis.
That means she's unwilling to discuss alternativesPrime minister invites party leaders to discuss alternative deal but sticks to red lines
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... xit-defeat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I think he was absolutely right to deal with this now this way - and for what it's worth I think he was right about talking to people before, he was only saying in public what the conservative government were doing in secret.citizenJA wrote:(cJA edit)adam wrote:---
The one 'political' mis-step I think Corbyn made is that he gifted one response to his detractors by saying 'no talks until you take no deal off the table' - this is the man who always insisted it was right to talk to anyone (except the right wouldn't say 'anyone' they would say 'IRA Murderers') without any preconditions, but he won't keep to the same standards for this crisis.
You may be right but do the circumstances and job description make this an appropriate comparison? Sincere question. I don't know.
Yes. I think it's fairly obvious already that when May saidcitizenJA wrote:When someone tells you do something and won't accept no in response, it's not a request, it's a demand.
what she meant was“I’m inviting MPs from all parties to come together to find a way forward, one that both delivers on the referendum and can command the support of parliament. This is now the time to put self-interest aside.”
This is the deal. I am not prepared to compromise or change my mind about anything. You need to come and tell me that you agree with me.
Japanese giant unable to agree deal with UK as fears grow for Anglesey atomic plant. The £16bn Wylfa plant on Anglesey was meant to be the next in a line of new nuclear plants behind Hinkley Point C but the Japanese conglomerate has been unable to agree a deal with the UK government. With costs mounting and nearly £2bn spent on the project, a Hitachi board meeting pulled the plug on Thursday. The decision is a serious blow to the government’s energy strategy and hopes of attracting major investments post-Brexit.
Say the Lib Dems. Who up until now have been ridiculing Corbyn for not pursuing unwinnable no confidence votes.“We will not be party to Corbyn using spurious means to avoid Labour policy, by pursuing unwinnable no confidence votes.”
A single market solution, either with CU or with a comprehensive FTA, is the only thing that resolves the issue of the Irish border. It's the only way we can meet the commitments we made in December 2017. My issue with this (which I've said before including yesterday and which you responded to yesterday, I know) is that I think there are real problems in choosing 'leaving' but functionally remaining within all of the regulatory structures without a say over just remaining.Willow904 wrote:As you know, I favour a SM solution, so this is what I think could happen rather than what I particularly want, especially as delaying article 50 long enough to hold a referendum will be difficult.
It's not in May's gift to take no deal off the table so Corbyn's demand isn't a genuine prerequisite to talks but a device to avoid engaging while making May look like the one unwilling to engage. Which is actually the case, as the Libdems and Greens have now discovered.citizenJA wrote:(cJA edit)adam wrote:---
The one 'political' mis-step I think Corbyn made is that he gifted one response to his detractors by saying 'no talks until you take no deal off the table' - this is the man who always insisted it was right to talk to anyone (except the right wouldn't say 'anyone' they would say 'IRA Murderers') without any preconditions, but he won't keep to the same standards for this crisis.
You may be right but do the circumstances and job description make this an appropriate comparison? Sincere question. I don't know.
Good point well made!adam wrote:Another reason May can't afford to stop giving in to her hardliners - in May she is defending the May 2015 local council elections - where off the back of a very unexpected general election win on the same day the Tories did well, gaining nearly 500 seats. If she's going to break her party then either she can't afford to break it before May OR she needs to break it against the more remain minded who are a significant minority amongst the tory party in the country.
He says he did meet the PM in December. They agreed five days of debate, and a vote on 11 December. But then May cancelled the vote.
But.....but......all the SENSIBLE PUNDITS assured us last night that Corbyn was stupid for doing so!!RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.
Heard on the news that Vince Cable and Caroline Lucas are calling on the PM to take No-deal off the table too...
Mike's my local MP and I've met him a few time through school events and he's a nice guy...but No Deal is a sign of failure.Labour MP Mike Gapes - who is a critic of Jeremy Corbyn - said the leader's decision not to meet Theresa May for talks unless she rules out a no-deal Brexit is wrong.
Mr Gapes told the BBC Radio 4's World at One programme: "He's been quite happy in the past to meet with Hamas and Hezbollah and President Assad and the Iranians without pre-conditions.
"I can't see why he has this pre-condition. He can then go in and argue robustly against the no-deal and set out his position and she can set out her position.
"But unless we get dialogue across Parliament and across government and opposition, we are not going to get out of this national crisis."
She'd have to pretend to be trying to reach some kind of compromise if she did that.PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.
Would it not be at least an idea for Theresa May to at least try to hold at least some meetings with different factions in at least one gathering - rather than at least separating them out?
Though having those elections just weeks after the inevitable total chaos of no-deal wouldn't exactly be ideal either?adam wrote:Another reason May can't afford to stop giving in to her hardliners - in May she is defending the May 2015 local council elections - where off the back of a very unexpected general election win on the same day the Tories did well, gaining nearly 500 seats. If she's going to break her party then either she can't afford to break it before May OR she needs to break it against the more remain minded who are a significant minority amongst the tory party in the country.
Welcome.PorFavor wrote:At least one too many "at least"s in my post, above. Hence the edit. Thanks, adam, for making it all worthwhile!
Yes - but she's, for whatever the reason, perpetuating the perception\reality that she's really got no plan, and is saying different things to different people.adam wrote:She'd have to pretend to be trying to reach some kind of compromise if she did that.PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.
Would it not be at least an idea for Theresa May to at least try to hold at least some meetings with different factions in at least one gathering - rather than at least separating them out?
This really does seem to be the most god-awful waste of everybody's time. I wasn't sure about the idea of indicative votes but I think it's a sensible way forward now. She will doubtless insist on voting for her rejected deal again as part of it but it would give some heft to the people on the tory benches who are going to have to break ranks to pass some kind of alternative.
Pretty sure there was a Sir Humphrey maxim of "If they're not doing anything, then at least they're not doing anything wrong..."PorFavor wrote: Meanwhile, the business of vital day-to-day government is grinding to a halt.
Edited to add -
Although, under the current Government, that may not be a wholly bad thing!
Why do you say she can't rule it out? As I understand it she's the one who can revoke A50. Do you think she couldn't win a vote in Parliament on that on March 27?AnatolyKasparov wrote:Re the above comment by Willow - yes, our PM cannot unilaterally rule out "no deal" in a legal sense. But she could make clear it was off the table POLITICALLY speaking.
The two are not actually the same (something "legal Twitter" often seems to have problems with)
let's sack them and hire competent representativesHindleA wrote:Far more the case that we have simple politicians bemoaning complexity ie real life/situations.
DAG seems to think she might not even need that.AnatolyKasparov wrote:Well, in the sense that would need parliament's approval she can't do it unilaterally. But point taken
David Allen Green
@davidallengreen
Follow Follow @davidallengreen
More David Allen Green Retweeted David Davies
Many lawyers say that Article 50 revocation would need primary legislation.
In a minority, I would contend that the power to revoke is implicit in the Act providing the PM with the power to notify.
1m ago 16:27
Holding second referendum would take a year, No 10 claims
That does seem rather long. A report from the Constitution Unit (pdf) published last year said that, at a minimum, it would take 22 weeks to hold a second referendum, taking into account the time needed to pass the legislation and organise the campaign (Politics Live, Guardian)
There seemed to be rumours flying about on twitter yesterday that Germany & France were discussing a year's extension to the A50 period without any justification at all except presumably their own assessment of the potential damage to EU members from no deal, so I'm not sure it taking a year would rule it out anyway.PorFavor wrote:1m ago 16:27
Holding second referendum would take a year, No 10 claims
That does seem rather long. A report from the Constitution Unit (pdf) published last year said that, at a minimum, it would take 22 weeks to hold a second referendum, taking into account the time needed to pass the legislation and organise the campaign (Politics Live, Guardian)
6m ago 16:52
John Sentamu, the archbishop of York, is urging people to join him in praying for MPs. “The weight of their calling is too much to bear in their own strength,” he says. (Politics Live, Guardian)