I suspect what she will do is not try to persuade them, but ask for more time to persuade parliament. That has been the story of this sorry saga and there is no point having more time if you have zero chance of changing anything in that time!
I mean - it offends common sense. The prime minister has been told she has to come up with fresh ideas by EU leaders to solve teh Irish Border issue. Is she going to Brussels today with fresh ideas? Just imagine there is this fresh idea that the combined wisdom within the country hasn't been able to come up with by now!
All we get from Brexiters is a sci -fi solution that has been investigated and found not to be possible at this time within multiple investigations and reports. If it was possible, the government would chose it as it simplifies things for them. They still say, ah but I think it is possible. But all the expert reports say it isn't, but idiots, yes I don't use the term lightly, like Stewart and Johnson mumble away that they think it could be with no detail or evidence. The fact is, there isn't a magic solution and an answer needs to be found within the options available.
When she made her statement on Monday and was frequently asked about her Irish solution by fellow MP's, her repeated answer was 'read the white paper'. Presumably that will be her mantra this evening to the EU leaders.
I'm sure the only reason she hasn't called an election is that her party is so divided. She would be wise to follow Denis Healey's Law of Holes. "Let me tell you about the law of holes: If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
I mean - it offends common sense. The prime minister has been told she has to come up with fresh ideas by EU leaders to solve teh Irish Border issue. Is she going to Brussels today with fresh ideas? Just imagine there is this fresh idea that the combined wisdom within the country hasn't been able to come up with by now!
All we get from Brexiters is a sci -fi solution that has been investigated and found not to be possible at this time within multiple investigations and reports. If it was possible, the government would chose it as it simplifies things for them. They still say, ah but I think it is possible. But all the expert reports say it isn't, but idiots, yes I don't use the term lightly, like Stewart and Johnson mumble away that they think it could be with no detail or evidence. The fact is, there isn't a magic solution and an answer needs to be found within the options available.
May’s adress to the EU leaders this evening will be a national embarrassment.
I'm not really sure what she can do if she can't get backing from her own government. What does she get out of doing this job and being constantly undermined?
I’ve wondered this previously, it used to be that being PM would be a pretty cool job - today it just sounds like a nightmare.
I think she was told it was her duty to her party to see it through after the last election she foolishly called. Mind you, it didn't look so foolish at the time!
Being in the customs union means we can't negotiate our own trade deals, instead having to rely on the deals the EU negotiates on our behalf. Some people think we should stay in the customs union and continue to benefit from the 750+ deals and treaties from which we already benefit. Some people think we should be outside the customs union and make our own deals. Here are a few pointers.
1. Some Brexiters think we should do a Canada Plus deal with the EU, to take effect as soon as we leave the EU (and the customs union). They miss the point that, should we do such a deal, we would go from having a deal with Canada (as we do now) to not having a deal with Canada (which we would have to start to negotiate the day after we leave the EU). So "Canada Plus" means "not having a deal with Canada".
2. Some Brexiters point to the fact that Germany does far more trade with countries outside the EU (for example Russia) than we do. They believe that, by leaving the customs union, we will be able to do more trade with countries outside the EU and, to an unspecified extent, compete with Germany. Do you see the folly here? If not, here goes: Germany is in the customs union. They don't do more trade with non-EU countries because they're free of the constraints of the customs union, they do more trade with non-EU countries, because they're better at it than we are. So, leaving the customs union in order to do more trade with other non-EU countries is neither necessary, nor desirable.
3. Some Brexiters are hung up on control. Gaining control of the trade deals we *can* do, seems to be more important than benefiting from the deals we will *have* to do. If we leave the customs union with a deal, we will go from having 750+ deals in place, to having one - with the EU. That's, of course, one more than we would have if we left with no deal. It's taken more than two years to get somewhere close to having that one trade deal - with the EU - in place. At the current run rate, we will be able to complete the 750+deals around the year 3518AD. (Just before RD's sale of Charlton finally goes through).
You ignore the elephant in room. The Euro. Germany benefits considerably as an exporter from the Euro being weaker than it ought to be, against a hypothetical Deutschmark. While the German economy itself is strong, the value of the Euro is dragged down by the likes of Greece and Italy who are up to their ears in debt, unemployment and poor productivity. Not only can they not compete with German industry, their weak economies help to devalue the Euro which only increases Germany's advantage.
But the value of the Euro shouldn't affect the ability of the UK to compete - it has (with the exception of its abortive membership of the ERM) always been in the UK's gift to devalue the Pound (along with all the other associated economic levers), should it so desire, to create a competitive advantage for its industry.
I could see your argument if the UK was in the Eurozone.
@Missed It also ignores the point that Germany has been smashing it out of the park in terms of exports for decades. Not because of the Euro as much as they manufacture stuff people want and are good at setting up and maintaining the deals to sell it.
I'm busy today. here's two minutes worth of google instead.
Thanks for the Googling I'm also busy. I'll read those later but they may have more relevance if anyone were arguing that Germany didn't also benefit from it's being inside the Eurozone. Which they weren't.
I suspect what she will do is not try to persuade them, but ask for more time to persuade parliament. That has been the story of this sorry saga and there is no point having more time if you have zero chance of changing anything in that time!
It appears that the UK Government know precisely what the EU are offering and there are thus two possibilities: A) they hope the EU might move - but this simply isn't going to happen they are creating some choreography in an attempt to land a deal on Parliament later in the process.
In other words May needs more time to so as to bounce the country into a Brexit deal. And at the same time she is seeking to lengthen the transition period which in turn synchronizes the "real" Brexit with the next election. She limps on in an attempt to grasp victory from the jaws of defeat?!
The deal appears to be something like Canada (to come later) plus membership of the Customs Union which is Labour but not Government policy AND a backstop on Northern Ireland. This to ensure that nobody can try to force N.Ireland out of the Customs Union at a later date... or use it as a bargaining chip, i.e., the threat of changing their status. Obviously this solution is unacceptable to the ERG and the DUP so what are the possibilities?
Either Labour back it OR Labour sink the proposal in an alliance with Tory remainers or others? And then the May government falls OR this goes to a referendum? Perhaps May is stalling so as to stoke up the tension between any vote and the Brexit day set in March?
Single Market membership is simply not on the table and the irony is that many politicians step back from this option because BINO is essentially Remain in everything: They see this as not being compliant with an ADVISORY referendum so May ruled this out at an early stage - a clever politician might bring this option back on the table as a way to change the angles since BINO is far more frightening to the Alt-right than what we are seeing now.
Having said that, placing BINO in the middle of the room is likely to split the Tories - but what's the downside?! BINO is not Labour policy but it is certainly the path which Sir Keir Starmer wappears to back if he were to be in charge of the deal.
Does a "no deal" have to be ratified by Parliament?
Article 50 has been triggered (although there are still some discussions about whether that process was done properly). That means we have a finite period of time in which to negotiate our smooth exit from the EU. But it also includes the guillotine effect of setting an end-date. This means that, whatever has happened by then, we cease to be a member of the EU on that day, whether a deal has been agreed or not.
Parliament has been assured of being offered its final say on the deal, if a deal is negotiated. That's clear. But what happens if the Brexiters keep throwing spanners and we end up without a deal as exit day approaches? If there is no deal, does that mean that there is nothing on which Parliament can vote? And if so, do we simply slip quietly, and without any fuss, over the edge of the cliff?
My understanding was that May agreed that Parliament could have a vote if there was a no deal.
Thanks. But what would be yes/no decision that Parliament would be asked to take? If the government position was that we exit without a deal ("ayes to the right"), what would be the opposite of that? It could only be not leaving. Which would mean that Parliament would be deciding between Leave and Remain.
I think the option parliament would have would be not to accept it and send the government back to renegotiate. The options open to the government would be to do that, or to give up and have a referendum or less likely an election. That is my understanding although I think that is based on assurances to pro Tory remainers that could be broken.
Does a "no deal" have to be ratified by Parliament?
Article 50 has been triggered (although there are still some discussions about whether that process was done properly). That means we have a finite period of time in which to negotiate our smooth exit from the EU. But it also includes the guillotine effect of setting an end-date. This means that, whatever has happened by then, we cease to be a member of the EU on that day, whether a deal has been agreed or not.
Parliament has been assured of being offered its final say on the deal, if a deal is negotiated. That's clear. But what happens if the Brexiters keep throwing spanners and we end up without a deal as exit day approaches? If there is no deal, does that mean that there is nothing on which Parliament can vote? And if so, do we simply slip quietly, and without any fuss, over the edge of the cliff?
A "no deal" does not actually exist since it is the absence of a deal, thus Parliament has nothing to ratify. What has happened, as you state, is that Parliament has enabled the Article 50 guillotine and is left with the cliff edge possibility which will clearly be their responsability. Only the ERG and DUP see this as an acceptable outcome but they consist just 10% of Parliament.
The Brexiteers don't actually have any spanners to throw! What appears to be happening is that May is attempting to keep her Cabinet intact as well as the deal with the DUP for they will surely storm off thus blocking the budget and bringing down the government. Whilst we know the deadline is towards the end of March commentators are now suggesting that a deal needs to be agreed before Christmas and then ratified by the UK and EU in the following months.
The Brexiteers are running scared of a long transition period after we leave next March because their ideas as a tangible solution and their obvious lack of support amongst the people is becoming more and more clear. Whatever the Telegraph and Express publish (but not the Mail) only 30-35% of the country support a hard Brexit on idealogical grounds. This and the prospect of a second referendum are making them a tad nervous.
That highlights a big problem. For the hardline leavers, they want a hard Brexit for ideological reasons when it is clear that the majority of country, whether they support Brexit or not don't want a hard Brexit. If you listen to the Anna Soubrey link I posted above, she is saying as much.
Does a "no deal" have to be ratified by Parliament?
Article 50 has been triggered (although there are still some discussions about whether that process was done properly). That means we have a finite period of time in which to negotiate our smooth exit from the EU. But it also includes the guillotine effect of setting an end-date. This means that, whatever has happened by then, we cease to be a member of the EU on that day, whether a deal has been agreed or not.
Parliament has been assured of being offered its final say on the deal, if a deal is negotiated. That's clear. But what happens if the Brexiters keep throwing spanners and we end up without a deal as exit day approaches? If there is no deal, does that mean that there is nothing on which Parliament can vote? And if so, do we simply slip quietly, and without any fuss, over the edge of the cliff?
A "no deal" does not actually exist since it is the absence of a deal, thus Parliament has nothing to ratify. What has happened, as you state, is that Parliament has enabled the Article 50 guillotine and is left with the cliff edge possibility which will clearly be their responsability. Only the ERG and DUP see this as an acceptable outcome but they consist just 10% of Parliament.
The Brexiteers don't actually have any spanners to throw! What appears to be happening is that May is attempting to keep her Cabinet intact as well as the deal with the DUP for they will surely storm off thus blocking the budget and bringing down the government. Whilst we know the deadline is towards the end of March commentators are now suggesting that a deal needs to be agreed before Christmas and then ratified by the UK and EU in the following months.
The Brexiteers are running scared of a long transition period after we leave next March because their ideas as a tangible solution and their obvious lack of support amongst the people is becoming more and more clear. Whatever the Telegraph and Express publish (but not the Mail) only 30-35% of the country support a hard Brexit on idealogical grounds. This and the prospect of a second referendum are making them a tad nervous.
So, in the case of their being no deal agreed, Parliament has no say, and we simply fall out?
Being in the customs union means we can't negotiate our own trade deals, instead having to rely on the deals the EU negotiates on our behalf. Some people think we should stay in the customs union and continue to benefit from the 750+ deals and treaties from which we already benefit. Some people think we should be outside the customs union and make our own deals. Here are a few pointers.
1. Some Brexiters think we should do a Canada Plus deal with the EU, to take effect as soon as we leave the EU (and the customs union). They miss the point that, should we do such a deal, we would go from having a deal with Canada (as we do now) to not having a deal with Canada (which we would have to start to negotiate the day after we leave the EU). So "Canada Plus" means "not having a deal with Canada".
2. Some Brexiters point to the fact that Germany does far more trade with countries outside the EU (for example Russia) than we do. They believe that, by leaving the customs union, we will be able to do more trade with countries outside the EU and, to an unspecified extent, compete with Germany. Do you see the folly here? If not, here goes: Germany is in the customs union. They don't do more trade with non-EU countries because they're free of the constraints of the customs union, they do more trade with non-EU countries, because they're better at it than we are. So, leaving the customs union in order to do more trade with other non-EU countries is neither necessary, nor desirable.
3. Some Brexiters are hung up on control. Gaining control of the trade deals we *can* do, seems to be more important than benefiting from the deals we will *have* to do. If we leave the customs union with a deal, we will go from having 750+ deals in place, to having one - with the EU. That's, of course, one more than we would have if we left with no deal. It's taken more than two years to get somewhere close to having that one trade deal - with the EU - in place. At the current run rate, we will be able to complete the 750+deals around the year 3518AD. (Just before RD's sale of Charlton finally goes through).
You ignore the elephant in room. The Euro. Germany benefits considerably as an exporter from the Euro being weaker than it ought to be, against a hypothetical Deutschmark. While the German economy itself is strong, the value of the Euro is dragged down by the likes of Greece and Italy who are up to their ears in debt, unemployment and poor productivity. Not only can they not compete with German industry, their weak economies help to devalue the Euro which only increases Germany's advantage.
But the value of the Euro shouldn't affect the ability of the UK to compete - it has (with the exception of its abortive membership of the ERM) always been in the UK's gift to devalue the Pound (along with all the other associated economic levers), should it so desire, to create a competitive advantage for its industry.
I could see your argument if the UK was in the Eurozone.
@Missed It also ignores the point that Germany has been smashing it out of the park in terms of exports for decades. Not because of the Euro as much as they manufacture stuff people want and are good at setting up and maintaining the deals to sell it.
I'm busy today. here's two minutes worth of google instead.
Thanks for the Googling I'm also busy. I'll read those later but they may have more relevance if anyone were arguing that Germany didn't also benefit from it's being inside the Eurozone. Which they weren't.
I should have been clearer in my original post, but it was late and WTF was I doing arguing about Brexit when I should have been in bed.
I was challenging the following assertion that Germany are somehow just better at exporting, which fails to recognise the significant factor the Euro plays in their export performance at the expense of the rest of the EU.
"They don't do more trade with non-EU countries because they're free of the constraints of the customs union, they do more trade with non-EU countries, because they're better at it than we are"
"Because they're better at it", is no useful explanation. Why are they better? Stereotypical German efficiency or taking advantage, whether by design or accident, of the skewed playing field created by the Euro?
Does a "no deal" have to be ratified by Parliament?
Article 50 has been triggered (although there are still some discussions about whether that process was done properly). That means we have a finite period of time in which to negotiate our smooth exit from the EU. But it also includes the guillotine effect of setting an end-date. This means that, whatever has happened by then, we cease to be a member of the EU on that day, whether a deal has been agreed or not.
Parliament has been assured of being offered its final say on the deal, if a deal is negotiated. That's clear. But what happens if the Brexiters keep throwing spanners and we end up without a deal as exit day approaches? If there is no deal, does that mean that there is nothing on which Parliament can vote? And if so, do we simply slip quietly, and without any fuss, over the edge of the cliff?
A "no deal" does not actually exist since it is the absence of a deal, thus Parliament has nothing to ratify. What has happened, as you state, is that Parliament has enabled the Article 50 guillotine and is left with the cliff edge possibility which will clearly be their responsability. Only the ERG and DUP see this as an acceptable outcome but they consist just 10% of Parliament.
The Brexiteers don't actually have any spanners to throw! What appears to be happening is that May is attempting to keep her Cabinet intact as well as the deal with the DUP for they will surely storm off thus blocking the budget and bringing down the government. Whilst we know the deadline is towards the end of March commentators are now suggesting that a deal needs to be agreed before Christmas and then ratified by the UK and EU in the following months.
The Brexiteers are running scared of a long transition period after we leave next March because their ideas as a tangible solution and their obvious lack of support amongst the people is becoming more and more clear. Whatever the Telegraph and Express publish (but not the Mail) only 30-35% of the country support a hard Brexit on idealogical grounds. This and the prospect of a second referendum are making them a tad nervous.
So, in the case of their being no deal agreed, Parliament has no say, and we simply fall out?
The demonstrations would make the Poll Tax riots look like a tea party.
Does a "no deal" have to be ratified by Parliament?
Article 50 has been triggered (although there are still some discussions about whether that process was done properly). That means we have a finite period of time in which to negotiate our smooth exit from the EU. But it also includes the guillotine effect of setting an end-date. This means that, whatever has happened by then, we cease to be a member of the EU on that day, whether a deal has been agreed or not.
Parliament has been assured of being offered its final say on the deal, if a deal is negotiated. That's clear. But what happens if the Brexiters keep throwing spanners and we end up without a deal as exit day approaches? If there is no deal, does that mean that there is nothing on which Parliament can vote? And if so, do we simply slip quietly, and without any fuss, over the edge of the cliff?
A "no deal" does not actually exist since it is the absence of a deal, thus Parliament has nothing to ratify. What has happened, as you state, is that Parliament has enabled the Article 50 guillotine and is left with the cliff edge possibility which will clearly be their responsability. Only the ERG and DUP see this as an acceptable outcome but they consist just 10% of Parliament.
The Brexiteers don't actually have any spanners to throw! What appears to be happening is that May is attempting to keep her Cabinet intact as well as the deal with the DUP for they will surely storm off thus blocking the budget and bringing down the government. Whilst we know the deadline is towards the end of March commentators are now suggesting that a deal needs to be agreed before Christmas and then ratified by the UK and EU in the following months.
The Brexiteers are running scared of a long transition period after we leave next March because their ideas as a tangible solution and their obvious lack of support amongst the people is becoming more and more clear. Whatever the Telegraph and Express publish (but not the Mail) only 30-35% of the country support a hard Brexit on idealogical grounds. This and the prospect of a second referendum are making them a tad nervous.
So, in the case of their being no deal agreed, Parliament has no say, and we simply fall out?
The demonstrations would make the Poll Tax riots look like a tea party.
Being in the customs union means we can't negotiate our own trade deals, instead having to rely on the deals the EU negotiates on our behalf. Some people think we should stay in the customs union and continue to benefit from the 750+ deals and treaties from which we already benefit. Some people think we should be outside the customs union and make our own deals. Here are a few pointers.
1. Some Brexiters think we should do a Canada Plus deal with the EU, to take effect as soon as we leave the EU (and the customs union). They miss the point that, should we do such a deal, we would go from having a deal with Canada (as we do now) to not having a deal with Canada (which we would have to start to negotiate the day after we leave the EU). So "Canada Plus" means "not having a deal with Canada".
2. Some Brexiters point to the fact that Germany does far more trade with countries outside the EU (for example Russia) than we do. They believe that, by leaving the customs union, we will be able to do more trade with countries outside the EU and, to an unspecified extent, compete with Germany. Do you see the folly here? If not, here goes: Germany is in the customs union. They don't do more trade with non-EU countries because they're free of the constraints of the customs union, they do more trade with non-EU countries, because they're better at it than we are. So, leaving the customs union in order to do more trade with other non-EU countries is neither necessary, nor desirable.
3. Some Brexiters are hung up on control. Gaining control of the trade deals we *can* do, seems to be more important than benefiting from the deals we will *have* to do. If we leave the customs union with a deal, we will go from having 750+ deals in place, to having one - with the EU. That's, of course, one more than we would have if we left with no deal. It's taken more than two years to get somewhere close to having that one trade deal - with the EU - in place. At the current run rate, we will be able to complete the 750+deals around the year 3518AD. (Just before RD's sale of Charlton finally goes through).
You ignore the elephant in room. The Euro. Germany benefits considerably as an exporter from the Euro being weaker than it ought to be, against a hypothetical Deutschmark. While the German economy itself is strong, the value of the Euro is dragged down by the likes of Greece and Italy who are up to their ears in debt, unemployment and poor productivity. Not only can they not compete with German industry, their weak economies help to devalue the Euro which only increases Germany's advantage.
But the value of the Euro shouldn't affect the ability of the UK to compete - it has (with the exception of its abortive membership of the ERM) always been in the UK's gift to devalue the Pound (along with all the other associated economic levers), should it so desire, to create a competitive advantage for its industry.
I could see your argument if the UK was in the Eurozone.
@Missed It also ignores the point that Germany has been smashing it out of the park in terms of exports for decades. Not because of the Euro as much as they manufacture stuff people want and are good at setting up and maintaining the deals to sell it.
I'm busy today. here's two minutes worth of google instead.
Thanks for the Googling I'm also busy. I'll read those later but they may have more relevance if anyone were arguing that Germany didn't also benefit from it's being inside the Eurozone. Which they weren't.
I should have been clearer in my original post, but it was late and WTF was I doing arguing about Brexit when I should have been in bed.
I was challenging the following assertion that Germany are somehow just better at exporting, which fails to recognise the significant factor the Euro plays in their export performance at the expense of the rest of the EU.
"They don't do more trade with non-EU countries because they're free of the constraints of the customs union, they do more trade with non-EU countries, because they're better at it than we are"
"Because they're better at it", is no useful explanation. Why are they better? Stereotypical German efficiency or taking advantage, whether by design or accident, of the skewed playing field created by the Euro?
England are better at rugby than Scotland. England play in white. Scotland play in blue. If Scotland decided to be free of the constraints of having to play in blue, it wouldn't make them better than England. They would still not be as good.
It's true to say that "because they are better at it" is not a useful explanation as to why Germany is more successful trading nation than many others. It doesn't go into any detail. There are many historical, political, geopolitical and other reasons why Germany has exploited its natural and human resources better than other countries. Being unencumbered by membership of the EU is not one of them.
Likewise, England has, in the long-term, had a more successful rugby team than Scotland. It has nothing to do with shirt colour.
Does a "no deal" have to be ratified by Parliament?
Article 50 has been triggered (although there are still some discussions about whether that process was done properly). That means we have a finite period of time in which to negotiate our smooth exit from the EU. But it also includes the guillotine effect of setting an end-date. This means that, whatever has happened by then, we cease to be a member of the EU on that day, whether a deal has been agreed or not.
Parliament has been assured of being offered its final say on the deal, if a deal is negotiated. That's clear. But what happens if the Brexiters keep throwing spanners and we end up without a deal as exit day approaches? If there is no deal, does that mean that there is nothing on which Parliament can vote? And if so, do we simply slip quietly, and without any fuss, over the edge of the cliff?
A "no deal" does not actually exist since it is the absence of a deal, thus Parliament has nothing to ratify. What has happened, as you state, is that Parliament has enabled the Article 50 guillotine and is left with the cliff edge possibility which will clearly be their responsability. Only the ERG and DUP see this as an acceptable outcome but they consist just 10% of Parliament.
The Brexiteers don't actually have any spanners to throw! What appears to be happening is that May is attempting to keep her Cabinet intact as well as the deal with the DUP for they will surely storm off thus blocking the budget and bringing down the government. Whilst we know the deadline is towards the end of March commentators are now suggesting that a deal needs to be agreed before Christmas and then ratified by the UK and EU in the following months.
The Brexiteers are running scared of a long transition period after we leave next March because their ideas as a tangible solution and their obvious lack of support amongst the people is becoming more and more clear. Whatever the Telegraph and Express publish (but not the Mail) only 30-35% of the country support a hard Brexit on idealogical grounds. This and the prospect of a second referendum are making them a tad nervous.
So, in the case of their being no deal agreed, Parliament has no say, and we simply fall out?
Precisely - that is the nature of the guillotine. And this is now becoming clear in the eyes of the media - as the tide goes out it appears that the ERG and Farage have very little clothing on!
This together with the Chequers deal is what has led to the second referendum campaign taking off. The narrative has changed from fighting the 2016 result to give the people a choice on the actual negotiated outcome - or not in the case of no deal. And this makes it easier for some voters to take a fresh view of the situation. In other words it's not about blaming those who voted "leave" back in 2016.
We were always going to have more clarity in this quarter - it appears unlikely that we will see a deal this week but there is a big "People's vote" demonstration planned for Saturday. Isn't it ironic that the alt-right label a people's vote undemocratic?!
It can never be undemocratic to have a people's vote. It can be stupid. The first one was stupid, the second one would be sensible. Everybody will know a lot more what leaving will mean and if they still want to do it, nobody can stop them.
After two years of the Brexit shenanigans I do wonder just how engaged the electorate would be with a second vote. It was widely reported that the leave vote included many many disaffected who actually voted in the referendum for the first time in their life. Would this group actually be mobilised a second time. Obviously driven by the hype of the bus slogans and Farage and BoJo on a rampage. Am I right in thinking that the natural remain vote would on any second vote be more stable than the leave ?
After two years of the Brexit shenanigans I do wonder just how engaged the electorate would be with a second vote. It was widely reported that the leave vote included many many disaffected who actually voted in the referendum for the first time in their life. Would this group actually be mobilised a second time. Obviously driven by the hype of the bus slogans and Farage and BoJo on a rampage. Am I right in thinking that the natural remain vote would on any second vote be more stable than the leave ?
I agree to a certain extent, but I'm sure the hard Brexit elite would try to mobilise them via a campaign of "they're trying to steal your brexit". They'll never fully explain who "they" are, but they won't need to, they never had to explain their lies last time around.
After two years of the Brexit shenanigans I do wonder just how engaged the electorate would be with a second vote. It was widely reported that the leave vote included many many disaffected who actually voted in the referendum for the first time in their life. Would this group actually be mobilised a second time. Obviously driven by the hype of the bus slogans and Farage and BoJo on a rampage. Am I right in thinking that the natural remain vote would on any second vote be more stable than the leave ?
We could just get the bus slogans out again and improve the promises - that should clinch it.
My understanding was that May agreed that Parliament could have a vote if there was a no deal.
I can't help wondering if the last 2 years has been for effect and in the end it will be contrived that we remain.
I doubt that any person or force has had any kind of control of circumstances to have created something 'for effect', what effect anyway?
If by 'contrived' you are suggesting there has been some kind of plan all along whereby 'they' won't let it happen, or 'they' never wanted it to happen anyway i also have doubts.
We seem to be far more in the cock-up theory of history, where it is chaotic circumstances that might 'contrive' to ensure the UK remains rather than some malevolent/benevolent force. For a start it seems to not be a practically possible thing to do. The link provided by Norn yesterday had a lovely analogy whereby brexiters demand a promised omelette, the problem being that the eggs needed have already been baked into a cake. It all might be possible using some kind of advanced science yet to be created, but right now it simply can't happen.
Perhaps outside the actual nitty gritty practical issues, within which I of course include the Irish border, all the rest really is noise. Remaining in the EU is a bit like those eggs remaining in the cake.
My understanding was that May agreed that Parliament could have a vote if there was a no deal.
I can't help wondering if the last 2 years has been for effect and in the end it will be contrived that we remain.
If by 'contrived' you are suggesting there has been some kind of plan all along whereby 'they' won't let it happen, or 'they' never wanted it to happen anyway i also have doubts.
The Irish foreign minister yesterday reminded the UK that last December it gave an undertaking in writing regarding the backstop with no time limit attached. Should the UK break that undertaking?
TM only signed because she was backed into a corner & had to. She (probably) thought it wouldn't come to this.....it has & making her out to be stupid (like the rest of the Government)
I suspect what she will do is not try to persuade them, but ask for more time to persuade parliament. That has been the story of this sorry saga and there is no point having more time if you have zero chance of changing anything in that time!
On Newsnight last night they said this is the most likely outcome with ministers then having to face the cliff edge "no deal" with no time to do anything else......so will probably agree to it
In my mind it has to be agreed by mid-late Nov so as to give both our Houses to agree & ratify it.
Comments
Presumably that will be her mantra this evening to the EU leaders.
A) they hope the EU might move - but this simply isn't going to happen
In other words May needs more time to so as to bounce the country into a Brexit deal. And at the same time she is seeking to lengthen the transition period which in turn synchronizes the "real" Brexit with the next election. She limps on in an attempt to grasp victory from the jaws of defeat?!
The deal appears to be something like Canada (to come later) plus membership of the Customs Union which is Labour but not Government policy AND a backstop on Northern Ireland. This to ensure that nobody can try to force N.Ireland out of the Customs Union at a later date... or use it as a bargaining chip, i.e., the threat of changing their status. Obviously this solution is unacceptable to the ERG and the DUP so what are the possibilities?
Either Labour back it OR Labour sink the proposal in an alliance with Tory remainers or others? And then the May government falls OR this goes to a referendum? Perhaps May is stalling so as to stoke up the tension between any vote and the Brexit day set in March?
Single Market membership is simply not on the table and the irony is that many politicians step back from this option because BINO is essentially Remain in everything: They see this as not being compliant with an ADVISORY referendum so May ruled this out at an early stage - a clever politician might bring this option back on the table as a way to change the angles since BINO is far more frightening to the Alt-right than what we are seeing now.
Having said that, placing BINO in the middle of the room is likely to split the Tories - but what's the downside?! BINO is not Labour policy but it is certainly the path which Sir Keir Starmer wappears to back if he were to be in charge of the deal.
Article 50 has been triggered (although there are still some discussions about whether that process was done properly). That means we have a finite period of time in which to negotiate our smooth exit from the EU. But it also includes the guillotine effect of setting an end-date. This means that, whatever has happened by then, we cease to be a member of the EU on that day, whether a deal has been agreed or not.
Parliament has been assured of being offered its final say on the deal, if a deal is negotiated. That's clear. But what happens if the Brexiters keep throwing spanners and we end up without a deal as exit day approaches? If there is no deal, does that mean that there is nothing on which Parliament can vote? And if so, do we simply slip quietly, and without any fuss, over the edge of the cliff?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2018/jul/16/complete-madness-anna-soubry-on-the-government-accepting-amendments-to-customs-bill
She is one of the few Tories I would happily vote for and not feel a pang of guilt about doing so.
Or would the vote be formulated in another way?
The Brexiteers don't actually have any spanners to throw! What appears to be happening is that May is attempting to keep her Cabinet intact as well as the deal with the DUP for they will surely storm off thus blocking the budget and bringing down the government. Whilst we know the deadline is towards the end of March commentators are now suggesting that a deal needs to be agreed before Christmas and then ratified by the UK and EU in the following months.
The Brexiteers are running scared of a long transition period after we leave next March because their ideas as a tangible solution and their obvious lack of support amongst the people is becoming more and more clear. Whatever the Telegraph and Express publish (but not the Mail) only 30-35% of the country support a hard Brexit on idealogical grounds. This and the prospect of a second referendum are making them a tad nervous.
I was challenging the following assertion that Germany are somehow just better at exporting, which fails to recognise the significant factor the Euro plays in their export performance at the expense of the rest of the EU.
"They don't do more trade with non-EU countries because they're free of the constraints of the customs union, they do more trade with non-EU countries, because they're better at it than we are"
"Because they're better at it", is no useful explanation. Why are they better? Stereotypical German efficiency or taking advantage, whether by design or accident, of the skewed playing field created by the Euro?
It's true to say that "because they are better at it" is not a useful explanation as to why Germany is more successful trading nation than many others. It doesn't go into any detail. There are many historical, political, geopolitical and other reasons why Germany has exploited its natural and human resources better than other countries. Being unencumbered by membership of the EU is not one of them.
Likewise, England has, in the long-term, had a more successful rugby team than Scotland. It has nothing to do with shirt colour.
This together with the Chequers deal is what has led to the second referendum campaign taking off. The narrative has changed from fighting the 2016 result to give the people a choice on the actual negotiated outcome - or not in the case of no deal. And this makes it easier for some voters to take a fresh view of the situation. In other words it's not about blaming those who voted "leave" back in 2016.
We were always going to have more clarity in this quarter - it appears unlikely that we will see a deal this week but there is a big "People's vote" demonstration planned for Saturday. Isn't it ironic that the alt-right label a people's vote undemocratic?!
But you can never leave.
Big lies , big vote!
If by 'contrived' you are suggesting there has been some kind of plan all along whereby 'they' won't let it happen, or 'they' never wanted it to happen anyway i also have doubts.
We seem to be far more in the cock-up theory of history, where it is chaotic circumstances that might 'contrive' to ensure the UK remains rather than some malevolent/benevolent force.
For a start it seems to not be a practically possible thing to do. The link provided by Norn yesterday had a lovely analogy whereby brexiters demand a promised omelette, the problem being that the eggs needed have already been baked into a cake. It all might be possible using some kind of advanced science yet to be created, but right now it simply can't happen.
Perhaps outside the actual nitty gritty practical issues, within which I of course include the Irish border, all the rest really is noise.
Remaining in the EU is a bit like those eggs remaining in the cake.
In my mind it has to be agreed by mid-late Nov so as to give both our Houses to agree & ratify it.