Did I hear Liam Fox correctly earlier ?? Discussing TM's deal & the (very hopefull) changes /clarifications that she is seeking.....I thought he said if the deal came back with no changes then Cabinet MIGHT agree to not put it to the HOC for a vote.Can they do that ?? And if so, what happens next .....exit with no deal ??
The Government has been censured and found to have been in contempt of Parliament once, by not presenting the Attorney General's legal advice. If they were to do so again by not presenting the deal to Parliament for the "meaningful vote", I guess they would be in contempt of Parliament again.
In that circumstance, I imagine that an immediate vote of no confidence would be held against the Government - which they would lose - and the opportunity offered to someone else (eg Corbyn) to form a new Government.
Did I hear Liam Fox correctly earlier ?? Discussing TM's deal & the (very hopefull) changes /clarifications that she is seeking.....I thought he said if the deal came back with no changes then Cabinet MIGHT agree to not put it to the HOC for a vote.Can they do that ?? And if so, what happens next .....exit with no deal ??
Nope either HOC or a referendum is what was inferred earlier today on LBC but then JO'B does spout some shit on there.
Can someone put me right on the Backstop as I really haven't been paying attention?
From the BBC: The backstop is a position of last resort, to maintain an open border on the island of Ireland in the event that the UK leaves the EU without securing an all-encompassing deal.
But if the UK accept the Backstop then that would secure an all encompassing deal wouldn't it? So no need for a last resort Backstop?
While the backstop is only insurance it will never fly with the very people who ensure the government's majority because it legally guarantees the possibility of separating the sovereignty of Northern Ireland.
Not sure I understand this, but ithe backstop also contradicts the Good Friday Agreement which stopped the greatest domestic bloodshed in my lifetime.
No.
The backstop is specifically designed to protect areas of North-South cooperation enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement (Strand 2?), now and in the future. Effectively speaking, as (mostly) standards diverge in the future between the UK and EU, unless an alternative can be found that meets the requirements of preserving the North-South institutions/frameworks, there will be a conflict between divergence and the GFA. The requirement for backstop is the EU attempting to avoid that outcome, and builds on already existing barriers between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
It does nothing to undermine the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, and the EU have been entirely clear that they are interested only in preserving the ongoing all-Ireland dimensions of the GFA (which said very little about intra-UK relationships).
What has happened is that politicians in the UK, filled with Brexit patriotism (popular with the media for the soundbites), and besotted by the coquettish charms of the dusky-eyed DUP, have made statements suggesting that, in some way, the idea of Northern Ireland being treated differently is something that is completely unacceptable.
To hear the complaints, a person might think that allowing Northern Ireland to be different, semi-detached even (with apologies to fans of Terry Wogan and his Togs, for taking the name of Sammy Detached in vain), was in some way inimical to the Union or the National Interest, and could never be allowed. The fact that this precisely what happened between 1921 and 1972, when Northern Ireland had, ar Stormont, a Home Rule Government (so that it would appear that the likes of Macmillan, Churchill, Bevan, Attlee, et Al were less squeamish) seems conveniently ignored.
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting for one moment that Northern Ireland under Stormont before 1972 was a shining light of good governance, but it is clear that British patriotism, or indeed the Union, does not require that Northern Ireland be treated identically with the rest of the UK. There are already barriers in the Irish Sea, reflecting different laws (including having a fully armed Police Service), animal and animal product testing regimes.
But, the UK politicians have painted themselves into a corner on this one, and for all the fact that they have done it in a lovely shade of orange, there doesn't appear to be an easy way out.
Can someone put me right on the Backstop as I really haven't been paying attention?
From the BBC: The backstop is a position of last resort, to maintain an open border on the island of Ireland in the event that the UK leaves the EU without securing an all-encompassing deal.
But if the UK accept the Backstop then that would secure an all encompassing deal wouldn't it? So no need for a last resort Backstop?
While the backstop is only insurance it will never fly with the very people who ensure the government's majority because it legally guarantees the possibility of separating the sovereignty of Northern Ireland.
Not sure I understand this, but ithe backstop also contradicts the Good Friday Agreement which stopped the greatest domestic bloodshed in my lifetime.
Rest assured that the backstop underpins the Belfast GFA - it has been written up by professionals and yet it is attacked by clowns. May agreed it because it offered a way to conclude the WA - that's her mission, whether we agree or not. For sure it also opens regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Dublin / Belfast after the transition phase ends in 2021. Ironically that would also be 100 years since Irish independence.
It has been engineered specifically to stop ERG wankers from undermining progress... And it has succeeded in smoking them out into an isolated position.
We live in interesting times.
I'm now here a few days a week in Dublin but not stupid enough to open up a conversation about the North with colleagues. All one can state is that some believe the DUP are out of touch and that some polls show a distinct shift on the question of reunification.
For the reasons above, the 10 DUP in Parliament will never support the WA. @NornIrishAddick might give a more accurate picture for I'm just a mere tourist at this stage.
The Tories are in a corner on this one and always were... other flavours have an altogether entirely different perspective.
Did I hear Liam Fox correctly earlier ?? Discussing TM's deal & the (very hopefull) changes /clarifications that she is seeking.....I thought he said if the deal came back with no changes then Cabinet MIGHT agree to not put it to the HOC for a vote.Can they do that ?? And if so, what happens next .....exit with no deal ??
Nope either HOC or a referendum is what was inferred earlier today on LBC but then JO'B does spout some shit on there.
He really does... I listen to him every day to see what the real headbangers must be hearing, and my god does he love himself, and has unbelievable anchoring bias, where he only puts forward opinions and facts that support his own view, as opposed to facts that support both sides... He has made his career out of Brexit to be fair to him though so good for him can't blame him for being a bit over the top with it.
Someone like Majid Nawaz is a strong Remainer but is much better in terms of allowing people that don't have their tongue up his arse to speak rather than just cutting them off or incessantly talking over them, and Andrew Castle probably represents the "Remainer but let's just get on with it because of this weird thing called democracy" (like me) attitude.
So where are we now? Well firstly, yesterday was the hard Brexiter's playing their hand. And the result is a positive, if like me you favour a second vote. We are now down to the maths - there are the not the numbers for a Hard Brexit. There are not the numbers for May's Brexit. To get the numbers, she would have to pull off a miracle on the backstop.
So what else is there. Well there could be the numbers for a hybrid of May's deal with some concessions to Labour. May has shown no inclination to talk to Labour at all throughout this, she would rather throw bones to the ERG people in her party who were never going to support her. But it is late in the day with a deal agreed and Labour won't support any deal that doesn't include a customs union. Which would solve the backstop but would be seen as a climbdown by May.
So far so bad then in terms of the numbers needed to sort some sort of deal out. Not enough for a Hard Brexit, not enough for May's Brexit and not enough for Labour's Brexit. But I think this is where it gets interesting and why making a referendum a possibility at the last Labour conference opens the door widely for it. I have not mentioned the group of MPs accross parties who want a second vote. They are a minority, but if you add them to Labour they have a majority in teh house. A small one but a significant one.
This is why they want Labour to table the vote of confidence. They know it will be lost, but that will force Labour to fall into its third choice position as an election would then be extremely unlikely if not impossible. Secretly, and to be fair openly, Labour accept an election is a long shot, but they wouldn't want to miss the chance if it appeared. Also, Labour has a lot of Brexit supporting voters and it doesn't want to alienate them. So it is important that the referendum is fallen into rather than openly sought.
This is important as having a referendum presents risks and how you get there and who is blamed for it may determine the ultimate result. But it is the one thing you can do the maths for and come out with something doable. In the meantime a willingness to talk to the government has to be on the table and it is. IT won't happen though. The vote yesterday could push the referendum into May's deal v Remain with the ERG loons having shot their bolt. That is significant, and at least the worst outcome is better than the disaster of a hard Brexit.
So in actual fact, not calling for the vote of no confidence a few days ago is actually working out for the best. I'd like it to happen now or by the end of the week. Mainly as I'm getting fed up with it all and I am going to Belgium for a short break before Christmas and I wouldn't mind getting a few more euros for my pound. But if you believe that May won't speak to Labour to try to do a deal, and that they won't win a vote of no confidence - look at their stated option beyond that! That is where we are heading. But I am delighted it looks like it will now be May's bad (but better than no deal Brexit) against Remain.
So where are we now? Well firstly, yesterday was the hard Brexiter's playing their hand. And the result is a positive, if like me you favour a second vote. We are now down to the maths - there are the not the numbers for a Hard Brexit. There are not the numbers for May's Brexit. To get the numbers, she would have to pull off a miracle on the backstop.
So what else is there. Well there could be the numbers for a hybrid of May's deal with some concessions to Labour.
This is fantasy. Even if there were the numbers in Parliament for some kind of unknown hybrid (there isn't because Labour's six tests can't be fulfilled since they insist on retaining a full single market while ending free movement which the EU have said time and again they won't accept) the whole thing would have to be renegotiated with the EU and there is no time
So far so bad then in terms of the numbers needed to sort some sort of deal out. Not enough for a Hard Brexit, not enough for May's Brexit and not enough for Labour's Brexit
What's Labour's Brexit then? There isn't one and event if there was there is no time to negotiate it.
One thing that May understands is that there are only three choices. 1. May's deal. 2. No deal 3. Remain following a second referendum.
May is trying to play down the clock so that MPs are faced with a choice of her deal and no deal because there won't be time for a second referendum.
I have no idea what Corbyn's tactics are at this point. His actions appear to indicate that his preference is a hard Brexit which can be blamed on the Tories and which might well lead to a full split in that party followed by a general election. He obviously can't say that without splitting the Labour party. So we maintain this pretence that there should be a general election which will follow a vote of no confidence which he won't call he would lose it.
So where are we now? Well firstly, yesterday was the hard Brexiter's playing their hand. And the result is a positive, if like me you favour a second vote. We are now down to the maths - there are the not the numbers for a Hard Brexit. There are not the numbers for May's Brexit. To get the numbers, she would have to pull off a miracle on the backstop.
So what else is there. Well there could be the numbers for a hybrid of May's deal with some concessions to Labour.
This is fantasy. Even if there were the numbers in Parliament for some kind of unknown hybrid (there isn't because Labour's six tests can't be fulfilled since they insist on retaining a full single market while ending free movement which the EU have said time and again they won't accept) the whole thing would have to be renegotiated with the EU and there is no time
So far so bad then in terms of the numbers needed to sort some sort of deal out. Not enough for a Hard Brexit, not enough for May's Brexit and not enough for Labour's Brexit
What's Labour's Brexit then? There isn't one and event if there was there is no time to negotiate it.
One thing that May understands is that there are only three choices. 1. May's deal. 2. No deal 3. Remain following a second referendum.
May is trying to play down the clock so that MPs are faced with a choice of her deal and no deal because there won't be time for a second referendum.
I have no idea what Corbyn's tactics are at this point. His actions appear to indicate that his preference is a hard Brexit which can be blamed on the Tories and which might well lead to a full split in that party followed by a general election. He obviously can't say that without splitting the Labour party. So we maintain this pretence that there should be a general election which will follow a vote of no confidence which he won't call he would lose it.
So where are we now? Well firstly, yesterday was the hard Brexiter's playing their hand. And the result is a positive, if like me you favour a second vote. We are now down to the maths - there are the not the numbers for a Hard Brexit. There are not the numbers for May's Brexit. To get the numbers, she would have to pull off a miracle on the backstop.
So what else is there. Well there could be the numbers for a hybrid of May's deal with some concessions to Labour.
This is fantasy. Even if there were the numbers in Parliament for some kind of unknown hybrid (there isn't because Labour's six tests can't be fulfilled since they insist on retaining a full single market while ending free movement which the EU have said time and again they won't accept) the whole thing would have to be renegotiated with the EU and there is no time
So far so bad then in terms of the numbers needed to sort some sort of deal out. Not enough for a Hard Brexit, not enough for May's Brexit and not enough for Labour's Brexit
What's Labour's Brexit then? There isn't one and event if there was there is no time to negotiate it.
One thing that May understands is that there are only three choices. 1. May's deal. 2. No deal 3. Remain following a second referendum.
May is trying to play down the clock so that MPs are faced with a choice of her deal and no deal because there won't be time for a second referendum.
I have no idea what Corbyn's tactics are at this point. His actions appear to indicate that his preference is a hard Brexit which can be blamed on the Tories and which might well lead to a full split in that party followed by a general election. He obviously can't say that without splitting the Labour party. So we maintain this pretence that there should be a general election which will follow a vote of no confidence which he won't call he would lose it.
Labours Brexit = the same cherry picking nonsense that has got us here
I have a mate who voted leave simply because he hates David Cameron. I know somebody who voted leave to stop the terrorist immigrants - not a friend I must add. Mind you this Taxi driver probably is much more important than them as his reasons for voting trumps everybody elses!
I know someone who voted leave, because he wanted to enjoy the enduing chaos.
So where are we now? Well firstly, yesterday was the hard Brexiter's playing their hand. And the result is a positive, if like me you favour a second vote. We are now down to the maths - there are the not the numbers for a Hard Brexit. There are not the numbers for May's Brexit. To get the numbers, she would have to pull off a miracle on the backstop.
So what else is there. Well there could be the numbers for a hybrid of May's deal with some concessions to Labour.
This is fantasy. Even if there were the numbers in Parliament for some kind of unknown hybrid (there isn't because Labour's six tests can't be fulfilled since they insist on retaining a full single market while ending free movement which the EU have said time and again they won't accept) the whole thing would have to be renegotiated with the EU and there is no time
So far so bad then in terms of the numbers needed to sort some sort of deal out. Not enough for a Hard Brexit, not enough for May's Brexit and not enough for Labour's Brexit
What's Labour's Brexit then? There isn't one and event if there was there is no time to negotiate it.
One thing that May understands is that there are only three choices. 1. May's deal. 2. No deal 3. Remain following a second referendum.
May is trying to play down the clock so that MPs are faced with a choice of her deal and no deal because there won't be time for a second referendum.
I have no idea what Corbyn's tactics are at this point. His actions appear to indicate that his preference is a hard Brexit which can be blamed on the Tories and which might well lead to a full split in that party followed by a general election. He obviously can't say that without splitting the Labour party. So we maintain this pretence that there should be a general election which will follow a vote of no confidence which he won't call he would lose it.
Labours Brexit = the same cherry picking nonsense that has got us here
Agreed.
My view is that there is no deal that can be achieved that would be acceptable to either side, so the options are pay our debts and leave with no deal, subsequently negotiating a free trade deal with the EU (will take years) - or no Brexit. I would prefer those two options were again put to the people.
He is Anti-Semitic for example, the Labour party is 'rife' with it, he is a 'friend' of terrorists, 'controlled' by Momentum or Len McClusky, a communist mole, an IRA gun runner and so on.
The thing is it only takes a moment to declare something is so, and a few hours to debunk it.
The ratio of crap to truth on the internet is simply too much for truth to have any chance of ever catching up because of the rate crap can be churned out.
Here is a new 'fact'. Jeremy Corbyn is secretly cultivating magic mushrooms in his allotment shed, and using them along with an exotic combination of herbs to drug labour MP's one by one to become his cult followers.
Rubbish you might shout.
Ah
But can you prove it's not true huh?
Of course he wouldn't admit it would he?
What is palpably obvious to one person is less so to another, so we have a declaration regarding a hierarchy of truth or facts where my ones are 'obviously' better than your ones.
The internet seems to be demanding a new definition of, and a new approach to plain common sense.
One starting point might be to assume that 100% of everything on the internet and media is total bollocks and whittle it down from there.
This thread has had its nominees, but this might just be the biggest straw man I’ve seen.
It’s almost as if youve copied and pasted and replaced “trump” with Corbyn there.
Not at all. Just recently I have been reading a book called 'Post Truth' by a writer called James Ball which has led me to ponder on the matter.
One example he gives is that the US Government had been secretly stockpiling 30,000 Guillotines, stored in internment camps, one in Alaska large enough for two million people, ready to wipe out second amendment supporters at a rate of three million an hour once Hilary Clinton got elected. You can't prove it didn't happen.
The entire internet is populated by straw men and women if you like.
If you say I am refuting an argument made by Henry about Corbyn, by talking about something he didn't say at all, then you are incorrect. I am not refuting whether Corbyn is the Devil Incarnate or Nelson Mandela's blood brother, I am pointing out how quick and easy it is to declare something, and I am talking about how the subtle, even unconscious, use of language can infiltrate an issue to make it unreliable and opaque.
If it helps, I read a book once that claimed if you run into a wall at Kings Cross station you get a free education at a dead posh private school.
You didn’t think of giving it a go then?
I did once a couple of years back after watching the darts at Ally Pally. I busted my knee finding out that I was a muggle and ruined a planned NYE Prodigy gig.
My then girlfriend whose ticket to the darts,l paid for; (As well as the Prodigy tickets) offered me no sympathy whatsoever, indeed she loudly described me as a 'f@@king idiot.'
So where are we now? Well firstly, yesterday was the hard Brexiter's playing their hand. And the result is a positive, if like me you favour a second vote. We are now down to the maths - there are the not the numbers for a Hard Brexit. There are not the numbers for May's Brexit. To get the numbers, she would have to pull off a miracle on the backstop.
So what else is there. Well there could be the numbers for a hybrid of May's deal with some concessions to Labour.
This is fantasy. Even if there were the numbers in Parliament for some kind of unknown hybrid (there isn't because Labour's six tests can't be fulfilled since they insist on retaining a full single market while ending free movement which the EU have said time and again they won't accept) the whole thing would have to be renegotiated with the EU and there is no time
So far so bad then in terms of the numbers needed to sort some sort of deal out. Not enough for a Hard Brexit, not enough for May's Brexit and not enough for Labour's Brexit
What's Labour's Brexit then? There isn't one and event if there was there is no time to negotiate it.
One thing that May understands is that there are only three choices. 1. May's deal. 2. No deal 3. Remain following a second referendum.
May is trying to play down the clock so that MPs are faced with a choice of her deal and no deal because there won't be time for a second referendum.
I have no idea what Corbyn's tactics are at this point. His actions appear to indicate that his preference is a hard Brexit which can be blamed on the Tories and which might well lead to a full split in that party followed by a general election. He obviously can't say that without splitting the Labour party. So we maintain this pretence that there should be a general election which will follow a vote of no confidence which he won't call he would lose it.
I like the way you pick out the points I made and basically agree with them. I agree it is too late for Labour's Brexit and a hybrid. But you have to go through the options that are unachievable until you fall into the only one which is achievable. A second vote!
But what is a negative is if/when we have a second vote on May's deal v Remain, if that is what happens - I think it has little chance of putting the matter to bed. Brexiters will be shouting stitch up from the rooftops for some time to come. And they may have a bit of a point!
I have a mate who voted leave simply because he hates David Cameron. I know somebody who voted leave to stop the terrorist immigrants - not a friend I must add. Mind you this Taxi driver probably is much more important than them as his reasons for voting trumps everybody elses!
I know someone who voted leave, because he wanted to enjoy the enduing chaos.
That's fantastic. The odds of meeting a Brexiteer who actually understood the implications of what they were voting for are better than winning the lottery. What numbers would you suggest for tomorrows Euromillions?
I would estimate that most of the people who voted for Brexit, by a significant majority, wanted a hard Brexit. But most of the country by a significant margin doesn't. This is because some of the people who voted for Brexit didn't want a hard Brexit. This is a far more reasonable estimate than the rubbish of telling us categorically what people voted for.
Surely there is time if Article 50 is reversed which can now happen?
This is true. Unfortunately neither party has indicated that it is willing to consider withdrawing article 50 - at this point it would be political suicide for either of them. I think this could only happen if there was a 2nd referendum (in which case the EU would almost certainly agree a suspension) followed by a remain vote which would lead to a withdrawal of art. 50.
Surely there is time if Article 50 is reversed which can now happen?
This is true. Unfortunately neither party has indicated that it is willing to consider withdrawing article 50 - at this point it would be political suicide for either of them. I think this could only happen if there was a 2nd referendum (in which case the EU would almost certainly agree a suspension) followed by a remain vote which would lead to a withdrawal of art. 50.
We can't use the ECJ ruling on revoking Article 50 to buy more time for either further negotiation or a referendum - they made it clear that any revokation would need to be in good faith i.e. we have changed our minds.
They may agree (all 27 unanimously) to extend the 2 year Article 50 timescale to enable a further vote, and if the result was Remain then that's when we could unilaterally revoke Article 50.
The fact is, neither of the main parties want to be seen as the ones who killed Brexit. Not sure why people don't get that. But when you pull out the plug in the bath, there is only one place for the water to go. And that is where we are now - a second vote is the only way out of this. But we have to get there by trying to find other ways that 'respect' the initial referendum vote even if they are not possible.
The SNP and Lib dems don't have that problem. Their supporters want Brexit killed.
The fact is, neither of the main parties want to be seen as the ones who killed Brexit. Not sure why people don't get that. But when you pull out the plug in the bath, there is only one place for the water to go. And that is where we are now - a second vote is the only way out of this. But we have to get there by trying to find other ways that 'respect' the initial referendum vote even if they are not possible.
The SNP and Lib dems don't have that problem. Their supporters want Brexit killed.
People do get it. In fact many, including myself, have stated it on a number of occasions.
Are people that find Corbyn useless but don't really want to talk about him also part of this cult? The general consensus on here seems to be that he is a bit of a waste of time - I don't really see anyone worshipping him, or many people praising him generally. Anyway, this should be on a different thread!
I think he is a decent bloke and like his policies. I accept others don't. I didn't not so long ago. I just changed my mind. I don't think you can accuse me of being part of a cult for doing that - mind you I do chant 'Oh Jeremy Corbyn' repeatedly for 20 minutes each evening whilst burning scented candles. But I think I would need to do that for at least an hour before it becomes cult like behaviour.
No one who denies a genocide could ever be rated as “a decent bloke”
Corbyn didn't deny the genocide, he said the evidence had been fabricated and it had. The initial false report of 100000 killed was later reduced to 3000. As a pacifist he suggested not going to war, you might not agree with that stance but don't try to distort it.
This would seem to be what Kentaddick believes justifies his inflammatory remark:
Comments
In that circumstance, I imagine that an immediate vote of no confidence would be held against the Government - which they would lose - and the opportunity offered to someone else (eg Corbyn) to form a new Government.
The backstop is specifically designed to protect areas of North-South cooperation enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement (Strand 2?), now and in the future. Effectively speaking, as (mostly) standards diverge in the future between the UK and EU, unless an alternative can be found that meets the requirements of preserving the North-South institutions/frameworks, there will be a conflict between divergence and the GFA. The requirement for backstop is the EU attempting to avoid that outcome, and builds on already existing barriers between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
It does nothing to undermine the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, and the EU have been entirely clear that they are interested only in preserving the ongoing all-Ireland dimensions of the GFA (which said very little about intra-UK relationships).
What has happened is that politicians in the UK, filled with Brexit patriotism (popular with the media for the soundbites), and besotted by the coquettish charms of the dusky-eyed DUP, have made statements suggesting that, in some way, the idea of Northern Ireland being treated differently is something that is completely unacceptable.
To hear the complaints, a person might think that allowing Northern Ireland to be different, semi-detached even (with apologies to fans of Terry Wogan and his Togs, for taking the name of Sammy Detached in vain), was in some way inimical to the Union or the National Interest, and could never be allowed. The fact that this precisely what happened between 1921 and 1972, when Northern Ireland had, ar Stormont, a Home Rule Government (so that it would appear that the likes of Macmillan, Churchill, Bevan, Attlee, et Al were less squeamish) seems conveniently ignored.
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting for one moment that Northern Ireland under Stormont before 1972 was a shining light of good governance, but it is clear that British patriotism, or indeed the Union, does not require that Northern Ireland be treated identically with the rest of the UK. There are already barriers in the Irish Sea, reflecting different laws (including having a fully armed Police Service), animal and animal product testing regimes.
But, the UK politicians have painted themselves into a corner on this one, and for all the fact that they have done it in a lovely shade of orange, there doesn't appear to be an easy way out.
It has been engineered specifically to stop ERG wankers from undermining progress... And it has succeeded in smoking them out into an isolated position.
We live in interesting times.
I'm now here a few days a week in Dublin but not stupid enough to open up a conversation about the North with colleagues. All one can state is that some believe the DUP are out of touch and that some polls show a distinct shift on the question of reunification.
For the reasons above, the 10 DUP in Parliament will never support the WA. @NornIrishAddick might give a more accurate picture for I'm just a mere tourist at this stage.
The Tories are in a corner on this one and always were... other flavours have an altogether entirely different perspective.
Someone like Majid Nawaz is a strong Remainer but is much better in terms of allowing people that don't have their tongue up his arse to speak rather than just cutting them off or incessantly talking over them, and Andrew Castle probably represents the "Remainer but let's just get on with it because of this weird thing called democracy" (like me) attitude.
So what else is there. Well there could be the numbers for a hybrid of May's deal with some concessions to Labour. May has shown no inclination to talk to Labour at all throughout this, she would rather throw bones to the ERG people in her party who were never going to support her. But it is late in the day with a deal agreed and Labour won't support any deal that doesn't include a customs union. Which would solve the backstop but would be seen as a climbdown by May.
So far so bad then in terms of the numbers needed to sort some sort of deal out. Not enough for a Hard Brexit, not enough for May's Brexit and not enough for Labour's Brexit. But I think this is where it gets interesting and why making a referendum a possibility at the last Labour conference opens the door widely for it. I have not mentioned the group of MPs accross parties who want a second vote. They are a minority, but if you add them to Labour they have a majority in teh house. A small one but a significant one.
This is why they want Labour to table the vote of confidence. They know it will be lost, but that will force Labour to fall into its third choice position as an election would then be extremely unlikely if not impossible. Secretly, and to be fair openly, Labour accept an election is a long shot, but they wouldn't want to miss the chance if it appeared. Also, Labour has a lot of Brexit supporting voters and it doesn't want to alienate them. So it is important that the referendum is fallen into rather than openly sought.
This is important as having a referendum presents risks and how you get there and who is blamed for it may determine the ultimate result. But it is the one thing you can do the maths for and come out with something doable. In the meantime a willingness to talk to the government has to be on the table and it is. IT won't happen though. The vote yesterday could push the referendum into May's deal v Remain with the ERG loons having shot their bolt. That is significant, and at least the worst outcome is better than the disaster of a hard Brexit.
So in actual fact, not calling for the vote of no confidence a few days ago is actually working out for the best. I'd like it to happen now or by the end of the week. Mainly as I'm getting fed up with it all and I am going to Belgium for a short break before Christmas and I wouldn't mind getting a few more euros for my pound. But if you believe that May won't speak to Labour to try to do a deal, and that they won't win a vote of no confidence - look at their stated option beyond that! That is where we are heading. But I am delighted it looks like it will now be May's bad (but better than no deal Brexit) against Remain.
Interesting if true
One thing that May understands is that there are only three choices. 1. May's deal. 2. No deal 3. Remain following a second referendum.
May is trying to play down the clock so that MPs are faced with a choice of her deal and no deal because there won't be time for a second referendum.
I have no idea what Corbyn's tactics are at this point. His actions appear to indicate that his preference is a hard Brexit which can be blamed on the Tories and which might well lead to a full split in that party followed by a general election. He obviously can't say that without splitting the Labour party. So we maintain this pretence that there should be a general election which will follow a vote of no confidence which he won't call he would lose it.
All very plausible.
My view is that there is no deal that can be achieved that would be acceptable to either side, so the options are pay our debts and leave with no deal, subsequently negotiating a free trade deal with the EU (will take years) - or no Brexit. I would prefer those two options were again put to the people.
My then girlfriend whose ticket to the darts,l paid for; (As well as the Prodigy tickets) offered me no sympathy whatsoever, indeed she loudly described me as a 'f@@king idiot.'
I'll never understand women.
"For Labour to win the confidence vote the only way is for the DUP to vote with them/us....and even then they/we might not get it"
Reporter " So what is Labours policy on Brexit right now?"
"We want a general election"
???? Off their f****** trollies. The lot of em'
But what is a negative is if/when we have a second vote on May's deal v Remain, if that is what happens
They may agree (all 27 unanimously) to extend the 2 year Article 50 timescale to enable a further vote, and if the result was Remain then that's when we could unilaterally revoke Article 50.
The SNP and Lib dems don't have that problem. Their supporters want Brexit killed.
His entire track record on foreign affairs prior to the Iraq war was abysmal. Far from “right side of history” as his supporters claim.