Theresa May (Vol.2)

[EddieSteadyGo]

I wish Corbyn would stop referring to "Labour's six tests"...just a meaningless set of points designed to be failed,

It's also a little frustrating to keep reading about 'no deal' being the default option when in fact, due to the voting schedule, this would also need to be agreed by MPs, and the majority in Parliament are against this happening.

And at the same time Corbyn is trying to steer a path towards a 2nd referendum, in conjunction with the SNP.

So we either get a version of May's deal, or we get a delay (which will cost another £10bn), and at which point we will either have another GE or another referendum.

I agree the NI border issue has been exaggerated out of all proportion and is being used by the EU to create some leverage. (Anyone involved in international logistics knows that so much can be achieved with 'known shipper' type regimes and other systems).

But I can't understand why some Brexiters would reject May's deal due to the risks inherent in her plan, and take instead the risk of another GE and referendum. The only reason I can see you would do that is if you thought a 'no deal' was a possibility, when it isn't.

[JagLover]

EddieSteadyGo said:

But I can't understand why some Brexiters would reject May's deal due to the risks inherent in her plan, and take instead the risk of another GE and referendum. The only reason I can see you would do that is if you thought a 'no deal' was a possibility, when it isn't.

Because there is a way out of the EU (if we had politicians who represented us) whereas there is no legal way to unilaterally exit the backstop.

[EddieSteadyGo]

JagLover said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

But I can't understand why some Brexiters would reject May's deal due to the risks inherent in her plan, and take instead the risk of another GE and referendum. The only reason I can see you would do that is if you thought a 'no deal' was a possibility, when it isn't.

Because there is a way out of the EU (if we had politicians who represented us) whereas there is no legal way to unilaterally exit the backstop.

There isn't a way out with 'no deal' as the numbers don't stack up. Wishing it were different doesn't make it true.

And no-one can actually stop Parliament from doing anything in the future, if it so chooses. It just means it upsets some people and causes some disruption. But that risk is manageable, given time.

Your type of thinking is just going to swap this risk (which I accept will need to be managed) for no brexit.

[anonymous-user]

EddieSteadyGo said:

I wish Corbyn would stop referring to "Labour's six tests"...just a meaningless set of points designed to be failed,

It's also a little frustrating to keep reading about 'no deal' being the default option when in fact, due to the voting schedule, this would also need to be agreed by MPs, and the majority in Parliament are against this happening.

And at the same time Corbyn is trying to steer a path towards a 2nd referendum, in conjunction with the SNP.

So we either get a version of May's deal, or we get a delay (which will cost another £10bn), and at which point we will either have another GE or another referendum.

I agree the NI border issue has been exaggerated out of all proportion and is being used by the EU to create some leverage. (Anyone involved in international logistics knows that so much can be achieved with 'known shipper' type regimes and other systems).

But I can't understand why some Brexiters would reject May's deal due to the risks inherent in her plan, and take instead the risk of another GE and referendum. The only reason I can see you would do that is if you thought a 'no deal' was a possibility, when it isn't.

Quite. The options, such as they are, all lead one to May's deal. Like a maze with only one path.

If Parliament rejects the deal, then the options are exit with no deal (and there is AIUI a clear majority of MPs against that) or ref#2. But how on earth do you run ref#2 - what is the binary yes/no question? You can't get away with Leave/Remain, and you can't get away with May Deal/No Deal. You end up with three options on the ballot - no deal/May deal/cancel Brexit. So then if cancel Brexit "wins" with 40% of the vote, how is that supposed to be sold to the public? All you've done is underline that the country wants to leave but is completely divided as to how. Welcome to 2018!

Another GE risks giving you Corbyn - whose six tests seem to look a hell of lot like "how about we do a deal which keeps us in the EU, lads" - or Corbyn + the SNP, or some other ragtag alliance, or another May government (and if she were to win, she would undoubtedly stay on). So either back to where we are now, or cancel Brexit.

Absent some movement from the EU now-ish, I really struggle to see the path that delivers anything other than either May's deal or something even closer to EU membership, if not full formal continued EU membership.

[JagLover]

EddieSteadyGo said:

There isn't a way out with 'no deal' as the numbers don't stack up. Wishing it were different doesn't make it true.
.

That will be a matter for those who choose to stop Brexit, despite standing on a manifesto promising to do so.

Just saying why those who genuinely believe in it (who appear to number fewer than 48) might choose to reject it regardless.

[saaby93]

Greg66 said:

Absent some movement from the EU now-ish, I really struggle to see the path that delivers anything other than either May's deal or something even closer to EU membership, if not full formal continued EU membership.

Merkel is being as helpful as she can to ensure Britain Exits

[EddieSteadyGo]

I could follow the logic in opposed May's proposal if there were a majority in Parliament for a 'no deal'. But there isn't.

I can see why it might be frustrating- a big opportunity lost etc etc. But professional politicians need to deal with the reality.

This of course sums up why JRM can't get his 48 votes - because most Conservative MPs can follow the logic and see the likely outcomes.

And it will be the upmost irony if May's deal is defeated by committed Brexiters, only to instead get another referendum where no-one can predict the outcome.

[EddieSteadyGo]

JagLover said:

That will be a matter for those who choose to stop Brexit, despite standing on a manifesto promising to do so.

They (Labour) don't give a fk about their manifesto. Every time I hear Kier Starmer speak he directly contradicts their commitments.

And the consequences for doing this will be zero - if it gets to the point of stalemate in Parliament, most of the population won't be able to untangle quite what happened and who is to "blame" - instead everyone's focus will be on winning another referendum.

[esxste]

EddieSteadyGo said:

I wish Corbyn would stop referring to "Labour's six tests"...just a meaningless set of points designed to be failed,

It's also a little frustrating to keep reading about 'no deal' being the default option when in fact, due to the voting schedule, this would also need to be agreed by MPs, and the majority in Parliament are against this happening.

And at the same time Corbyn is trying to steer a path towards a 2nd referendum, in conjunction with the SNP.

So we either get a version of May's deal, or we get a delay (which will cost another £10bn), and at which point we will either have another GE or another referendum.

I agree the NI border issue has been exaggerated out of all proportion and is being used by the EU to create some leverage. (Anyone involved in international logistics knows that so much can be achieved with 'known shipper' type regimes and other systems).

But I can't understand why some Brexiters would reject May's deal due to the risks inherent in her plan, and take instead the risk of another GE and referendum. The only reason I can see you would do that is if you thought a 'no deal' was a possibility, when it isn't.

Corbyn is trying to steer a path to a Labour Government, and he's doing his best to steer a course where he doesn't piss of either side of the EU argument.

Rees-Mogg and the ERG nutters do want a hard-brexit, becuase they see opportunities to make a quick buck for them and their buddies.

[EddieSteadyGo]

If I were part of the ERG group, I would try and seek an alliance with moderate MPs along this lines....

ERG MPs hold their nose and support May's deal, on the basis that once it is passed and we have left the EU next March, we have a leadership election at the start of the summer with the aim of electing a recognised "Brexit" candidate (e.g. Raab, Boris etc) who can then be responsible the next stages of terms full terms agreed etc.

[anonymous-user]

EddieSteadyGo said:

If I were part of the ERG group, I would try and seek an alliance with moderate MPs along this lines....

ERG MPs hold their nose and support May's deal, on the basis that once it is passed and we have left the EU next March, we have a leadership election at the start of the summer with the aim of electing a recognised "Brexit" candidate (e.g. Raab, Boris etc) who can then be responsible the next stages of terms full terms agreed etc.

Its too late then, we are stuck in the CU with no say on rules forever.

[JagLover]

EddieSteadyGo said:

ERG MPs hold their nose and support May's deal, on the basis that once it is passed and we have left the EU next March, we have a leadership election at the start of the summer with the aim of electing a recognised "Brexit" candidate (e.g. Raab, Boris etc) who can then be responsible the next stages of terms full terms agreed etc.

Doesn't matter who we have in charge once this deal is passed, which is why I don't give a toss really.

The only politicians I have any regard for are those who put their letters in (and a few on the Labour benches who don't have an opportunity to do the same), and those are the only ones I would vote for at the present moment, if I had the opportunity because I was in their constituency.

[paulrockliffe]

There doesn't need to be a majority for No Deal unless Parliament have the time and opportunity to vote against that outcome.

As things stand that isn't likely because the if May is voted down No Deal is the only outcome with any realistic prospect of Tory survival. Frustrating Brexit, whatever name it's given, will see the Tories done for a very very very long time, regardless of Corbyn. The Government will retain sufficient control of the process to get us out on the 29th of March regardless of Parliament if they choose to.

If May's deal is voted down and No Deal is voted on and rejected, then what? We're still leaving on the 29th of March, there's still primary legislation in place that would lead to that outcome and the Government still controls the process, so it doesn't matter if a vote is at odds with legislation because parliament is not above the law.

If Parliament were to somehow wrestle control from the the Government, then what? They'd have no constitutional mandate to negotiate with the EU, because the're not the Government and the EU aren't going to negotiate with a body without the power to enact any agreement.

I just don't see how Parliament actually avoids no-deal, it's all bluster.

[Blue Oval84]

jsf said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

If I were part of the ERG group, I would try and seek an alliance with moderate MPs along this lines....

ERG MPs hold their nose and support May's deal, on the basis that once it is passed and we have left the EU next March, we have a leadership election at the start of the summer with the aim of electing a recognised "Brexit" candidate (e.g. Raab, Boris etc) who can then be responsible the next stages of terms full terms agreed etc.

Its too late then, we are stuck in the CU with no say on rules forever.

That can't possibly be true, apparently the EU have a clear ambition to formulate a trade agreement with us, and are "keen" not to use the backstop. This, apparently, should be taken as evidence that it's impossible for us to get stuck permanently subordinate to the EU on basically everything.

Oh wait, is that a flying pig I see?

[Derek Smith]

esxste said:

Corbyn is trying to steer a path to a Labour Government, and he's doing his best to steer a course where he doesn't piss of either side of the EU argument.

Rees-Mogg and the ERG nutters do want a hard-brexit, becuase they see opportunities to make a quick buck for them and their buddies.

It is almost as if oth Mogg ad Corbyn have the same target in mind. They are both doing their utmost to ensure the tories are kicked out at the next election.

[EddieSteadyGo]

jsf said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

If I were part of the ERG group, I would try and seek an alliance with moderate MPs along this lines....

ERG MPs hold their nose and support May's deal, on the basis that once it is passed and we have left the EU next March, we have a leadership election at the start of the summer with the aim of electing a recognised "Brexit" candidate (e.g. Raab, Boris etc) who can then be responsible the next stages of terms full terms agreed etc.

Its too late then, we are stuck in the CU with no say on rules forever.

Not true. That could only happen if we chose to stay in a CU with no say on the rules.

Our Parliament can make laws on pretty much anything - and our current Parliament can't bind a future Parliament either. So a future Parliament can change its mind and so change the law, if it wishes.

They may be consequences from doing this - so it might for example affect our trading relations with the EU. But I would argue we would have a long time to prepare for that scenario, and at that point we wouldn't be a member of the EU and the "they sell more to us than we sell to them" argument does become relevant.

Now it is true that if we wanted to stay in a CU we probably couldn't have a say on the rules because we wouldn't be a member of the EU. So maybe we would leave. But it would still be our choice.

[psi310398]

EddieSteadyGo said:

There isn't a way out with 'no deal' as the numbers don't stack up. Wishing it were different doesn't make it true.

And no-one can actually stop Parliament from doing anything in the future, if it so chooses. It just means it upsets some people and causes some disruption. But that risk is manageable, given time.

Your type of thinking is just going to swap this risk (which I accept will need to be managed) for no brexit.

If push comes to shove, and politicians are determined to ignore the electorate, my view is that 'no Brexit' at least gives the British people chance for another bash, when we've dealt with our politicians, rather a 'deal' from which escape from the EU is impossible.

And the chance to cause some fairly major disruption within the EU while we decide what to do next. Refusing to divorce pleasantly needs consequences.

[davepoth]

EddieSteadyGo said:

Not true. That could only happen if we chose to stay in a CU with no say on the rules.

Our Parliament can make laws on pretty much anything - and our current Parliament can't bind a future Parliament either. So a future Parliament can change its mind and so change the law, if it wishes.

They may be consequences from doing this - so it might for example affect our trading relations with the EU. But I would argue we would have a long time to prepare for that scenario, and at that point we wouldn't be a member of the EU and the "they sell more to us than we sell to them" argument does become relevant.

Now it is true that if we wanted to stay in a CU we probably couldn't have a say on the rules because we wouldn't be a member of the EU. So maybe we would leave. But it would still be our choice.

Except that this is a treaty, which is not a competency of parliament. The executive can bind future executives with a treaty. The Withdrawal Agreement's backstop has no mechanism for the UK to leave, only to go into a "better" agreement with the approval of the EU. Leaving unilaterally would involve breaking a treaty, which is a serious matter.

As the EU has no reason to offer us anything more, the UK will be stuck in the backstop indefinitely.

[EddieSteadyGo]

paulrockliffe said:

If May's deal is voted down and No Deal is voted on and rejected, then what? We're still leaving on the 29th of March, there's still primary legislation in place that would lead to that outcome and the Government still controls the process, so it doesn't matter if a vote is at odds with legislation because parliament is not above the law.

If Parliament were to somehow wrestle control from the the Government, then what? They'd have no constitutional mandate to negotiate with the EU, because the're not the Government and the EU aren't going to negotiate with a body without the power to enact any agreement.

I just don't see how Parliament actually avoids no-deal, it's all bluster.

It isn't bluster. The mechanism and the factors are simple.

Firstly the numbers. Labour have a policy which says any Brexit deal must pass their 6 tests. And their 6 tests say we should effectively be a member of the EU. The SNP would like to Remain, and there a good portion, maybe 40-50% of conservative MPs, who, given a free vote, would vote Remain. So there is currently a *massive* parliamentary majority for Remain.

Then there is the senior civil service, which control all the levers of the bureaucracy. And the majority there would also like to Remain.

Then there is the legal obligation on the government for a meaningful vote. So they can't bounce Parliament into a decision - or indeed give the false choices.

So in the scenario May's deal is defeated, an amendment could be tabled which said crudely, "the government must extend A50 and negotiate again with the EU". And it could even vote on specific ammendments as to what part of the deal should be 'improved' - and that won't mean making it a harder brexit.

So if you follow the legislative timetable, the parlimetary numbers and the obligations on the government, you can see why 'no deal' doesn't happen.

[davepoth]

EddieSteadyGo said:

It's also a little frustrating to keep reading about 'no deal' being the default option when in fact, due to the voting schedule, this would also need to be agreed by MPs, and the majority in Parliament are against this happening.

I'm confused by this - can you explain a little further? My understanding was that the 29th of March is baked into the legislation already, so absent any positive action by parliament to alter that the UK will be leaving on that date, deal or no deal. What further legislation or votes need to be completed to enable no deal, in your opinion?