Westminstenders: Break it or make it.

[RedToothBrush]

We have a deal on the table. In reality it does not answer the question the result of the referendum posed: what type of deal do we want? The progress we have actually made in 2 years is to say, 'we want to leave' but nothing more. Or as its been termed: 'Blind Brexit' in which we exit but without knowing what comes next.

Even this is controversial. There are apparently some 88 Conservative back bench MPs (or half the Conservative back bench MPs) who are intending to vote against approving the deal. Some are remainers and some are hard leavers. Each side believing there is still everything to play for; whether that be no deal or no brexit. We are still as divided as ever.

The stumbling block, as ever, is largely the NI backstop. With many still arguing that it should be time limited. This fails to understand that the backstop is the GFA to all intents and purposes. And this is why Ireland and the EU will never agree to have a time limited backstop.

And once again we have this fundamental misunderstanding that the withdrawal agreement is anything more than merely the mechanism to leave, not the final deal, which is hampering all discussion of the subject.

There is talk that May will try to push the deal through and if she fails she will try for a second time. This might work, if this wasn't being anticipated. The trouble is the element of surprise is gone. This has now been denied by a No10 spokesperson. And has the possibility of a second referendum. Though the door on that, seems to be more open than less, with May's official declaration of a Blind Brexit. The whole effectiveness of a TARP style situation and a second vote on the deal in the HoC is the guilotine effect, where MPs look over the cliff and go 'shiiiiiitttt'. If the hope is alive for another way out for either the ERG or Remainers, then the plan is dead anyway. The a50 ECJ case is also still on; the latest government appeal to kill it was blocked.

Not only this, but there is the first tangable rumblings of discontent within the EU towards the deal. Spain has talked about voting the deal down. Whether this is anymore than talk, remains to be seen. Spain can not veto the deal at this stage anyway - but it might be able to cause trouble further down the line and thats the danger.

Meanwhile Labour are still promising unicorns and a total renegotition of the deal. This still focuses on the backstop.

Sunday's EU summit does still seem to be on though, despite Merkel suggesting that she wouldn't turn up.

And remember, as it stands, on 29th March we will leave the EU without a deal. The power to stop this lies with the Government and EU as far as we know at present, pending the outcome of the ECJ case.

May still has everything to do to make a deal happen and there are so many forces and people working to break it. We have still not made any real progress to Brexit, apart from get closer to it, through the mere ticking of the clock.

What a FKN mess all the same. Politicians in UK are clueless. Well that is what comes across anyway.

If the HoC is to have a 'meaningful vote' please can someone give them an hour's talk about what the EU is and miss out all the crap that the cabinet have been spouting for 2 1/2 years. Just go for some facts,,,,, please.

Aha, the WA may be a catalyst to smash redlines of key Brexiters and find something better:

Sunday Telegraph claims the EU & the Cabinet have a Plan B if the WA is defeated:
Norway option.

While the Sunday Times claims Remainers are discussing with the Gang of Five and the DUP about staying in the CU permanently

Not at my computer this evening so can't easily copy the Sunday Times article, but its interesting.

It talks of a gang of five in cabinet: not the Brexit lot but Hammond, Liddington, Rudd, Clarke and Gauke who are working to bring about a softer Brexit, if May can't get the deal through parliament. They are in talks with Gove and Fox and the DUP to facilitate it. (consistent with Arlene's Saturday interview). The idea being a permanent customs union with the EU.

What is the actual point of all this.

Y'know, I'm beginning to think that as a pro EU person it might be time to accept that the long game needs to be played.

I think the referendum was a travesty, I believe that leaving is bad for the country and I deplore the nationalistic, xenophobic rhetoric that has been stirred up. But, the pendulum hasn't swung back yet, and in all truth I think this bad deal is better than no deal.

I reckon that most of the population will view it as a Brexit, so it has a sense of legitimacy which I'm sad to say that I don't think a People's Vote would achieve right now.

I'm personally holding out for someone new to come to prominence to argue for a Best of Both long term deal. One where the people have blue passports, and immigrants can come in but only have the right to stay if they're working. One where we have a say in setting standards of excellence across a range of sectors, and where we talk about what it can do for us.

[And yes, I'm being ironic in that I know that this is what the current deal gives us. But because so much rests on the feelz now, I reckon that Remain needs a rebrand to win hearts and minds. I'm deeply saddened that it's going to take a rocky few years before enough of public sentiment shifts, but I agree with a number of previous posters who have raised the fact that anything that looks as though it ignores The Will Of The People (TM) is likely to have a profoundly disruptive effect on the public psyche.

That's not to say that we shouldn't continue to voice opposition to Brexit, but in my view it's time to reframe the debate. The British public seem to like an underdog so perhaps we should encourage MPs to get behind the Prime Minister and vote for the WA and then agitate for a Best of Both longer term relationship.]

Yes, it's confusing
we seem to have 2 Gangs of Five: a Leaver one and now a Remainer one
both in the Cabinet !

This Happy Band of Brothers 🤣

Liddington is very loyal to May, so this new Gang may also be his defence for her against the other Gang

mother What we could lose ?
Well people could vote for No Deal, which would probably be a disaster, far worse than than any deal.

This WA may have already unblocked some red lines, so let's see where all these mysterious gang talks lead

The WA may eventually lead to no deal though. If they've achieved nothing by the end of the transition - and then achieved nothing by the end of the extension. It just draws everything out until 2022 and we still end up exactly where we are now.
People are bored and people want answers. Business want to know one way or another. I'm not saying I definitely agree - but there is definitely an argument to be made for just ripping the bandaid off now - instead of drawing it out for another 3 years.
No deal now. No deal in 2022. What's the difference? They still won't have prepared for it - because they won't admit it's going to happen until it does. There is no guarantee that the WA will lead to anything like soft brexit, or get us an expedited rejoin. Agreeing to the WA in the blind hope that Norway+++ is what we end up with is no better and no more sensible than any other option we have right now.

There's a big difference between No Deal on 29 March
and the possibility of No Deal or Norway++ at the end of transition

Business can do a fair amount to prepare in the next few years, to diversify, to build up UK supply chains

The E27 can do a lot to prepare new infrastructure to check UK goods
They have started recruiting 1000s of Customs staff, but the training they need takes 2-3 years
and physical infrastructure in te worst affected countries needs more time too

So No Deal in a few years would still be very painful for both sides, but it would be far worse on 29 March
Norway++ would be miles better

Boredom is fine - don't push towards No Deal because you are bored

and stop taking the EU for granted:
Remain under current terms may already be lost

• we don't know if Revoking would be allowed at all, or under what conditions

BigChoc - I agree with you about Nicola being sensible and canny and not wanting to call an Indyref until she is confident of winning (I've heard her say just that).

I'll disagree with you about the case for being independent being unconvincing - although if you'd only read MSM, you might have thought that. Did you read "Scotland's Future" - all 470 pages of it? .....the White Paper that was produced well in advance of the referendum (strange concept that ).

The SNP did make one fatal miscalculation: they assumed that they would be negotiating with reasonable counterparts, but as we've seen with the Brexit negotiations, that's not the case . The WM power cabal is like a cornered tiger and will do anything - including lying through its teeth - to protect itself.

After the surprise poll with Yes in the lead, all hell was let loose, with Brown (no longer even an elected MP ) promising the earth, and The Vow printed, supposedly signed all the main Unionist parties, promising all sorts of devolved powers enshrined for all time to Scotland (the equivalent of the "£350 million to NHS" big red bus).

The rest of the UK now knows just how trustworthy such promises are

It adds to the reasons why I would like to see referendums properly regulated - like in Ireland, with a proper commission that vets facts that are allowed to be disseminated. Arguments are fine - but false facts should not be allowed. The fact that people expect politicians to lie should not be a valid excuse (see the election court case against Alistair Carmichael, which failed for just that reason but at least he didn't get costs awarded )

Ideally, I'd like to see something like what happened in Malta when it voted for its independence: what they voted on was whether they agreed with the new constitution. But I suspect that's a bit much to ask!

But there is a parallel with the current Brexit situation: where, given such a major constitutional change, the people should be asked if they agree with the WA or the status quo. If No Deal has to be included (maybe on a STV basis, so only the choice that gets more than 50% can be proceeded with), then it would have to be fully costed, with the full impact reports published (not kept hidden away in rooms into which you get signed in and out) and businesses and trade organisations have to be released from NDAs.

Democracy is at more danger from secrecy than from not including a suicidal option (while not telling people it is suicidal ) on a hypothetical ballot paper.

Theresa's letter to the UK this morning, still using the same old 'securing our borders' and the other worn out lines.
Sickening really.

If Theresa's letter appeals to Leave Voters such that they see sense and do whatever is necessary to avoid No Deal, then I'm happy for her to say what she needs to say.
All of a sudden we have delicate bloody snowflakes who are triggered by any phrase that doesn't say exactly what they want it to say. Whatever. Avoid No Deal.

www.brexit-news.de/facebook-documents-seized-in-unprecedented-move-by-uk-parliament/

Facebook documents have been seized in an unusually aggressive step by the UK parliament.

A number of internal documents belonging to the social media giant were taken using parliament’s legal powers as MPs continue to probe the Cambridge Analytica data scandal.

The Cambridge Analytica is coming back to the surface. It’s good. A bit late but good.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-void-high-court-ruling-arron-banks-investigation-when-december-christmas-a8649001.html

Brexit: High Court to rule if referendum vote ‘void’ as early as Christmas after Arron Banks investigation

The High Court will rule as early as Christmas whether Brexit should be declared “void”, in a legal case given a turbo-boost by the criminal investigation into Leave funder Arron Banks.

Judges are poised to fast track the potentially explosive challenge, after Theresa May’s refusal to act on the growing evidence of illegality in the 2016 referendum campaign, The Independent can reveal.

Lawyers describe that failure as “absolutely extraordinary” – given the National Crime Agency’s (NCA) probe into suspicions of “multiple” criminal offences committed by Mr Banks and the Leave.EU campaign.

And something else that is coming to bite TM on the bum.
Why in earth did she stop the NCA from investigating???

If Theresa's letter appeals to Leave Voters such that they see sense and do whatever is necessary to avoid No Deal, then I'm happy for her to say what she needs to say.

That works well if you are not an immigrant or look like an immigrant (aka anyone that isn’t white british with a recognised accent).
Stroking xenophobia has never been a good way to solve problem. It only creates some.

@EtVoilaBrexit - i have an immigrant mum and refugee grandparents. I just want us to avoid No Deal. The genie of racism is out of the bottle. We can fight it together but we need to avoid No Deal first.

It’s not at all clear in Theresa’s letter that this is a withdrawal agreement that will expire, not a trade deal or any kind of final deal with the EU.

A free trade area will allow goods to flow easily across our borders, protecting the many skilled jobs right across the country that rely on integrated supply-chains

Erm, more details please - what exactly has been agreed?

With Brexit settled, we will be able to focus our energies on the many other important issues facing us here at home

So when exactly will Brexit be settled?

Brexit: High Court to rule if referendum vote ‘void’ as early as Christmas after Arron Banks investigation

It's hard to find a proper report showing the actual legal issues behind this case.

For a start if it is really only the High Court then there's then a hierarchy of appeals to the Supreme Court which would be unlikely to be completed by March.

I found slightly more detail of the legal basis in a Spanish publication.

The claim appears to be based on the wording of the Lisbon treaty
"The premise for the legal challenge is that the triggering of Article 50 was not in line with 'constitutional requirements'.

The theory is that the illegal conduct of Leave calls into doubt the Article 50 notification to relinquish membership.

Surely this is clutching at straws because all the PM (ideally in parliament) needs to do is say we knew there may have been illegal spending but 'the people' weren't influenced that much and they have still spoken.

It's dodgy that the government acted on a non-binding referendum anyway but surely it's still constitutional if Parliament ratify it? Even if it been a binding referendum, the result would not necessarily be void if the government ratified the result in the knowledge of spending breaches. That would still be constitutional if they decided the spending breaches weren't determinative.

At most even if successful all it would do would be lead to a second Article 50 notification being needed which could run consecutively with the WA?

www.surinenglish.com/national/201808/24/bremain-spain-chair-lead-20180824104520-v.html

Merry
I THINK the draft being signed today only sets a couple of items in soft stone but is mainly a routemap rather than anything specific. This allows the UK to at least function although losing representation in the EU, and 'solves' the NI border for now, yes, a vassal state but importantly is sufficiently woolly so that the UK can chose to either steer close to the EU or drop away completely.

I worry that the US will quickly gain power and influence in the UK, and that this will then impede Norway++.