Westminstenders: May plays Sale of the Century

[RedToothBrush]

Theresa May is currently in the midst of a campaign to sell her deal to the public. Unfortunately she appears that there are only 649 people she needs to sell it to, and that's not going so well.

She attempted a sales pitch to potential Labour rebels and succeeded in getting them to actively decide to vote against her.

There are currently 100 backbench tories who have stated they will vote against it, which makes parliamentary maths very difficult.

There is a rising support for plan b in the form of Norway Plus. This may make Remainers less likely to vote for a deal but persuade some leavers to back May.

The ECJ A50 Court case has been heard. Judgment has not been given yet. Its due 'soon'.

Next week the Withdrawal Agreement will be debated in Parliament with the vote due at 7pm on Tuesday 11th December.

Expect a rough couple of weeks.

Best not to claim things aren't an option just because you don't like them and there isn't a plan.

@BigChocFrenzy - it is not a question of whether or not I like the options.

Option 2 is not a real option - the answer to the question 'Which terms do you want the United Kingdom to adopt for its future relationship with the European Union?' cannot be '...the terms that have been negotiated' - because no terms have been negotiated yet.

Mike Harding's letter is certainly more eloquent than mine, which simply said

Dear Mrs May

You are a shameful liar

Regards

Mostdays

Here's my letter to my MP

Dear MP Name

I am writing to you regarding the forthcoming debate and voting in parliament on the Government’s withdrawal agreement negotiated with the European Union.

Following the publication the Labour Party manifesto for the General Election in 2017 I was pleased to learn that “Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first.” I am also pleased to confirm that I voted for you to be my MP largely based on this commitment.

Clearly, at that time, the party had also to be true to its values and offer something different from Brexit than the Conservative party, as indeed it did. However, at the said election, a Labour government was not returned.

Nonetheless, a commitment that the party “accepts the referendum result” is one I think it remains reasonable to hold the Labour party to nationally, and to hold you to personally as my MP.

I hope you will take any opportunity afforded to you to be present, speak in the debate if possible and vote positively so that the electors of Constituency Name will have a public record of your vote on this crucial agreement.

The situation is now different than was the case in 2017. Then, it was entirely proper to offer competing visions of Brexit while committing to “accept the referendum result”. Now, as we begin December 2018 and with the vote 10 days away, a withdrawal agreement deal has been made between the Government and the EU-27. For myself, I am firmly of the view that “a” deal is better than “no deal”; I am equally firmly of the view that “this deal” is better by far than a “no deal” Brexit next March.

I urge you to vote in favour of the withdrawal agreement so that the Labour party’s 2017 commitment can be honoured and an orderly withdrawal from the EU can begin next year. More than this though, I urge you to consider the views of all your constituents, to speak, and to vote positively so your stance on this agreement will be a matter of record that you can be held to at a future election.

Brace yourself Britain. Brexit is about to teach you what a crisis actually is

@Havana The WA is an option, because it fulfills the terms of Article 50.
Whether it is a good or bad option.

Once A50 was revoked, there were only outcomes possible:

• Leave with a WA
• Leave without a WA, i.e. crash out No Deal
• Revoke A50 and Remain

Remainers of course prefer outcome 3, but the other outcomes remain possible, including No Deal
There is no plan for these options - which is a different matter - but then
there was no plan for Leave and that was in the referendum - and won

The WA was never going to specify the future terms
because Article 50 is just intended to make an orderly exit,
settling outstanding obligations and giving a rough framework for future relations.

The WA specified by A50 is NOT intended to be a trade deal, because they tale typically 5-15 years to negotiate, not 2 years.

A50 doesn't even mention a transition / implementation period, but the EU & UK have both agreed that this is an essential part of any WA

The future relationship will be negotiated in detail during the transiiton period, put in legal text and agreed.
This of course will take years to do.

Article 50, section 2
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

"2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention.

In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State,
setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal,
taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union."

Excellent article, Annie and totally true.

Also, here is hardly anyone alive now who remembers the dreadful hardships of the 1920s and 1930s, particularly in the NE

However, I wonder if that folk memory - where families like my late dad's were abandoned by the (comparatively) richer South and nearly starved to death - have led to the distrust and total rejection of what the "experts" in London keep warning

There was amazingly no breakdown of law & order - at least according to my late dad; people just suffered without thinking of stealing from others, or rioting.
The Jarrow hunger marchers were very orderly, afaik.

I suspect that after a few weeks when most people can no longer obtain "treats" / luxuries, there will be civil unrest.
I dread to think what happens if the essentials run low anywhere

My Dad grew up in genuine poverty in the 30s in the UK. He was physically underdeveloped and died relatively young.
But hey, he had a blue passport so they were golden days.

My dad and those siblings who grew up during that time were noticeably several inches shorter than the ones born in the late 1930s onwards
(family of 13 kids)

They also lost all their teeth in their 40s and developed serious illnesses like cancer and CVD,
whereas their younger siblings were quite long-lived

The elder ones lived long enough to serve in WW2 and - the survivors - afterwards to try to keep various colonies under control

So, I suppose the state was satisfied with that

Europe ready to offer Britain more time for a softer Brexit

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/europe-ready-to-offer-britain-more-time-for-a-softer-brexit-zgrb0r0q3

European leaders are prepared to offer Britain a three-month extension to Article 50 to prevent parliamentary deadlock triggering a no-deal Brexitit_.^

Under plans being discussed in European capitals the EU would agree to extend Britain’s membership until July to allow time for
either a second referendumum_*
or to agree a Norway-style soft Brexit.

However, the EU has made clear that
the extension would only be offered after parliament had come to a clear conclusion about the type of future relationship it wants.

The move was part of a response to growing fears in Brussels that if Theresa May’s dealal_ is voted down by MPs the ensuing chaos could increase the odds of a no-deal Brexit.^
....
Michel Barnier, the EU’s lead negotiator, warned MPs threatening to vote against the withdrawal agreement that the “future of the country is at stake”

Surprise surprise.

Three months won't be enough though. Three years won't be enough...possibly not even thirty years ... .

From LBC

The former education secretary told Nick Ferrariri_ that Britain’s departure date, currently scheduled for 29th March 2019, should be delayed in order to hold the vote.^
^“Parliament is in gridlock,” the MP for Putney said on Friday. “You have to find an alternative route through.
“You’d probably need to extend Article 50 for four months to the 29th July and that would give us time to have a referendum.
“My calculations show you could have one on the 30th May and that would mean we finally resolve a passage on the way forward with Brexit.”^
^Ms Greening said that it would not simply be another “in” or “out” referendum, but this time with three questions:

• Accept the Prime Minister’s deal
• Leave with no deal and do a free trade agreement later
• Remain on the existing terms

Nick was quick to point out: “Suppose the percentages of your three were; 33%, 33% plays 34% - are you honestly saying that’s the solution?” “No I’m not saying that’s the solution, Nick,” the Tory backbencher said. “What I’m saying is you should then have a first and second preference vote, just like you do for a Mayor and that will help us find the consensus.”^

Any opinions on Donald Tusk?

Theresa caught out telling porkies...AGAIN

EU officials have dismissed Theresa May’s suggestion that extending Brexit talks could result in renegotiating the deal, as Brussels awaits the next twist in the British political drama.

... Article 50 could only be prolonged if the UK made a big change to its Brexit position, such as dropping the demand for an independent trade policy to join the customs union, or requesting membership of the single market, through the European Economic Area.

“We could potentially reopen article 50, but not within the current frame, not within the current redlines,” one diplomat said. “There is just very little to talk about anymore – you could change the font.”

the extension would only be offered after parliament had come to a clear conclusion about the type of future relationship it wants
AND
it contained at least one option acceptable to the EU,
i.e. Remain / Norway ++ / Current WA

So I expect it won't be offered if the Hoc / govt are still squabbling and dithering,
or to renegotiate the WA - unless the UK drops its red lines

The UK would be required to state

1. Which option they have chosen:
   Remain / Norway ++ / Current WA

2. and why they need extra time

3. and the action plan during the 3 months to achieve that option

3 months is enough time to agree to change the "Political Declaration" in the WA - i.e. the bit that states the framework for the future relationship - from the current CU++ to a Norway++
Especially if Barnier has had a draft of this ready for several months

So, it won't really be a negotiation, just both sides agreeing to negotiate Norway++ (pretty much Barnier's draft PD) in the transition period

BUT
For a PV, we'd need to extend by 6 months unless we get the extension right after the HoC vote:

For a referendum - even condensing all the prep - the shortest possible time according to most constitutional experts is about 24 weeks:

https://constitution-unit.com/2018/08/30/how-long-would-it-take-to-hold-a-second-referendum-on-brexit/

Agreeing a Norway++ WA followed by a PV could need 9 months extension

Maybe the EU are thinking / would allow

either a Remain vs WA / No Deal referendum
or Norway++ decided by the HoC without a ref, because it is leaving the EU and hence legally satisfies the 2016 referendum .

no deal or no brexit....we are prepared

Says Donald Tusk

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-tusk-no-deal-theresa-may-eu-president-latest-g20-donald-latest-a8660851.html

Which gives me the unusal challenge of contacting my ignorant Labour MP and agree with him that he should vote the WA down.

Strange times!

Greetings, all. Had the most extraordinary thing happen today. I was in the supermarket in the town centre, queuing for the till, and the nice elderly lady in front of me engaged me in a bit of pleasant "English queue chat" that suddenly veered into what a scary mess Brexit is.

If there's one thing I've learned in this country after a quarter of a century, it's that nice English folks don't talk politics in the queue with total strangers unless they're really quite worried and quite certain their worry is reciprocated.

(Actually, "elderly" is the wrong term as it could be read as 80+ - she was much younger than that)

My Dad gives me the view from New York and he finds it depressing that the same anger that created Brexit and Trump is being utterly ignored by their opponents.

Unless we come up with ideas and solutions for the underlying drivers of the decisions, it will just get worse.

Depressing to hear you're being told to fuck off for collecting for a food bank. Some people really are driven by an incredible amount of indiscriminate anger.

(Boy, are THEY ever going to be fun to be around when this mess really gets going.)

To be fair, Labour have raised plenty of ideas for dealing with the poverty, inequality and feeling of being ignored that contributed to the Brexit vote. They're also very keen on media reform. It's just that some people don't think that Labour's ideas are good solutions, whether because they understand and disagree with the ideas themselves, or they dislike the current Labour leadership.

To be even more fair (though it pains me to do so), the Tories also have policies that they feel are good solutions to poverty, inequality and people feeling ignored by an elite. (They're far less keen on media reform though.) As do the Lib Dems and probably every other party.

mostdays
Labour may have ideas
but they did not put them into effect between 1997 and 2010

The Tories have not improved things since 2010.

Corbyn does not give a stuff about Economics. He never has he never will. He has never had his ideas challenged before becoming party leader and clearly is unwilling / unable to cope with it.