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.

As fas as I am concerned, Dominic Grieve is "damaged goods".

His big moment was having the power to force a vote on any agreement. He should have used it. Instead he was duped/seduced (mind bleach there)/bribed/whatevered to water it down to this "meaningful vote" which is now clearly being abused.

So it's hard to give a shit what he thinks. Actions not words etc. He had his chance.

David Allen Green@davidallengreen
Have now read this summary of the opinion and there is more than meets the eye.

The unilateral right is subject to conditions, in the AG's view.

First, there would need to be an Act of Parliament. This accords with the constitutional requirements aspect of A50(1)

Second, and this is crucial:

"The principles of good faith and sincere cooperation must also be observed, in order to prevent abuse of the procedure laid down in Article 50 TEU."

In other words, the UK must want to cancel Brexit, not just improve its negotiation position.

The UK cannot just re-start the clock.

If the revocation is not sincere then it is not valid.

This is, in effect, not an absolute right to revoke unilaterally.

If EU27 are not convinced that UK is acting in good faith, and this view is upheld by the ECJ, then the UK does not have the right to unilaterally revoke.

The ECJ may or may not follow this reasoning, but the AG's proposed conditions in practice are little different from mutual revocation.

But there is something else.

The AG deftly kicks away UK's procedural objection to this case.

UK said this was academic etc

^AG: "dispute is genuine, the question is not merely academic, nor premature or
superfluous, but has obvious practical importance and is essential in order to resolve the dispute"^

This push-back is emphatic, and AG hardly bothers to address UK's objection. Light work.

I suspect ECJ will follow this view, and that is what the UK was pinning its case on.

Again, however, this is an opinion not a ruling, despite what those who should know better say.

The ECJ decision is upcoming.

The AG's opinion is authoritative, but is not binding.

/ends.

Well if we're looking for some one who still enjoys listening to Mr Humphreys, I doubt either of the divorced spouses are at the top of the list.

Why did the government try and stop ECJ ruling on whether Article 50 could be revoked? Brexiteers accuse Theresa May of being a remainer. However if she had really wanted to remain I'd have thought she would have been delighted to allow the ruling to take place. I have read that her husband would benefit from no deal due to his business links. I wonder what she is actually hoping for as an outcome.

{index of how poor and shallow news reporting is on EU matters.
Especially at the BBC.
Dear BBC, Mumsnet has better reporting than you.}

OK, which of you here is Mrs Barnier?

{What you do is point out how the last two years have proved the EUs robustness and ability to react to extraordinary events calmly and with reason thanks to it's unique structure.

Apologise ? They should be thanking us !!!!!}
While handing you the bill for upgraded ferryports and customs controls in Ireland, France, Belgium, Holland etc.

The principles of good faith and sincere cooperation must also be observed, in order to prevent abuse of the procedure laid down in Article 50 TEU.

I think it would be fairly obvious we are in a genuine state of disarray and discord though not simply making a tactical step.

Why did the government try and stop ECJ ruling on whether Article 50 could be revoked?

If I said "bloody-mindedness" would anyone disagree ?

UK Government SOP is to drag everything out to the inevitable - and then ignore it (where are we with votes for prisoners ?). Remember there are stacks of rulings against the Home Office that it's ignored. Apparently you aren't bound by the law if it's "too hard".

May is not a Remainer. She’s basically a hard Brexiter. Hence her red lines. The WA is almost a hard Brexit. It’s a fudge to allow a hard Brexit at a later point. All the Brexit headbangers are interested in is a deal they can get out of at a later date. We saw precisely the same thing with the NI agreement.

There are two roads from the WA from the Tory POV - either an FTA which does not deliver frictionless trade or no deal.

That was to mocha ^^

The government didn’t want a ruling on A50 because it strengthens the Remain option.

They want to scare MPs into believing it’s WA or no deal so they don’t vote it down.

I've never believed that May was a remainer. But I think she's more anti immigration than anti EU. She hates immigration. But it suits people like JRM to carry on painting her as a remainer so when brexit is shit they can blame it on the remainers.

The government didn’t want a ruling on A50 because it strengthens the Remain option.

That was the only conclusion I could draw too.

May is not a Remainer. She’s basically a hard Brexiter

I think it's more subtle than that. She's neither. Well, not as we would understand it (because we weren't bought up with an English sense of privilege so rigid it replaces the spine).

She loves the idea of the EU - lovely sunny holidays in the South of France, her hairdresser, Pedro. Her stylist, Francois.

But she hates the idea that England has to somehow give anything into the EU in order to be a member. Because .... well, just because really.

I'm sure an awful lot of Leave frothing is because they just felt England wasn't being treated as something special.

It’s my day off and I decided to improve my knowledge of history by looking at the causes of the English Civil War, partly because of a map that correlates Leave/Remain areas with King/Parliament areas. Of course I did the Civil War at school but have only retained a few facts about it (like most people, I suppose).
What struck me just now was how long it took to gestate. Charles I came to the throne in 1625 and the war eventually kicked off in 1642. The intervening years were littered with problems including ones with Europe (via Henrietta Maria and Catholicism), money, Ireland and Scotland, money again, taxes, abuse of Parliament, religion, money again, religion again and so on.
I doubt that at any point in the earlier stages many people would have thought it would end in a war that completely polarised the country - there was no middle ground. Anyway, enough of my time wasting, I’ve got Woman’s Hour and transpeople in sport to listen to.

Bruno Waterfield @ brunobrussels
Hubert Legal, Council's top lawyer, EU would be embroiled in constant negotiations would “to charm the notifying black sheep back to the flock through promises" of special treatment and "general opt-outs".

Nick Gutteridge @ nick_gutteridge
Fair few bad takes out there this AM about how EU will be thrilled with Advocate General's opinion because it increases chances of UK staying. Actually, as Mr Waterfield reminds us, Brussels has rather bigger issues in mind & will almost certainly appeal if ruling goes same way.

EU appeal against unilateral revocation?!

European holidays and staff has no traction on hard Brexit mentality - cf Farage. Hard Brexiters are nothing if not hypocritical.

She didn’t have to choose hard Brexit at the start of her rule. An obvious option would have been to try to steer a middle path, acknowledging both camps. Instead she chose to alienate Remain, soft Brexiters and all the queue jumping citizens of nowhere.

I am quite sure that we won't use the power to revoke and will blunder ahead with Brexit, and that historians will look back in amazement in 50 years time and ask, why ever did they carry on with Brexit when they had a get out clause?

Peregina I think no deal more likely because of the false hope of revoking tbh.

What struck me just now was how long it took to gestate. Charles I came to the throne in 1625 and the war eventually kicked off in 1642.

There's a school of thought that the seeds were sown in the Reformation. There was a subtle protestant/catholic split in the Royalists and Parliamentarians.

Also, some spit feathers at the "English" bit. Ireland and Scotland suffered too.

She didn’t have to choose hard Brexit at the start of her rule.

She thought she'd jump ahead of BoJo and establish herself as "Mr. Brexit" to head off any leadership challenges. She's a Tory. She knows exactly what they think of women.

I don’t think it had much to do with BoJo, who was still preaching SM and cake and eat itism after the result. I think May and her ninny advisors were on the same page of narrow-mindedness and xenophobia.

She finally got into a position to carry out the things she had wanted to do as Home Secretary - but couldn’t.

She’s also quite easily led. She let herself be led by hard Brexiters, tis all.
.

I am quite sure that we won't use the power to revoke and will blunder ahead with Brexit

At this point I’d say it would require divine intervention.

I know English Civil War is a convention that annoys some, but essentially it was an English war with Ireland and Scotland as collateral damage...sounds familiar.
And there’s a school of thought that the North/South, Catholic/Protestant, poor/rich split predates even the Reformation, dating back to variously the Normans, Romans and geography itself.

Add the Vikings into the mix, who settled predominantly in the north.