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.

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.

I've posted this a few times

www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/10/last-1000-years-families-owned-england/

choice excerpt:

That brings us to today. According to The Guardian, 70% of Britain’s land remains in the hand of less than 1% of its population, with a mere 160,000 families owning 66% of it.

And of those families something like 75% came over with William the Bastard.

If ever you wondered why on Earth other countries elites have shown an odd fascination with the English ruling classes, it's because of their unprecedented ability to hang on to land throughout everything history can muster.

I suspect we'll now see more of that deliberate elision someone spotted a day or two ago:
Ie that no Brexit = no deal rather than remain. It is beyond parody.

And unfortunately the public by and large are so misled and ill informed that many would absorb it.

There are so very many ironies aren't there. I am finding it very hard to reconcile my beliefs in liberal democracy with what I fear a second vote might bring us. And yes I know very well where that train of thought ends. So where does that leave us?

Will try to watch HoC at lunchtime.

So where does that leave us?

Fucked ?

The horrible thing for the rest of the world - particularly places which are already hardly beacons of democracy - is that the past two years are a dictators wet dream. It allows a perfectly valid excuse of "look what happened to the UK" whenever it's suggested the people might want a say in something.

I suspect we'll now see more of that deliberate elision someone spotted a day or two ago:
Ie that no Brexit = no deal rather than remain. It is beyond parody.

No deal is better than a bad deal? No deal is now no Brexit?

It's like George Orwell's

" four legs good; two legs bad" >>
"four legs good; two legs better "

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Pigs, pokes, parody and Pandora's boxes.

Absolutely spot on with the four legs good two legs bad analogy.

Orwell springs to mind a lot. Doublespeak too. It's scary.

Why will we end up with hard Brexit/no deal if there are only 50 mps who want that option?

I'm also wondering how we can have a People's Vote when there is only one plausible option on the table - remain in the EU, as there is no other option (whether it be hard or soft Brexit) that works re: Irish border, leaving aside all the other issues.

People say that we can just go back to where we were in the early 1970s before we joined the EU but Ireland joined the EU at the same time as the UK in 1973. In the situation of Ireland now remaining and UK leaving things would surely be vastly different. Theresa May says she will be controlling immigration but any EU citizen will be able to wander into the UK through Ireland whilst our freedom of movement will be curtailed.

At the time of the referendum it should have been made clear that voting leave meant voting for the breakup of the UK.

red "EU appeal against unilateral revocation?! "
Both the EU Commission and the European Council gave their views to the ECJ that A50 revocation could only be multilateral,
i.e. they want to retain the power of any other member to veto, or to set conditions.

This is mainly because they are very concerned about not just the UK abusing this,
but that countries like Hungary - or even Italy - might use it as a threat to gain concessions.

It will be very interesting to see if they - and the UK govt - appeal when the ECJ gives their final decision.
WIll they prioritise their wish - at least of the EU Commission - to keep Britain in the EU ?

Re abuse by future countries trying it on:

Rumours circulating for months are that the Commission want to update A50 to specifically rule out future unilateral revocation.

However, they might have trouble getting it passed, because afaik this kind of treaty change has to be unanimously agreed by all members and it is quite likely someone would veto.
Also, ifthe ECJ confirm thsi decision, it may not be legally possible to make such a change watertight anyway.

#Brexit: Case C-621/18 Wightman on revocation of Article 50

Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered his opinion today.

When making their decision later, ECJ judges
consider the arguments from both sides and the AG(Advocate-General)'s independent arguments.

They usually agree with the AG, but not in every case.

The AG is another ECJ judge, who has studied the issues in detail, giving an independent opinion.
It's not a permanent position, so not the same judge each time.

Also, will the ECJ rule that A50 extension can also be unilateral ?

If not, the UK would require unanimous consent of all members - as specified in the A50 text.

A PV, even if ll the processes were condensed and rushed as much as legally possible, would take 24 weeks, most likely more

This would mean the EU could set conditions before we could have a PV,
e.g. that Remain must be an option and No Deal must be excluded,

or billions in compensation for the EU prep costs to date,
maybe even a permanent NI backstop, to ensure that if the UK ever arses around again, there will be no NI border (unless Ireland has been reunited by then)

Sure we can go back to being the sick man of Europe, the strikes, the inflation and the IMF bail out... that’s certainly where we’re heading.

mocha There are probably 50-100 MPs who actually want No Deal.

However, to avoid this automatic default option, the HoC will actively have to vote for something else and they may be unable to agree on the "something else"

I can imagine them dithering incompetently until time runs out
or - if they dither until the last moment -
then the No Dealers successfully putting endless amendments and filibustering until 29 March 11pm

At the time of the referendum it should have been made clear that voting leave meant voting for the breakup of the UK.

I don’t think the Remain Tories had even thought about it, let alone Leave.

DG re "blame for No Deal":

If we get to that stage, with the disastrous economic, social and possibly extreme political consequences,
it will be consolation for very few people if one or both main parties are destroyed.

Especially the poor, the disabled and those dependent on meds.

In fact, it might enable new extreme parties to become powerful and once one of them reaches 30% or so, depending on their vote distribution, the dreadful FPTP could put them into government,
or at least to be the Official Opposition, which is a powerful base for demagogues.

Revenge from the Rubble ?

Tatiana Brexit didn't have to mean the UK breaking up, until May's Lancaster House speech laying out all her red lines ruled out Norway++

She / Nick Timothy chose to be stupid.

Especially the poor, the disabled and those dependent on meds.

DW ticks 2 of those boxes, and I tick one.

Oh well, been nice knowing you 😏

www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1053931/Brexit-news-Theresa-May-leave-EU-cabinet-meeting-backstop-olly-robbins

express.co.uk
BREXIT SCANDAL: Outrage as May makes key decisions behind closed doors in SECRET meetings
Sam Stevenson
3-4 minutes

Political advisers to the Government are said to be increasingly concerned about the meetings. Mrs May’s Government has relied upon various subcommittees to deal with Brexit since Article 50 was triggered in March 2017. But since the controversial Chequers summit this summer the Prime Minister has held weekly off-the-books meetings with her core advisers and ministers, often with civil servants present.

Of the clandestine gatherings, one insider told the London Evening Standard: “In terms of democracy this feels like a scandal.”

Robbie Gibb (May’s communications director), David Lidington (minister for the Cabinet Office), Chief Whip Julian Smith and Gavin Barwell (her chief of staff) have called together a small group including Attorney General Geoffrey Cox, Michael Gove, and Jeremy Hunt.

And the Civil Service’s chief Brexit negotiator, Olly Robbins, attended on at least two occasions (once via phone from Brussels).

A source said: “These are not Cabinet meetings technically, but they are held in a Cabinet meeting room within the presence of officials.

READ MORE: Theresa May demands UNITY as marathon five-day debate begins

theresa may brexit news

Theresa May has been holding secret Cabinet meetings with civil servants present (Image: GETTY•AFP)

may

The meetings have prompted calls of a 'scandal' (Image: GETTY)

“You don’t get minutes from the political Cabinet but this is not political because there are civil servants present.

“I have never seen minutes from these meetings.”

Martin Stanley, a former senior official who has published guides on Civil Service protocols, said the meetings were extremely unorthodox.

He said: “It sounds very odd to me and not at all good.

READ MORE: Brexiteer warns border issue designed to weaken UK has this solution

theresa may

Mrs May has been defending her decision not to release key legal advice she received over Brexit (Image: GETTY)

“Ultimately, you do what ministers say but if I was attending those meetings I would be making my own notes of what has been decided.”

The Government’s dependency on secrecy was called into question on Monday when Mr Cox took questions from Parliament over the legal advice on Brexit it has withheld from publication.

During the Commons exchange Conservative Foreign Office minister Sir Alan Duncan was accused of “filibustering” to stall proceedings ahead of a contempt of Parliament motion being pushed by Labour.

Sir Alan spoke for more than 45 minutes about Scottish inventors and the founding of the Chilean navy in a bid to buy the Tories time so amendments could be tabled to the potentially damaging motion.

theresa may

The PM's key Brexit negotiator Olly Robbins is said to also have attended the secret meetings (Image: GETTY)

At one point he claimed: “The history of invention from Scotland almost beggars belief.

“You can go on a stream engine knowing that it had been invented by James Watt, you can speak on a telephone, invented by Alexander Graham Bell and, if you are ill, it is Mr Fleming’s penicillin that could probably save you.”

In a withering riposte, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell hit back: “Conservatives now scraping the bottom go the political barrel in Parliamentary tactics to survive.

“We are witnessing the unedifying spectacle of the undignified disintegration of a Government that no longer deserves to be in office.”

It is fake outrage to talk about secret meetings and non-transparency. How do people think stuff gets done at the highest level?
This stuff may stay closed info for 20 years.

Brexit didn't have to mean the UK breaking up, until May's Lancaster House speech laying out all her red lines ruled out Norway++

Indeed, that was Mocha’s point. My point was that I don’t think either side considered NI much, or Remain could have made much of the possible conquences of a hard Brexit.

Leadsoms argument so far re contempt of court solely lies with the idea that it compromises public interest. It's all a very circular closed argument at the moment.

Leadsoms argument so far re contempt of court solely lies with the idea that it compromises public interest.

I wonder if they'll use the Home Office ploy of it being "too hard" ?

Bill Cash saying law officers not consulted on chequers ! Did not know this

Woah Cash now saying WA may be invalid in international law as hasn't complied with domestic constitutional law ( as law officers not consulted as they should be under min code.)

Woah Cash now saying WA may be invalid in international law as hasn't complied with domestic constitutional law

Surely the UKs constitution is whatever Theresa May says it is ?

(That lack of a written constitution doesn't look so good now ....)

dammit, I lost focus and missed that bit.

Dodds from the DUP is siding with the contempt of court motion.