Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Brexit

Westminstenders: The WA Vote ReDux

999 replies

RedToothBrush · 12/01/2019 23:01

Tuesday is scheduled to be the date of the Withdrawal Agreement Vote.

The current expectation is it will fail to pass. Badly.

If this is the case then May will have to report to the HoC about what her Plan B is within 3 sitting days under Grieve IV - by the end of Monday 21st January (which was the original date that Grieve III set).

Its being reported that if it fails that May will make some sort of statement either late on Tuesday or Wednesday before flying to Brussels in order to try and calm the markets.

This weekend has been full of politicking to position to get the WA to pass. Some of this is to push those who think that May will revoke or extent which will endanger leaving and some of it is to push those who fear no deal. Nothing is likely to be exactly what it appears.

The feeling is that No10 is currently working more to keep the defeat as small as possible in order to keep alive the possibility of representing the WA to parliament at a later date.

This week has seen big announcements from the car industry; none of which have been unexpected and some of which were connected to technology change and were likely to have been an inevitability to some extent, but the timing the week before the vote should also focus some minds.

We've had the news that 4000 civil servants from the following departments - Defence, International Development, Work and Pensions and the Education department - being lined up to handle no deal brexit, with secondments of up to 6 months. (The idea that staff from W&P might be moved with all the problems with UC is mind boggling).

We've also had the rumour that May has spoken to the Tory MEPs to inform them that if there is a chance of extending a50 and this means the UK would take part in June's European Elections. Many of the newspapers have been reporting this weekend that there is a high chance that the UK will not leave the EU on the 29th March as scheduled leading to the pound rising to its highest level in 7 months.

Dominic Grieve has stated the following, and I think its worth keeping an eye on.

Jack Maidment @jrmaidment
Dominic Grieve: Govt should immediately remove Brexit date from domestic law if it loses on Tuesday.

"without doing that there is no point in going to the EU and asking for an extension because we would still be crashing out and that would have to be, I think, a top priority"

It has been somewhat misinterpreted in some quarters as Grieve suggesting we change the UK's exit date. Its not. Its a reference to how UK law has a date set in it, so even if we did get an extension UK law would in effect automatically exit us legally on a domestic level, even if on an international level we were still members. This creates a bit of an issue whereby parliament would have to vote to make this change somehow, which would need to be facilitated by the government in some way - which means coming from the PM which obviously will be somewhat problematic for the cohesiveness of the Tory Party.

Indeed The Sunday Telegraph is tonight reporting that the Tories are on the brink of an historic split, with Brexiteers and Remainers both threatening to 'torpedo the Government if they do not get their way on Brexit'.

Pro-EU Mps are claiming that a third of the Cabinet would resign if May pursued a no deal Brexit and that several senior minsters want May to immediately open talks with Labour MPs about a compromise involving a permanent customs union if her deal is defeated by a large margin.

Steve Baker is warning that this would risk a split in the party 'akin to the schism prompted by Robert Peel's repeal of the corn laws'. And Bernard Jenkin has said that any attempt to change the exit date or strike a deal with the Labour Party would destroy the Conservative Party. For once, its hard to argue with either of them and say they are completely wrong.

Of course this also doesn't seem to fit with Labour's plans. The Observer is reporting that Corbyn plans to table a dramatic vote of no confidence in May as early as Tuesday evening in an attempt to force a GE. This is, to put it bluntly, fucking ridiculous. He would only need 7 Tory / DUP rebels (on top of the rest of the house) or some abstainers but it remains to be seen who these would be. A three line whip for Tuesday night, including for all unwell MPs is in effect for Labour.

Both the Mail on Sunday and The Sunday Times lead with similar stories about changing the rules of the HoC in order to effectively sideline the PM. The Mail refers to it as a plot between Grieve and Bercow, but the Times is much more broad stating:

A cross party group of senior backbenchers - including former Tory Ministers - plan what one senior figure branded a "very British coup" if May loses the crunch vote on her Brexit deal on Tuesday

At least two groups of rebel MPs are plotting to change Commons rules so motions proposed by backbenchers take precedence over government business, upending the centuries old relationship between executive and legislature.

Downing Street believe that would enable MPs to suspend article 50, putting Brexit on hold, and could even lead to the referendum result being overturned - a move that would plunge the country into a constitutional crisis.

The funny thing about all this news is at no point have I seen discussed whether we could extend a50 as it stands - as thats down to the EU. And at no point have I seen anything about how the EU would facilitate ratifying the WA at the eleventh hour if we have to go for round 2.

Indeed the growing feeling does seem to be largely that one way or another the WA is dead in the water if it has a large defeat. The question is perhaps now, what will the ERG do in this context? Will they plough on trying to persue No Deal? Because that too would surely lead to a split in the Tory party in some way.

A cross party group referred to the 'Norway Group' (Boles, Letwin, Morgan and Kinock) are apparently planning according to Boles, to make No Deal illegal.

So to put it mildly, next week is looking absoluetely mind blowingly crazy and likely to be explosive in some way or another.

And finally. Here's a handy tool for you.
How Many Days Until Brexit Timer

OP posts:
Thread gallery
53
LouiseCollins28 · 14/01/2019 12:59

I wouldn't put May and Blair into the same category either. Mrs May is trying to fulfil what she sees as her "duty" IMO, whether you connect that to any religious affiliation she might have or not. You might not agree with her position, or mine for that matter, but personally, I don't doubt that she's trying to find a way through this that can work.

Mr Blair hoodwinked parliament and took our country into an illegal war on the basis of lies. In so doing, he cost hundreds of Britons and many thousands of Iraqi's their lives. Not remotely comparable IMO.

RedToothBrush · 14/01/2019 13:00

Re YouGov

Chris Curtis @chris__curtis
Quick point on "but what does this say about Labour's position on Brexit"?:
Labour is down around 7% amongst Remainers and 3% amongst Leavers since 2017 .
But the Labour+Remain group was a lot larger to start off with (just over twice the size)...

So actually, Remain voters have been just as likely to defect as Leave voters so far - implying that Brexit position probably isn't the key driver at the moment.

(Or at least if it is, it is coincidentally annoying Remainers and Leavers the same amount at the moment, which seems fairly unlikely to me)

But either way, The Labour voter base was and still is overwhelmingly made up of Remainers. This is something the party would be stupid to ignore when deciding how to proceed on Brexit.

OP posts:
BigChocFrenzy · 14/01/2019 13:03

Now suggesting rewind to get another 2 years at A50:
BUT if UK red lines don't change, then the EU will plonk this WA on the desk without negotiations

Sam Coates Times@SamCoatesTimes

Now MPs are proposing - in extremis - stopping Article 50, read here the implications of the judgement from December

  • the ruling did not prevent Britain from then immediately sending another letter triggering Article 50 again.
prettybird · 14/01/2019 13:08

I'm not suggesting May is like Blair overall - I'm suggesting that she sees what she is doing as part her duty by God. Which Blair also thought, when justifying some of his illegal actions Confused.

Don't understand that sort of direction from a mythical entity myself Wink

prettybird · 14/01/2019 13:10

I also don't think that all religious people are stubborn eejits - I have many friends who are perfectly sensible, considerate, empathetic people Smile who don't use religion to justify irrational actions Wink

BigChocFrenzy · 14/01/2019 13:12

European Commission@EUCommission

Letter from President @JunckerEU and @eucopresident Tusk on behalf of the two EU Institutions to Prime Minister @theresamay providing clarifications to the #Brexit Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration.^

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/770771/ResponseefromPresidenttJunckeranddPresidentTuskktotheePrimeMinister.pdf

Mistigri · 14/01/2019 13:13

Labour is down around 7% amongst Remainers and 3% amongst Leavers since 2017 .
But the Labour+Remain group was a lot larger to start off with (just over twice the size)...*
*
So actually, Remain voters have been just as likely to defect as Leave voters so far - implying that Brexit position probably isn't the key driver at the moment.*
*
(Or at least if it is, it is coincidentally annoying Remainers and Leavers the same amount at the moment, which seems fairly unlikely to me)

Am I being thick or is this arithmetic nonsense? If Labour is down 7% amongst remainers, and there were more of them to start with, then remainers are far more likely to have defected (by a rough calculation about 5 times more likely)

But in fact I don't think this necessarily says anything about Brexit - I suspect the group of people most likely to have defected due to antisemitism and general incompetence/failure to be an effective opposition judge has a very large overlap with labour remainers.

BigChocFrenzy · 14/01/2019 13:14

"The Commission can confirm that, just like the United Kingdom, the European Union does not wish to see the backstop enter into force.

Were it to do so, it would represent a suboptimal trading arrangement for both sides.

The Commission can also confirm the European Union’s determination to replace the backstop solution on Northern Ireland by a subsequent agreement that would ensure the absence of a hard border on the island of Ireland on a permanent footing."

OnTheDarkSideOfTheSpoon · 14/01/2019 13:16

Beth Rigby
‏*@BethRigby*
BREAK: Gareth Johnson has resigned as a whip today. Brexiteer and former PPS for both David Davis and Dominic Raab

BigChocFrenzy · 14/01/2019 13:16

Labour voters are 70% Remain

So, if they lose votes at the same rate, we'd expect 7:3 for Remain:Leave

  • which is exactly what the poll foud
Sostenueto · 14/01/2019 13:21

All very well and good then put it in the WA as a proper legal document than and (not worth the paper its written on) not a letter Junker et al!

TokyoSushi · 14/01/2019 13:22

This is quite a good 'simple explanation' of the procedure at least

Westminstenders: The WA Vote ReDux
Mistigri · 14/01/2019 13:23

I'm not suggesting May is like Blair overall - I'm suggesting that she sees what she is doing as part her duty by God. Which Blair also thought

Do you not think that it's more likely that neither of them thought that, but found it convenient to lie about it?

May is a habitual liar. I think it more likely that she is lying about a God than that she sincerely believes that she has a hotline to the almighty.

borntobequiet · 14/01/2019 13:25

I never voted for Blair but his continued demonisation is convenient for just about everybody - Conservatives and Corbyn's Labour the most prominent. He was in my opinion by far the most talented Prime MInister we have had in modern times, sadly betrayed (like his acolyte, Cameron) by hubris and self-justification. He is hated so much partly because people expected better of him (the same goes in a lesser way for Clegg). Theresa May is a very different politician. God knows how she's doing it, but even weakened as she is she's looking more like a leader than anyone else around.

Mistigri · 14/01/2019 13:27

So, if they lose votes at the same rate, we'd expect 7:3 for Remain:Leave

  • which is exactly what the poll foud

Ok, yes I see now. It's not obvious that he was talking about a rate rather than an absolute number.

In absolute number terms, the loss of remainers has been much larger.

Not that it matters, because what's important is not really how many defectors there are, but where they are.

Peregrina · 14/01/2019 13:28

Other commentators I tune into have started suggesting a scenario where we get to March 28th, and she revokes and resigns in one move, saying "I tried to honour the referendum ... but since I had no support, Brexit's off".

I'd be happy in the short term to see that, but the end result would be a Tory headbanger got voted in and invoked A50 again. The EU would have no patience another time, so the right wing would get their no deal. Very nice for them £££££££££££££.

BigChocFrenzy · 14/01/2019 13:29

Richard Wyn Joness@RWynJones*

Unexpectedly, the 1997 referendum on Welsh devolution is back in the news.

Setting aside Theresa May's misremembering/rank hypocrisy [delete according to taste] concerning her own and her own party's position, the lesson of Wales 1997 is actually about 'loser's consent' 1/
...
Welsh devolutionists (led by Ron Davies) fully realised that there was a real legitimacy question resulting from the very narrow referendum result.
They worried about it, thought about and got people like myself to brief them about it in pretty lurid terms 2
...

And to the extent that these things are possible, they deliberately set about trying to generate 'loser's consent' for the result.

By involving opponents of devolution in discussions about the internal processes that would be adopted in the new National Assembly 3
...
By being unusually cross-party in their approach during the parliamentary passage of what became the 1998 Government of Wales Act^
(kudos here to the Wales Office team of Ron Davies, @PeterHain and Win Griffiths)
....
In other words, they realised that the referendum result was only a fragile mandate on which to build a new constitutional dispensation for Wales.
That mandate had to be shored up. Undergirded. Supported.
....
And the only way to do that was to be cross-party and to do what they could to reach out to and address the concerns of their opponents.

It helped, of course, that this approach 'went with the grain' of that particular ministerial team.
There were also willing interlocutors
...
But the fundamental point was that they realised that the narrowness of the referendum result meant that they simply had to make every effort to build consent among those who had been opposed
as well as those who just hadn't bothered to participate in the vote.^
...
And it succeeded.
By 1999 - Indeed before the National Assembly first met - opposition to devolution had fallen substantially from the levels of 1997.
Two decades later it bumps along at about 10-15% of the electorate^
....
Rather the story of public attitudes towards Welsh devolution has become that the Welsh population tend to want more of it (though not independence) even as the powers of the National Assembly expand.

Loser's consent was obtained and Wales has moved on to other questions
....
At risk of labouring this, is seems to me that the contrast between post 1997 Wales and post 2016 UK could hardly be starker.
But not in the way Theresa May wants to claim.

May's government has made practically no effort to secure the consent of those who voted Remain
....
^ A narrow referendum mandate was regarded as giving carte blanche.

Remoaners; Saboteurs: Remainers were simply meant to suck it up whilst the fantasies of the Brexiteers were indulged (those idiotic 'red lines')

And guess what, loser's consent has never been forthcoming
....
Loser's consent has not been forthcoming in part because Theresa May and her government has made absolutely no attempt to generate it.

The lesson of the 1997 referendum is pretty much the exact opposite of the one that May is touting and reflects terribly on her

Sostenueto · 14/01/2019 13:34

Gareth Johnson ( Tory whip) just resigned saying Mays deal no good for Britain.

BigChocFrenzy · 14/01/2019 13:37

The EU is natrually supporting its member country Ireland against the UK which is planning to be a non-member.
That's what a Union does:

Nearly half of the EU members are small countries, so they will not agree to abandon Ireland

The EU will NOT alter the backstop in the WA (unless Ireland changes its mind on the backstop)

If they put the letter in the WA, then it becomes legally binding and the UK could hold to its unicorn demands^

  • all the EU benfits with none of the obligations, which would destroy the SM - refuse any other deal and thus get out of the backstop.
Ta1kinPeace · 14/01/2019 13:37

This is making my head hurt.
I'll go back to ranting at HMRC - its more relaxing.

Need to find a picture of WonderCat for this evening Smile

borntobequiet · 14/01/2019 13:42

My dear little cat watching X Factor. she was a great fan, sadly RIP earlier this year.

Westminstenders: The WA Vote ReDux
Mrsr8 · 14/01/2019 13:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BigChocFrenzy · 14/01/2019 13:48

The Vienna Convention actually doesn't make much difference in practice:

in practice any country can withdraw from a treaty, whether the WA or the GFA or anything else - provided it is prepared to pay the penalty.

There is no fixed financial penalty in either treaty, but the EU would of course immediately impose full 3rd country trade conditions and quite likely punitive tariffs and sanctions

It would be worse for the Uk even than No Deal now, hence national economic suicide and the probable end of the UK as a modern first world economy

In the case of the GFA, the UK would face sanctions from many non-EU countries too

Brexiters are attracted to walking out / bullying because they see the USA does it - or claims it is sticking to the rules while breaking them - whenever it thinks that is in its own interests

Big difference: the US is a superpower which can use its economic might - sometimes military might too - to crush opposition;
the UK certainly cannot against the EU, which is an economic superpower

  • that's why the govt kept trying to deal with the NI border bilaterally with just the RoI - to bully it - and was frustrated when the EU stuck together and negotiated as one bloc.
Peregrina · 14/01/2019 13:52

Big Difference too, it's 2019 not 1859!

Motheroffourdragons · 14/01/2019 13:55

This reply has been deleted

This has been deleted by MNHQ to protect the privacy of the user.

Swipe left for the next trending thread