Westminstenders: Stalemate

[RedToothBrush]

After May's Meaningless Vote defeat and Corbyns Pointless Vote for Your Own Party defeat we are well and truly at Stalemate.

May has invited other parties to come and talk to her to find a compromise. Except she has so many red lines all she is asking is for everyone else to compromise whilst she gets exactly what she wants.

Corbyn made a tactical error in not initially speaking to May, so now she gets to say that its Labour who are being difficult and not wanting to work together in the national interest.

Corbyn has in addition put down the red line of saying he won't talk to May until she agrees to drop no deal. Except since no deal is the default until an alternative solution is agreed! Corbyn is expecting May to say that she would revoke if there was no alternative agreed, whilst is isn't really reasonable from a compromise point of view.

They are as bad as each other. Both too stubborn for the country to move forward. Its long been said that they were alike in this respect, but having it put to the test about which is more stubborn has the potential to destory the country in the process.

In addition to this, Leadsom has removed all other Brexit related HoC business from the schedule until after the 29th January. This is a blantant attempt to try and stop backbenchers having the opportunity to table pesky amendments which the government don't like.

The 29th January is due to be the Meaningless Vote II. Given that May has made it clear that in her head 'compromise' means 'do exactly what I want and capitulate' it looks like the Withdrawal Agreement will be represented to parliament to vote on with little change. Perhaps with a few amendments there designed to attract support, though it remains to be seen where this support will come from given the spectulator level of the rejection the HoC gave it. May's Plan is literally to run the clock down and hold a gun of no deal to the head of remain leaning MPs or to scare Brexiteers by suggesting that she might revoke or there might be an extension.

Its beyond farce.

Of course the role of the Speaker becomes paramount.

Technically speaking no bill can be presented to the HoC twice in the same parliament. Its against the rules. So how is May going to get around this, and will the Speaker indeed allow it?

The Speaker may also try and help backbenchers out by allowing amendments and motions to be tabled outside the normal rules. Normally the government alone control the majority of parliamentary time, with the opposition parties being given so many debates depending on whether they are the official opposition and then according to their size. Backbenchers don't tend to get much parliamentary time. However the Speaker's actions last week showed he was willing to be creative and bend the rules to allow backbenchers more influence and power than under normal circumstances because of the way that the Executive was trying to frustrate the house. So not timetabling any further Brexit Business between now and the 29th January seems a sure fire way to have the Government straight on course for another run in with Bercow.

So what next:

Do not forget that whatever happens May has to agree to it, or we go to no deal. Whether that be a 2nd Ref, Revoking, Staying in the Customs Union, Norway + or Any Other Alternative May has to agree to it on some level.

Backbenchers can table amendments all day long to 'guide' or put pressure on May but they may not be able stop her ultimately. Boles, Grieve, Benn and Cooper seem to be the ones to watch.

So May's stubborness is the biggest barrier and issue there is to preventing No Deal.

Corbyn, whilst he might well be very right to avoid getting sucked into May's trap, isn't helping matters with his own stubborness. His priority is party politics and stopping the Labour Party from splitting. Not solving Brexit.

There is not a shread of pragmatism nor thought for the national interest between them. Party before Country.

So we are to go through all of the last week, possibly with another vote of no confidence thrown in for good measure in another 12 days.

Won't that be fun?

"It led me to believe that actually misplaced self confidence is often worth more than competence and expertise, because its unassailable."

Infuriatingly, I think this is true.

Has this been shared already?

Received by a cafe in NI, from a DUP-lead council.

On Twitter the owner said Share away. Most of my products come from Ireland/ eu. Bacon chorizo relish cheese bakck pud. The “ulster fry” will consist of some dry potato bread as the oil to fry it in is also from the eu.

Morning, will be lurking along today, very interesting perspectives and analysis going on

.

DH went out with a big group of locals last night. All of them professionals. They were drinking and the subject of Brexit came up.

All of them were Remainers but one asked if no deal 'was that bad?'. To which he got the answer 'yes' in no uncertain terms from the rest of the group. It turns out that most of them have started to stockpile something.

DH has always thought I was crazy and no one else would be doing so, so this is something of a relief to me. Apparently I'm not crazy afterall and my efforts so far pale into insignificance as at least one of them is 'planning for armageddon' (DH's words not mine). And this now gives me license to step up and do more which ive not felt able to given DH's feelings about it. I think he realises now, that no deal is possible which he didn't before and actually its not the worst idea in the world to have stuff in. (I have also managed to clear a load of space this week for some stuff).

My point being that things are starting to get to a point where there is going to be widespread panic in the next few weeks. It's escalating. And it will cross from stockpiling to panic buying soon.

I think within a couple of weeks shops will officially start to say they have noticed a change in purchasing patterns.

The government are not in control of this (and indeed there's an argument to say they are deliberately fuelling it).

The mood is about to change with the public.

I know this has been discussed on these threads before

Internet shutdowns aren't just Africa's problem. They're happening worldwide

edition.cnn.com/2019/01/17/africa/internet-shutdown-zimbabwe-censorship-intl/index.html

David Allen Green*@davidallengreen*
Those politicians who voted against the Deal and who are now insisting that May take "No Deal" off the table...

...can logically and only be asking for Article 50 to be revoked.

The sole ways "No Deal" can today be taken off the table are by the Deal and by revocation.

Dimples @dimpstgf
is there an amendment/act possible along the lines of "if there is no agreed withdrawal agreement on 28/03/2019, the govt will revoke A50"?

David Allen Green @davidallengreen
An MP should propose an amendment that in the event of:

(a) no withdrawal agreement is ratified by 28 March 2019; and

(b) there is no extension of the Article 50 period,

then HMG shall revoke the Article 50 notification before the EU treaties cease to apply to the UK.

That is how you take "No Deal" off the table.

Keep reminding people when they talk about the backstop and removing it, they are referring to the GFA and removing the GFA.

And in the same way when people say about taking no deal off the table that no deal IS the table and they are affectively saying they want to revoke A50 if there is no extension or alternative agreement has not been reached by 29th March.

All these euphemisms are poisonous and its difficult to tell which people understand them and which people are deliberately trying to hide what they are saying.

I do wish the media would cut through them. It's doing no one any favours and it's not reflecting well on journalism.

Medicine shortages headline news on r4 this morning with pharmacists saying they thought much of it was Brexit due to 'unconcious stockpiling through the chain's
(Sorry spelling issue there!)

As someone who has been unable to get their medication for two weeks and struggling to get an alternative, I can attest to that.

Actually I've just seen this so hats off to her.

Sophy Ridge @ sophyridgesky
Surely the only meaningful way to take no deal off the table (without accepting any old deal) is for no Brexit rather than no deal to be the last resort? Politicians should be open about the choices available

Er, I didn’t think this needed saying but judging by my mentions it does. I’m not expressing a preference for a referendum 🙄 but saying the only way to “take no Deal off the table” as some politicians want is to a) agree a deal b) have no brexit not no Deal as your last resort.

And there should be more openness about that

skwawkbox.org/2019/01/18/excl-leaked-email-reveals-govt-preparations-for-hard-brexit-and-no-plan-b/
EXCL: LEAKED EMAIL REVEALS GOVT PREPARATIONS FOR HARD BREXIT – AND NO PLAN B

This is a skwawkbox article so take a bottle of salt when you read it.

But yeah, it's all your fears wrapped up in one.

This is a skwawkbox article so take a bottle of salt when you read it.

Never mind a bottlr, you need a shelf full.

Michael Crick @michaellcrick
Isn’t it counter-productive for ministers to threaten Beevow’s peerage? Surely that will just make him more inclined to carry on even longer as Speaker? Normally peerages are used as bait to persuade MPs to retire

David Phinnemore @Dphinnemore
"In a break from Conservative Brexiteers, leading figures in the DUP have indicated that they could sign up to a Norway-style deal with a customs union if it removed the threat of the Northern Irish backstop."

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-dup-edges-towards-customs-union-5vkfkgfhm
Brexit: DUP edges towards customs union

If UK secures a Norway-style deal - so EEA plus customs union - then this will significantly decrease the likelihood of all the backstop arrangements kicking in post transition. Yet backstop will still be needed in case the UK and the EU are unable ultimately to deliver the deal.

George Trefgarne @ georgetrefgarne
It doesn’t include the customs union

David Phinnemore @Dphinnemore
^Let's adjust the hyphen:

"If UK secures a Norway-style deal - so EEA - plus customs union then this will significantly decrease the likelihood of all the backstop arrangements kicking in post transition"^

Have the DUP - the experts and veterans of negotiations - just blinked?

Checking in

Have the DUP - the experts and veterans of negotiations - just blinked?

I thought the DUP had been saying all along that the big issue they had was with the backstop. So "remove the threat of the backstop" is pretty much continuing their party line. It is, however, somewhat different to the "significantly decrease the likelihood of all the backstop arrangements kicking in". I suspect DUP would not be happy with "significantly decrease the likelihood".

David Henig @ davidheniguk
Interesting article about the EEA / Norway / Common Market 2 campaign inside Parliament - I'm not affiliated to them or any other campaign, but have been impressed at their quiet efforts to reach out across party lines

www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/house/house-magazine/101183/common-market-20-inside-campaign-norway?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=48064fef3d-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_01_18_06_52&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-48064fef3d-190296737
Common Market 2.0: inside the campaign for a Norway-Style Brexit

Eyes on this if the DUP have blinked.

Worth pointing out that Daniel Hannan is on aboard with this and Gove is thought to be sympathic to Norway.

From my understanding while parliament can't take no deal off the table because I don't think they can force May to do so May absolutely could change the table if she wanted to. She might not like it and it would certainly tear her party apart, but technically she could do it. It is not impossible, though all the ways of doing it do have big risks and downsides attached.

She could go for an extension for a PV (seems to be Lib Dems preference) or extension and GE (Labour preference maybe though who bloody knows what labour want any more). PV has the issue of what to put on it of course and could end up keeping no deal not just on the table but making it the daily special if it finds its way onto the bit of paper.

She could say she will unilaterally revoke if we get to the deadline with no agreement or extension. Legally wobbly but my reading of things is that this is within her power though the Tory party would explode if she did it.

My feeling (and this is just feels) is that the opposition parties would end up in talks with her even if all she did was say she would take a deliberate no deal off the table and rule out just walking away, and that she would do all in her power to extend and find other options including removing her red lines. Remember we still have calls for May to just deliberately no deal which leaves everyone uncertain as to whether she really wants to make a deal at all anymore. She is also telling the opposition to come to talks with no conditions while keeping her own conditions of her red lines.

I know I am in the minority here but I do think labour are doing the right thing in refusing to talk to her until she shows willing to compromise. Starting talks would just be wasting precious time if we know that there is no viable option she is prepared to consider. I think we are more likely to see a change in May's stance by having this out in the open than by letting her waffle about behind a locked door and pretend she is open to cross party working. We just don't have time for that sort of messing about.

Robert Peston

"Theresa May's opposition to ruling out a no-deal Brexit looks increasingly like defiance of the laws of gravity.

On Monday we'll see at least two motions laid against the PM's amendable motion on its Brexit plan - the Boles one, which would legislate to force the government to sue the EU for a nine-month delay to Brexit, in the event that no-deal loomed, and a Spelman/Dromey one, which would more simply express the will of the House against no-deal.

Now the calamity for May's opposition to no deal is not just that a majority of backbench MPs would support one or both of these motions - which are likely to be put to the vote on 29 January - but that significant numbers of her own ministers would feel obliged to defy her will and also support them.

Here are some choice quotes from ministers who are thinking of doing just that, and for obvious reasons wish to stay anonymous (for now).

Minister A: "This looks the only way of stopping no deal".

I asked how many government rebels there are. "From what I hear 15 to 25", said minister A.

So I put the same question to Minister B: "Hard to be sure, but enough!"

And on to minister C: "There are at least 20 [of us]".

What would happen to them if they voted against, I enquired.

Minister C: "Frankly she can't lose more than one [of us]. There's no one left [on the backbenches] to replace even the modest PPS's [most junior ministers] who haven't rebelled recent".

Or to put it another way, she could not make voting against her on no-deal a sacking offence, because there's no way she could replace all the offending ministers.

And then on to Minister D: "I think it all depends quite a bit on what the final version of [Boles's] bill ends up saying, But if he gets it right...there will be pressure for a free vote".

To put it another way, May's official position may be to oppose no-deal, but if she doesn't allow her ministers to vote with their consciences for one in ten days, she could see the collapse of her government (yes again!).

Her position however is that once no-deal is dead, so too would be her leverage in future talks with dithering Labour MPs, who might prefer some version of her Brexit plan to what they see as the chaos of no deal, and her leverage in any future talks with the EU.

All this is another illustration of why I said on News at Ten last night that I am pessimistic the PM can get any Brexit deal through this parliament.

That is why plenty of MPs and officials are talking about the rising probability of a fairly imminent general election, because if parliament is the impasse, perhaps parliament has to be changed (I discussed this in bulletins a couple of days ago).

But there is a flaw even in the election route through the Brexit blockage - because neither Labour nor the Tories has a settled position on what kind of Brexit or no-Brexit they want, and there would be no point in having a general election unless and until each party was able to spell out in their respective manifestos how and even whether we leave the EU.

To state the obvious, simply arriving at a manifesto position on this could split each of them (I talked yesterday about Labour's divide on a referendum, and the Tories on the degree to which the UK after Brexit should follow EU rules).

It might come down to an election. But an election would still force May and Corbyn to do what each has eschewed as if it were Kryptonite, namely make a definitive Brexit choice."

Gosh, that DUP business is an interesting development if true.

The DUP have alluded to this in the past. But it's not been upfront about it.

The remaining issue being that a Norway style deal with a Customs Union will fracture the Tory party so would TM put Brexit consensus ahead of that?