Westminstenders: Pragmatism versus Purity

[RedToothBrush]

There is one question for the HoC in the next week and that's will you persue pragmatism or purity?

May looks as if she is being sidelined after a backbench withdrawal of support, the DUPs withdrawal of support and an omminous silence eminenating from the Cabinet.

Her speech on Thursday where she pitted the people against parliament has been her last mistake. She's now a danger to the country's stability and the safety of MPs.

The priority for the week is to pass the SI to change the UK exit date from 29th March to the EU's new terms.

After that, with May's deal stuffed due to lack of support and a Bercow ruling it looks like we are facing some sort of indicative free vote. This seems to be being supported by ministers in government regardless of leave or remain.

The prospect of a Tory Leader Election contest looms. It remains to seen if that can happen in the next three weeks with so much else at stake. But this is the Tory party.

The penny seems to be finally dropping about the reality of leaving the EU and how we leave the EU. A week before we were due to go. The incompetence of Parliament is laid bare in all its glorious full scale.

Re exit day:

Mark Elliott
‏*@ProfMarkElliott*

Retweeted Steve Peers

Absolutely correct, as I explain in this post. The date of the UK’s exit from the EU is determined by EU law. Failing to align UK law risks significant legal difficulty at the domestic level, but does not affect the date of departure. publiclawforeveryone.com/2019/03/23/extending-article-50-separating-myth-and-legal-reality/ …Mark Elliott added,

Steve Peers
@StevePeers
David Davis does not understand what he is talking about. Brexit Day has already changed as a matter of EU law. Failure to change the date in UK law would simply leave a short period when the UK would not have a full domestic legal framework to give effect to membership. …

In May's case though, she has never shown much talent

In fact she is conspicuously lacking in some of the qualities normally necessary to rise to the top rank - not even PM in politics:
sociability and networking, understanding & managing people, emotional maturity, a backbone of any sort ....

So I think she is just the D stream who thought she was capable of a task that would have over-stretched an A+ talent

... and falling back on temper tantrums now her inadequacies have been laid bare

I heard one of the EU leaders (sorry, I can't remember which one) being interviewed and said about TM 'she isn't very good at making friends, which you need to be in this game' or something along those lines.

Very damming, but it's true in all walks of life that most jobs are about relationships, and if you can't build relationships you probably won't be great at your job.

Particularly so for a prime minister.

Ahh but what if the neurologist is correct and May is showing signs of early symptoms on top of being D grade?!

We need an neurologist MNetter! singing tell DH's to join. I want it like noahs ark here two of every kind of expert

Speaking as someone who has a close family member with dementia, I often find MN to be obsessed with the idea that people have it. Almost any unexpected behaviour from someone over 40 will lead to a poster asking if they could possibly have early onset dementia or the signs of dementia. It's a massive social problem in the elderly, don't get me wrong, but I find the constant medicalising of people's erratic decisions a bit much. Perhaps power and responsibility have something to do with altering people's character and responses? It would be frankly astonishing if they didn't, given the finger-on-the red button level of it all.

While I appreciate the consultant quoted earlier is a specialist in their area, I also find it irresponsible of them to think they can diagnose someone they have seen very selective, carefully edited glimpses of on television. (Perhaps that kind of belief in your own ability is a early sign of dementia.
...? )

May has infuriated all sides of the Tory Party
However, it is the ERG - and most of the party membership - who are really gunning for her,
because they are livid about Brexit being postponed

She has always given into them because she knew they were the most dangerous - and powerful - section of the Tory party, who could destroy her
The membership support them overwhelmingly

They are still desperate to Brexit on 29 March, both for ideological / profit reasons,
but also because they expect a delay would cause a massive hammering in the local elections, as Tory voters stay home

That's why I asked red if she could see anything in law to stop us Brexiting on Friday - IF the HoC actually voted No Deal in the indicative votes

• or if May whipped for No Deal afterwards and won

I couldn't see anything to stop this, other than the HoC refusing to vote No Deal
and red said she couldn't either

With this discussion/comment about Theresa I have been puzzled over why the UK thinks it is acceptable to throw away almost all diplomatic niceties, almost since the referendum.
Allowing the insults to EU and even world leaders (the Japanese statement in Salzburg was excruciating). You can possibly argue that it it is largely for show, to be respectful, even if you have a giggle behind closed doors afterwards but there has been a constant barrage of behaviour like Millwall supporters for a couple of years. Surely the UK negotiating team understand that once the current shouting is over the UK will have to negotiate with the EU?

I think the power has gone to her head.

HesterThrale
I think I mean that we need to build a majority consensus around what we think we should be as a country - what we should believe in.

Maybe there needs to be a written constitution for this; I don't know. I believe we're quite unusual in not having one?

You can do this quite effectively by means of a history curriculum, but you need a unified school system and a certain standard of attainment and understanding is assumed too.

In order to formulate the curriculum, a certain amount of buy in is needed behind the scenes among a wide range of groups, and politicians must be open to the influence of academics steering the curriculum development.

As demonstrated by Gove's tenure as Education Secretary, education is heavily politicised in the UK, to the detriment of all that goes on in schools. Gove's revision of the history curriculum was an attempt at 'nation building' that illustrates the need for consensus and for expert input, but sadly, amateurism and party political advantage and posturing are more important to politicians in the UK than actual education. This is because education also functions in the UK to keep social mobility to a minimum.

A simple change that would make a big difference would be the introduction of a chronological approach that would have as one of its themes the development of the unwritten constitution. Obviously a good deal of historiographical examination would be necessary, and concepts such as 'the march of progress' would be debated. When a state lacks a written constitution but also asks its citizens to take part fully in the democratic processes, it is essential that education focuses on the chronology of the processes by which the general principles of modern politics and law came into being. This is not possible when a history course is broken up into modules and students hop from one to the other, with the essential long narrative of constitutional development forgotten.

Ireland's history curriculum seeks to reaffirm Ireland's history in a European context with a big nod to contact across the Atlantic. It also seeks to develop the capacity for evidence-based, critical thought.

www.curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/ec03a6f7-5fb3-4bcb-b8bb-5bf3d9f8855b/JCSEC13_History_Syllabus.pdf
Irish Junior Cert curriculum (for ages 12-15).

That is a great article by the FT

The Brexit job losses link says - sheet 1

Is there a sheet 2? Or lots of sheets?

So even if the government decide we are leaving on Friday, we won't actually be leaving? how would that work with regards to tariffs and whatnot?

That’s a very interesting and thoughtful post, Math.

So the mueller report is in. Its not public yet.

But the republican attorney General has realised a summary.

It makes the point that Mueller did not at Trump was implicated, but it didn't exorate him either. And that's the republican spin version!

Anyway here's a bit more

USA today @ usatoday
From Attorney General William Barr’s letter summarizing the Mueller report: “The Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action. The report does not recommend any further indictments."

"The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” Barr wrote.

"The Special Counsel's investigation determined that there were two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election,” Barr wrote.

"The first involved attempts by a Russian organization, the Internet Research Agency (IRA), to conduct disinformation and social media operations in the United States designed to sow social discord, eventually with the aim of interfering with the election."

“The Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA … although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities."

The second Russian effort to influence the 2016 election “involved the Russian government's efforts to conduct computer hacking operations designed to gather and disseminate information to influence the election,” Barr wrote.

Mueller "found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through ... intermediaries, including Wikileaks."

"Based on these activities, the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers in the United States for purposes of influencing the election,” Barr wrote.

But "the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign,” Barr wrote.

Two points here:
“The Special Counsel also referred several matters to other offices for further action"

And

"found that Russian government actors successfully hacked into computers and obtained emails from persons affiliated with the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party organizations, and publicly disseminated those materials through ... intermediaries, including Wikileaks."

Why, on the eve of the Mueller report being handed over, were the FBI in London for several days?

Were they referring anything to 'other offices' purely in the US?

Just y'know saying.

2 + 2 = 5 and all that, but gee that's coincidental timing.

Great FT article, thanks

Speechless about Mueller.

amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/24/tory-islamophobia-row-15-suspended-councillors-quietly-reinstated?__twitter_impression=true
Tory Islamophobia row: 15 suspended councillors quietly reinstated
Guardian investigation finds suspensions lifted despite apparent Islamophobia or racism

I'll talk to my Dad about Mueller tomorrow - but I'm not surprised.
Putin did his best to get Trump elected to destabilise the USA
but did not conspire with the weirdos running his campaign.

I am not surprised about the Mueller findings.

Wrt the FBI in London, I suspect there are financial irregularities on the part of Trump, his sons, or Kushner that will be followed up. Maybe also financial irregularities of Manafort's.

Mueller has no mandate at all to investigate events in the UK, and no responsibility to the UK to hand over information, so I doubt the FBI agents were there to hand over any info on British subjects in hopes of a UK investigation. Anything he unearthed on British pols, 'think tanks', etc. would be useful information to keep stuffed up an FBI sleeve for future reference. Info on Russian activities in the UK might also be material the US would like to keep to itself for many reasons.

Would like to see the full report though.

I suspect the weirdos were too flakey or slimy for Putin to be associated with, TalkinPaece.

Alex Wickham@alexwickham
NEW: Theresa May was told by MPs, led by Jacob Rees-Mogg & Iain Duncan Smith at Chequers today that in order to get the deal through she must set out a timetable to leave No10 to ensure the next stage of negotiations is under different leadership.

May refused to be drawn.

May allies Gove and Damian Green tried to convince Chequers Brexiteers it was this or Boles’ deal.

Gove said he was “terrified” about his friend Boles taking control and enforcing EEA. This raised suspicions among Brexiters who believe Gove is privately pushing a softer Brexit.

May signalled to MPs at today that no deal was off the table as it would be stopped by parliament/Boles, says a source present.

This in spite her aides briefing that no deal was back on the table just a few days ago. No10 still telling Remainers and Brexiters different things.

This in spite her aides briefing that no deal was back on the table just a few days ago. No10 still telling Remainers and Brexiters different things.

Shades of how Hitler kept control ...

So what the hell next?!

Steven Swinford@steven_swinford
Chequers readout:

* Eurosceptics demanded PM set out timetable for departure; she refused to do so

* PM asked how 2nd phase talks will be different; she was not forthcoming

* Jacob Rees-Mogg’s son Peter met PM and was given a guided tour of Chequers

What WOULD she talk about then?!