UK Politics: This Country is Going to the Moggs

[A Horse Named Stranger]

9 minutes ago, mormont said:

You're right that the next question is, where do you go from there? But of course, May's Brexit strategy has always consisted entirely of 'hang on until the weekend and hope like hell something comes up'. That isn't going to change.

 

Tick-tock goes the clock, and the all the years been wasted. Tick-tock goes the clock, we're heading for November. What I mean (besides ripping off Doctor Who here) is, this kicking it into the long grass isn't gonna work, she is running out of grass, plain and simple. 

12 minutes ago, mormont said:

 But if she can survive the party conference, she may be thinking that in itself will lend her political juice, at least diminishing the chances of an internal challenge based on the support of the grass roots. She can then hope to stall or fudge some of the other issues to be dealt with during the transition.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't transition linked to the withdrawal agreement? No, withdrawal agreement, no transition. And it's crash and burn in March.

15 minutes ago, mormont said:

 But she'll still need an Irish solution, and there just isn't one. Nor is one going to magically appear. That's the deal-killer here. 

Or is there? I know, it says if it's a hard Brexit, so that solution will only present itself after the crash. But have to admire the irony of a united Ireland being the direct result of the DUP forcing May to discard the EU's backstop. I am sure I can hear Michael Collins laughing from beyond the grave. 

[mormont]

22 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't transition linked to the withdrawal agreement? No, withdrawal agreement, no transition. And it's crash and burn in March.

You're right. But it would at least in theory be possible to fudge some of these issues past November, basically sketching out some broad lines and saying 'considerable progress has been made, we commit to a final agreement by (defined timescale), the fine details will be in a later document'. so long as the general principles are agreed, anyway. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

48 minutes ago, mormont said:

You're right. But it would at least in theory be possible to fudge some of these issues past November, basically sketching out some broad lines and saying 'considerable progress has been made, we commit to a final agreement by (defined timescale), the fine details will be in a later document'. so long as the general principles are agreed, anyway. 

I don't think this is going to fly. I'll paraphrase Barnier here.

"We don't need more time, we need [political] decissions."

And after the back and forth with the backstop for Ireland, I suspect patience and political goodwill is growing thin on the EU's side. Having that said, it's certainly possible/conceivable to fudge some issues, but that would recquire a solution for the Irish border. The EU's number one, two and three priority. And there some lofty formulated principle will (at least imho) not do, the EU will insist on a legally binding text.

Too early for jokes about a Whisky for food trade schemes?

[Nevarfeather]

Brexit was always going to be just 3 choices
1. A hard border in Northern Ireland,or
2. A border in the sea, or 
3. Very very close alignment to the EU. 

All 3 of which the UK gov has ruled out with May's ridiculous red lines. 
And so we're running out of time. Somethings gotta give. If the country defaults to no-deal there will be blood in the streets and no Government could survive stockpiling and a recession that is self-inflicted. Thankfully there is no way the parliamentary arithmetic would allow a no-deal (hopefully!)
 

So it's 1, 2, or 3. 
I think May is desperately trying to creep towards 3. with Chequers, but it's fooling nobody. Meanwhile Labour seem to be gradually creeping towards a People's Vote but the Cabbage Patch man is just so incompetent and eurosceptic it's painful.   
 

This years Conference season will make last years letters-falling-off-the-wall-coughing-P45-fiasco look like a picnic.  I need to get in a barrel of popcorn to get through it.  

[Spockydog]

Came to a decision last night. If Brexit actually goes through, and at this stage, it's looking extremely doubtful, I'm going home to Glasgow and will vote Yes in IndyRef 2.0.

I feel much better now.

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Nevarfeather said:

Thankfully there is no way the parliamentary arithmetic would allow a no-deal (hopefully!)

Are you sure of that? I don't mean to scare you, or anybody else, BUT I wouldn't rule out the following scenarios.

Let's suppose she comes home with some deal involving your option two (border in the Irish sea). 

The DUP will never ever vote for that, I suspect neither will a good part of the hard right Tories. Suddenly she needs votes from elsewhere. The Irish border would mean Scotland, Wales and England won't be in the EEA (if they were, the Irish sea border point would be moot). So who would back her on that? The SNP won't be satisifed without EEA membership (or something close to it). So she is hardly going to get votes from there. The LibDems will be equally unhappy. That leaves Labour, and I suspect the current leadership would rather seize the opportunity to force a new general election than voting for that deal. Which wouldn't satisfy the remain parts anyway. Result no deal.

Let's check choice three. Very close alignment or your case  three, is probably the most interesting one.

It's a soft Brexit. That won't satisfy the loonie fraction around JRM and the opportunistc charlatan, who thinks of himself as Churchill's reincarnation. Let's assume they get their votes out, which leaves May short of what? 60 votes? The SNP and LibDems might back that, as the relatively best outcome (as it might amount to something like EEA membership). Now then, will that be enough, or will she need additional votes from Labour? Again, I wouldn't put it past the current leadership to vote No on that, just to trigger a new General Election. And I can see Corbyn mumbling something about undermining the will of the people nonsense - result no deal, again. Anyway, the majority for that might be there, but I don't think May has the political courage to go against her own party for that. Not to mention that I can see the loons forcing a leadership challenge to derail that deal before it comes to that.

That leaves choice number 1. hard Border on Ireland.

I don't see the EU getting aboard with that. But let's see who would vote for it - that's defacto a hard Brexit. DUP and ERG would vote for that. Moderate Tories like Soubry will probably be less inclined to do so. I don't see SNP or LibDems voting for a hard Brexit. Labour remainer won't be satisfied either, that leaves Labour's UKIP representative from Vauxhall and maybe two or three others. The Leadership will again insist on either abstaining or vote against the Goverment to force a new general election. Depending on how many moderate Tories revolt this looks like a toss up to me, that can go either way.

 

Somebody with an better insight into the arithmetics of the house of commons can correct me on either scenario.

[Nevarfeather]

41 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Are you sure of that? I don't mean to scare you, or anybody else, BUT I wouldn't rule out the following scenarios.

Let's suppose she comes home with some deal involving your option two (border in the Irish sea). 

 

Not at all sure, just hopeful, a government that allows a no-deal to happen to a country knows it wouldn't survive a month of the chaos that would occur the day after. The headbangers like JRM & Co in the house want no-deal, but my sincere hope is that there are enough in the Commons that care about not losing their jobs....

Just listening to Raab give evidence in front of committee right now
https://goo.gl/ZPuvBP

He just fully committed to the Northern Ireland Backstop - then spent 10 minutes swimming around  panicking looking for some sort of life raft to row backwards on.  Would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. 

[SeanF]

51 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Are you sure of that? I don't mean to scare you, or anybody else, BUT I wouldn't rule out the following scenarios.

Let's suppose she comes home with some deal involving your option two (border in the Irish sea). 

The DUP will never ever vote for that, I suspect neither will a good part of the hard right Tories. Suddenly she needs votes from elsewhere. The Irish border would mean Scotland, Wales and England won't be in the EEA (if they were, the Irish sea border point would be moot). So who would back her on that? The SNP won't be satisifed without EEA membership (or something close to it). So she is hardly going to get votes from there. The LibDems will be equally unhappy. That leaves Labour, and I suspect the current leadership would rather seize the opportunity to force a new general election than voting for that deal. Which wouldn't satisfy the remain parts anyway. Result no deal.

Let's check choice three. Very close alignment or your case  three, is probably the most interesting one.

It's a soft Brexit. That won't satisfy the loonie fraction around JRM and the opportunistc charlatan, who thinks of himself as Churchill's reincarnation. Let's assume they get their votes out, which leaves May short of what? 60 votes? The SNP and LibDems might back that, as the relatively best outcome (as it might amount to something like EEA membership). Now then, will that be enough, or will she need additional votes from Labour? Again, I wouldn't put it past the current leadership to vote No on that, just to trigger a new General Election. And I can see Corbyn mumbling something about undermining the will of the people nonsense - result no deal, again. Anyway, the majority for that might be there, but I don't think May has the political courage to go against her own party for that. Not to mention that I can see the loons forcing a leadership challenge to derail that deal before it comes to that.

That leaves choice number 1. hard Border on Ireland.

I don't see the EU getting aboard with that. But let's see who would vote for it - that's defacto a hard Brexit. DUP and ERG would vote for that. Moderate Tories like Soubry will probably be less inclined to do so. I don't see SNP or LibDems voting for a hard Brexit. Labour remainer won't be satisfied either, that leaves Labour's UKIP representative from Vauxhall and maybe two or three others. The Leadership will again insist on either abstaining or vote against the Goverment to force a new general election. Depending on how many moderate Tories revolt this looks like a toss up to me, that can go either way.

 

Somebody with an better insight into the arithmetics of the house of commons can correct me on either scenario.

There can be no vote for some years on any final agreement with the EU.  That agreement can only be negotiated after the UK has left the EU.

There will be a "meaningful vote" on the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement and Transitional arrangement.  I imagine that Labour MPs will be whipped to vote against, whatever it consists of.   But, some Labour MPs (and ex-Labour MPs) will abstain or vote with the government. Presumably, Plaid, the Lib Dems, and SNP would vote against the government.   My guess would be that gives about 295 MPs who are certain to vote against.   So, it would depend how many Conservatives break ranks.

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Came to a decision last night. If Brexit actually goes through, and at this stage, it's looking extremely doubtful, I'm going home to Glasgow and will vote Yes in IndyRef 2.0.

I feel much better now.

I've made a decision to apply for the Irish citizenship I'm entitled to. Having lived in the Republic of Ireland for a while a decade ago and occasionally mooted going back, I'm thinking of revisiting that plan in the event of No-Deal. The RoI will be badly hit by Brexit, though, but rather less so than the UK.

[Nevarfeather]

15 minutes ago, SeanF said:

There can be no vote for some years on any final agreement with the EU.  That agreement can only be negotiated after the UK has left the EU.

There will be a "meaningful vote" on the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement and Transitional arrangement.  I imagine that Labour MPs will be whipped to vote against, whatever it consists of.   But, some Labour MPs (and ex-Labour MPs) will abstain or vote with the government. Presumably, Plaid, the Lib Dems, and SNP would vote against the government.   My guess would be that gives about 295 MPs who are certain to vote against.   So, it would depend how many Conservatives break ranks.

Anna Soubry tweeted this morning - "If Labour endorses a Peoples Vote then it will require only 16 Conservative MPs to vote for it & it will happen"

So gives an idea of the numbers. 

If Labour want to stand by their nonsense 6 tests then then they have to vote against a no-deal rather than abstain.

I think the number of big Unions coming out for a Peoples Vote (GMB yesterday) will make life difficult for Labour in Conference season. I can see Labour moving closer and closer to a Peoples Vote if the Cabbage Patch man can be locked in a broom cupboard for a few days. 

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, Nevarfeather said:

Anna Soubry tweeted this morning - "If Labour endorses a Peoples Vote then it will require only 16 Conservative MPs to vote for it & it will happen"

So gives an idea of the numbers. 

If Labour want to stand by their nonsense 6 tests then then they have to vote against a no-deal rather than abstain.

I think the number of big Unions coming out for a Peoples Vote (GMB yesterday) will make life difficult for Labour in Conference season. I can see Labour moving closer and closer to a Peoples Vote if the Cabbage Patch man can be locked in a broom cupboard for a few days. 

16 votes would be a big rebellion among Conservatives.  And even that number might not be enough.  It's not just people like Frank Field and Kate Hoey who are breaking ranks with their party, but also people like Caroline Flint, and the various MPs who have lost the whip.

[Nevarfeather]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

16 votes would be a big rebellion among Conservatives.  And even that number might not be enough.  It's not just people like Frank Field and Kate Hoey who are breaking ranks with their party, but also people like Caroline Flint, and the various MPs who have lost the whip.

Wasn't there 12 for Grieve's amendment rebellion that never was?

If there is 12 - then 16 is doable. The more opinion polls show people running to Remain the more rebels will appear. The more companies enacting contingency plans that involve relocating to Frankfurt and Dublin the more angry letters MP will be receiving. I think 16 is doable. But i'm an optimist (with an EU passport in my back pocket thankfully)

[SeanF]

2 minutes ago, Nevarfeather said:

Wasn't there 12 for Grieve's amendment rebellion that never was?

If there is 12 - then 16 is doable. The more opinion polls show people running to Remain the more rebels will appear. The more companies enacting contingency plans that involve relocating to Frankfurt and Dublin the more angry letters MP will be receiving. I think 16 is doable. But i'm an optimist (with an EU passport in my back pocket thankfully)

The pressure will mostly be the other way on Conservative MPs.  Conservative voters favour Brexit by a very big margin, and the margins will be even bigger in their constituency parties, which are seeing an influx of Eurosceptic members in any case.

[Nevarfeather]

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The pressure will mostly be the other way on Conservative MPs.  Conservative voters favour Brexit by a very big margin, and the margins will be even bigger in their constituency parties, which are seeing an influx of Eurosceptic members in any case.

Oops. Yeah i keep forgetting the over 60 Tory voter doesn't actually work so isn't worried about a job loss. Silly me. 

Man I hate Tory voting Telegraph reading muppets so much. They're toxic for this country :-( 

Sad days when 'Jezziah growing a brain' is my only hope for the UK :-( 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

59 minutes ago, SeanF said:

There can be no vote for some years on any final agreement with the EU.  That agreement can only be negotiated after the UK has left the EU.

 

The Irish Border Issue is part of the withdrawal agreement (namely the all weather back stop). You can (at least IMO) draw some conclusion from the solution to the Irish border to what the future relationships will be.

Hard Border (be it in the Irish sea or on the Island) will mean a harder Brexit. Well, land border would be more indicative of no deal at all. Irish Sea would point towards some sort of Canada style + while keeping the North in the EEA.

No Hard Border anywhere points towards closer allignment (EEA Norway style deal).

As the solutions don't fit in with other future relations. 

[Nevarfeather]

It was always going to come down to the Irish Border. All of this nonsense. Either 1. hard border, 2. Sea border or 3. full alignment to avoid a border

It was always going to be one of the three. But 2 years on and most of Whitehall still doesn't seem to understand that. 

Ironic really that 'take back control' means handing it all over to line on the map that is the result of colonisation and partition. Guess it's all a bit Empire karma really. 

[SeanF]

5 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

The Irish Border Issue is part of the withdrawal agreement (namely the all weather back stop). You can (at least IMO) draw some conclusion from the solution to the Irish border to what the future relationships will be.

Hard Border (be it in the Irish sea or on the Island) will mean a harder Brexit. Well, land border would be more indicative of no deal at all. Irish Sea would point towards some sort of Canada style + while keeping the North in the EEA.

No Hard Border anywhere points towards closer allignment (EEA Norway style deal).

As the solutions don't fit in with other future relations. 

My best guess is that it will be written in terms that are open to more than one interpretation, and that Brexit will ultimately be pretty soft.  Politicians are good at fudging things, and kicking cans down the road. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

My best guess is that it will be written in terms that are open to more than one interpretation, and that Brexit will ultimately be pretty soft.  Politicians are good at fudging things, and kicking cans down the road. 

Not going to fly. It's the end of the road, and by November the Irish border issue needs to be sorted out, or the negotiations fail. And the EU will insist on precise and legally binding formulations, and it to be adopted into British law. If the UK tries to worm itself out of that again, the negotiations will fail and it's crash out in March. You can fudge a lot of other things, but not the Irish border, the time for that is over.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Not going to fly. It's the end of the road, and by November the Irish border issue needs to be sorted out, or the negotiations fail. And the EU will insist on precise and legally binding formulations, and it to be adopted into British law. If the UK tries to worm itself out of that again, the negotiations will fail and it's crash out in March. You can fudge a lot of other things, but not the Irish border, the time for that is over.

You could be right, although I've come to realise that supposedly irreconcilable positions often become reconcilable at the 11th hour.  The mood  music about the negotiations seems to be better than it was.  (As an aside, I'm not sure how one does create a permanently legally binding agreement on the Irish Border, in advance of any free trade agreement.  Parliament cannot bind itself).

Kate Hoey's amendment to the Customs Bill was passed without a vote, so there is no will in the Commons to create a customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.  That leaves soft Brexit or No Deal as the remaining options.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Kate Hoey's amendment to the Customs Bill was passed without a vote, so there is no will in the Commons to create a customs border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.  That leaves soft Brexit or No Deal as the remaining options.

Yep, the Vauxhall kipper was meant as the exact opposite of the backstop, and it is just that. Either you pass a bill to overwrite Her amendment, or you go soft (not her intention) or crash.