kuro68k wrote: » The British government is going to take it right to the cliff edge and hope that someone else compromises. Of course they have their excuses already lined up if no-one does, only real question is who they will blame.
demfad wrote: » The full permutations as I see them are:Leave:May's deal accepted by Commons May's deal accepted in Referendum No Deal default Leave Another off the shelf position requiring almost no negotiation: Norway+ is the only option to avoid backstop. So Norway + Customs Union. Remain:Remain chosen in Referendum A50 revoked to avoid no-deal disaster I reckon the 4 bolded options are most likely.
prawnsambo wrote: » Well for a start, Corbyn is not pro-EU. And that's putting it mildly. So abstaining would see the deal through and a withdrawal on 29th March. It would suit him to have the Tories carry the can for whatever the fallout is and then sweep in at the next GE.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Right but if Labour abstain then their claim to be an opposition dissipates. He needs as much credibility as he can get so abstaining would torpedo his chances at the next GE. Remember 2017? May tried to effectively tax dementia and downgrade the sacred double lock. He made such a mess of that that abstaining would be the final nail in his coffin.
prawnsambo wrote: » I've given up trying to apply logic to Corbyn's thinking. He has failed signally to oppose the government at a time when a shook finger would rattle them. He got away with his wishy-washy remain campaign when he was clearly out of step with his party's stated policy. But he could just as easily stand up and say that Labour supporters were in favour of brexit (which is true) and he's abstaining in order that he both supports their position and yet doesn't support the Tories. And I'm sure that would make perfect sense in his head.
Imreoir2 wrote: » The only two realistic choices in my opinion are No Deal or May's deal. Lets look at all possible outcomes: May's deal is put to the commons and accepted or May's deal is put to the commons and defeated.If it is defeated, then May most likely remains in the driving seat and can continue to prevent all other options other than Her deal or No deal. Lets look at all options. A) A leadership challenge against May, which is likely to fail as no one else has the support to topple her and a leadership challenge by the rules of the tory party would take to long anyway. A vote of no confidence in the government, which I think is also likely to fail as the DUP have no reason to topple the government once the deal is rejected by the commons. A general election. If May survives A and B, and I think she will, then it is her choice if she wants to go with a GE. I can't see why she would. C) A referendum. Again unlikely as May can rule it out and is even unlikely if May does want it as it does not have support within the conservatives. D) A renegiotation, which is unlikely because the EU has many reasons to oppose it E) An extension to article 50, which is only likely in combination with something else and not a viable option by itself E) The deal is put to the commons a second time after mounting pressure on MP's F) Revocation of A50 by the UK government, another option that May has control of initiating and can block if she wants. Unlikely as it would cause political turmoil in the UK. G) Give up and go with a no-deal exit (Let me know if I have missed something) The two options that Labour talk about should the deal be rejected, a general election or a referendum can both be effectivly blocked by May. The option that Brexiteers talk about, a renegiotation of the deal can be blocked by the EU. If she want's to, May will most likely be able to hold the line and present MP's with no other choice than no-deal or her deal. While her deal is likely to be rejected first time round, come January I think it has a good chance of getting through assuming May surivies and can continue to make it a choice between her deal and no deal.
(3)Subsection (4) applies if the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution mentioned in subsection (1)(b). (4) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union. (5) A statement under subsection (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate. (6) A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for— (a) a motion in neutral terms, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the matter of the statement mentioned in subsection (4), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made, and (b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the statement to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made.
Imreoir2 wrote: » If it is defeated, then May most likely remains in the driving seat and can continue to prevent all other options other than Her deal or No deal.
demfad wrote: » I don't agree with you there. I would need to look at the wording again on the vote incase the UK Government could table a neutral motion which would try and force a straight choice between deal or no-deal. Otherwise it is parliament that instructs Government not vice versa as Millars case established.. The Norway+ option is emerging as a credible alternative. If parliament was to vote this through then Government would be instructed to and would have bring this to the EU, likewise a revocation request.
Water John wrote: » Imreoir, you're forgetting that it's Parliament will decide not TM. Parliament will not countenance a Crash out Brexit. A lot of manouvering will go on post Govn't Brexit being defeated. A lot can happen politically, in a few days.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Why would EFTA allow Britain to join on a temporary basis? There is nothing for them to gain and Norway has already said they would be against temporary membership. Also, it's not a simple matter of signing up - it would take a year to sort out the legalities. It also requires acceptance of the four freedoms and doesn't fully address the Irish border question.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I don't disagree with any of this. He simply isn't going to do anything one way or another which will risk either his cosmopolitan left wing socialists or his impoverished Northern, Welsh and Scottish working class base. Momentum strongly favour another referendum so hopefully they can pressure him into one.
Leroy42 wrote: » Exactly, nobody was opting for Norway style deal a few weeks ago, but suddenly it is something worth thinking about? The reason it didn't ever gain traction is the points raised by the good Professor. It actually is probably a worse option that the deal TM has got.
prawnsambo wrote: » Yeah, they could. But the 'Blairites' also favour a second referendum and that'd be a bit of a paradox for him. And his supporters. It's the perfect storm in British politics right now with both main parties split on a fundamental issue.
LuckyLloyd wrote: » External reaction to their initial rejection of this deal will narrow the path they pursue during December and January.
trellheim wrote: » I wonder if power sharing in NI returning would change anything. Karen Bradley on QT last week was as useless as it gets
Seth Brundle wrote: » trellheim wrote: » I wonder if power sharing in NI returning would change anything. Karen Bradley on QT last week was as useless as it gets Aah come on. She needs a bit more time to get used to the role. Sure it's not that long ago when she learnt that nationalists and unionists don't vote outside their own groupings!
Rhineshark wrote: » She's going to get pilloried in Scotland.
Water John wrote: » Her tour is aimed at the public putting pressure on their MPs to reduce the number voting against the Deal. If she can keep the differential low, even while losing, that will determine future direction. So, the differential is what everyone is watching.
serfboard wrote: » From The Guardian article posted earlier, the differential is currently 186.She'll be some woman if she gets a substantial number of them to flip. Project Fear? I think she'll be preaching Project Catastrophe.
