J Mysterio wrote: » Fairly basic precondition and based on May's speech, one she did not accomodate.
Folkstonian wrote: » https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1085647444027662337?s=21 Just an absolute shambles right now
Rain Ascending wrote: » Now's good time to try to guess the next few moves in Westminister. Extrapolating from some comments by a political correspondent on BBC's Newsnight, below is my attempt. It probably has a 1 in 10 chance of being close to right. I'll come back in about 10 day's time, say around Tuesday week (22 Jan) and see how close I got. I invite others to try the same exercise and see if anybody can get close to the eventual outcome!1 Theresa May looses the vote on the WA on Tuesday, by over 100 and possibly 200. Reason: The dislike of the WA is well known. The BBC have been tracking the public pronouncements and presumably are using their own intel to estimate that she will loose by over 200. There are a number of implications for losing so heavily. For starters, going back to the EU for changes to the backstop won't work -- even if the EU were willing -- and they aren't, there is no guarantee that removing the backstop would be enough to get the deal over the line. There are probably enough ERG MPs that would still vote it down because of the £39B. Therefore, ironically, the ERG and the DUP are irrelevant from now on because Theresa May has only one route left to getting a deal through...2 Theresa May will declare that she will try to find a coalition across the floor of the Commons. She will put herself in the driving seat of that negotiation. Don't expect her to ask for multiple votes on various options. On the EU side, she'll look for a letter of comfort regarding the backstop, but (quietly) won't demand changes to the WA. Instead, she'll seek to reopen negotiations of the political declaration. Knowing that the WA would be otherwise dead, the EU will reluctantly agree. The reason is simple: As noted above, getting the ERG and DUP on board is pointless, so only opposition votes can get the WA + amended political declaration through.3 Corbyn will call for a vote of no confidence. Reason: He won't then be able to delay any further in that call. With 50 to 100 Tory MPs voting against the deal, it's his best opportunity to attract a number of them to vote against Theresa May even thought the outcome would probably be a general election. What happens at the vote depends on whether or not May can hold the cabinet together and keep the DUP on board for the vote of no confidence. If the cabinet support doesn't fall apart completely then it's hard to see how can anybody else dislodge her as leader of the Tory party. Tory MPs can't call for another vote of no confidence in her leadership for another 11 months and so if there is a general election they would be stuck with her. This is the best possible incentive for Tory MPs to vote for her government in a vote of no confidence!! The DUP will support her government if they don't believe she can get the WA through. The possibility of negotiating with Labour MPs, however, will make the DUP very nervous and more likely to accept the risks of a general election. So,4 (option #1) She wins the vote of no confidence, she then she tries to negotiate with firstly the Labour leadership and, failing that, with a grouping around the likes of Chuka Umunna.4 (option #2) She loses either the cabinet or the DUP and loses the vote of no confidence. We're probably in general election territory unless a Remainer/soft Brexiteer tries for a government of national unity. A general election will imply a negotiation with the EU for an extension to Article 50. And you can see that by step #4, my crystal ball is already getting cloudy...
sandbelter wrote: » Listening to many reports a large number of MP's seem fixed on ensuring Brexit does happen and don't seem to think past it, I don't think they'll change focus until Brexit happens then their focus will what's the best deal around
rusty the athlete wrote: » The 'large number' wanting brexit is roughly a third, not enough for a majority. Another third would like to remain or remain with close ties; not enough for a majority. Roughly a third (202 of them to be exact) want the maybot 'deal'. Again, not enough for a majority. A50 stipulates they leave Mar 29 irrespective of there being deal or no deal. Since there is no conceivable majority for anything the law of the land states they simply leave without any agreements at all, ie, hard brexit.
Peregrinus wrote: » Except that the number of MPs who want to leave with no deal at all is the smallest group of all .
FrancieBrady wrote: The reason the UK cannot leave the EU the way they want (with cake) is because the voice of northern Ireland is so strong and because the EU has listened and heard it. Agree to the terms, a backstop insuring the interests of Ireland and northern Ireland (laid down by SF at the very start of this, unlike FG) or leave with no deal.
Folkstonian wrote: » J Mysterio wrote: » Fairly basic precondition and based on May's speech, one she did not accomodate. https://twitter.com/tompeck/status/1085647444027662337?s=21 Just an absolute shambles right now
Christy42 wrote: » I believe that Corbyn should have gone to the meeting. However it shows that discussion in the UK has never understood the Irish situation when they give out to Corbyn for having terrorist sympathies. May is currently in government with the DUP and they never seem to cop that connection.
wiggle16 wrote: » There's a certain amount of irony in the fact that, even though the entire idea of Brexit (sans the xenophobia that spawned it) is that the UK will be free to strike its own super-amazing trade deals "across the globe" as if the East India Tea Company will be setting sail again, they barely managed to negotiate this one, after two and a half years, and they don't even want it. I know this deal is more than just a trade deal in that it's to set out the UK's future legal relationship with the EU and the border is a fatal complication, but in this case they were negotiating with an economic power that doesn't want to hurt them or exploit them. How are they going to fare against the US or China etc when this shítshow is the best they could manage? They are seriously overestimating their own clout and paying no heed to the fact that other nations want good trade deals for themselves, not for the UK. As Seamus has said, at this point, it's over. May does not have the time to get a new deal nor the mandate, the EU will not consider another one and the reactions from the EU over the last 24 hours has shown that they are fed up and want to be shot of the whole thing at this stage. The only realistic grounds, I believe, upon which Article 50 would be extended would be if the UK were to call a referendum for the deal vs Remain - and with the EU elections coming up there isn't time for that either (the legal minimum period between calling a referendum and voting in the UK is ten weeks, never mind organising it) in addition to the fact that the UK is historically averse to referendums in general, as they've only ever had 3 UK wide referendums and they are not legally binding on the government.
Peregrinus wrote: » Except that the number of MPs who want to leave with no deal at all is the smallest group of all - one-sixth of the Commons, maybe one-fifth, tops. And since the remainers, and most of the supports of May's deal, would dislike no-deal even more than they dislike one another's position, rationally they should be prepared to do a deal with one another for a Remainy Brexit rather than allow no deal to happen. I know; people are not behaving entirely rationally here. But most of the truly batsh1t ones are in the "no-deal" camp; they're not the ones who have to make some concession to common sense for this to work.
DOCARCH wrote: » Only chance of this ending with any sanity is if decision making is taken from government/executive and transferred to the house/MPs, which may happen next week (if Bercow facilitates). May is totally boxed in! It appears any which way she turns from now on will be very problematic for her (....staying in power). DUP have stated they will not support extension and/or revocation of A50 and will not support any motion for no deal, and some of her own cabinet will walk if she starts cross house talks.
PeadarCo wrote: » SF are irrelevant in terms of Brexit they are not in power in the Dail not in power in Stormont and by not taking seats in Westminster can't influence things there. I don't have an issue per say with SF policy however I would advise you to listen to some of the debate in Westminster its scary how clueless elements are about NI. It would be nice that someone could confront it face on. Just to clarify my comments stem from frustration with alot of MPs and how little their knowledge and attitude has changed since the vote and all that has happened.
correct horse battery staple wrote: » Yeh the same EU that sinn fein campaigned repeatedly against in every referendum and election for as far back as I can remember. Same SF who for years used same arguments brexiters make. The same sinn fein refusing to represent the people who elected them at a time the voices of Irish people both sides of border need to be heard in a parliament that repeatedly shown contempt for this island and its people.
devnull wrote: » Corbyn still gunning for an election whilst the car runs closer and closer to the edge of the cliff Unnoticed by him.https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1085806730020147200 Thought above tweet summed up situation very well.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Enlighten us. When have they campaigned to leave the EU?
kuro68k wrote: » Blair was on Radio 4 this morning. Not a fan but he is often insightful. Nailed the basic problem - May won't commit to any particular brexit because it would upset half her party, and is just trying to get past March 29th when they can't do much about it any more.
DOCARCH wrote: » DUP have stated they will not support extension and/or revocation of A50 and will not support any motion for no deal, and some of her own cabinet will walk if she starts cross house talks.
Thomas_IV wrote: » Maybe it would be best to first have a BrexitRef2 and than a snap GE to get the DUP off the leavers of power or better still reduce the number of their seats in the HoC (given that some DUP voters would vote for another Party in NI which is more pragmatic on finding a solution).
FrancieBrady wrote: » The shennanigans in Westminster are entertaining but largely irrelevant. The simple fact here is the UK cannot have the Brexit they want ( one that hurts northern Ireland) because the EU have listened. I have shown in the links posted above that SF were standing up for the people long before FG were and even the EU. It is just factually wrong to say they have no influence. The DUP have been complaining from before the GFA about the influence they have.
Russman wrote: » I agree a second Ref is what's needed to clear the logjam somewhat. If MPs can be asked to vote again, why not the people who put them there ? I'm not convinced the DUP voters will vote for another party though. Up there its pretty much a sectarian headcount regardless of policies.
EdgeCase wrote: » None of them are really seeing the risk or the big picture beyond the Westminster bubble. I also genuinely don't think most British people and a huge section of the British media understand or appreciate just how seismic this could be. They've been used to very stable economics and trade for decades and just assume that it's all a big fuss about nothing and it'll be business as usual come the first Monday after March 29th.
Peregrinus wrote: » We've never had a referendum on leaving the EU, so the question of who campaigned to leave doesn't really come up. CHBS's claim was not that they had campaigned to leave the EU but that they had campaigned against the EU - an important distinction. And i don't know about "eurosceptic at times"; I'm old enough to remember that Sinn Fein was soligly eurosceptic for decades. As you point out they opposed Ireland's accession to the EU. They opposed the Single European Act in 1987, which they saw as a "surrender of power" to "the NATO-dominated EEC". They opposed the Amsterdam Treaty. They opposed the Maastricht Treaty. They opposed the Nice Treaty (both times). For a long time this was just a visceral attitude, based on a traditional nationalist conception of what European integration would mean. I think it was really only in the 2000s, as a result of their pivot towards electoral politics and with the dawning realisation of the signficance of EU institutions and EU elections as all-Ireland political realities, that SF really began to reconsider this and engage more constructively but, even with that, they campaigned against the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 and the European Fiscal Compact in 2012. They've never had an affiliation with any European political party. In fact, I'm happy to be corrected here, but I struggle to think of any campaign in which Sinn Fein has taken a pro-European or pro-EU stance.
Russman wrote: » That's the really worrying point. I still struggle to see how they appear to have this blind faith that "it'll be alright on the night". I just can't get my head around it tbh. I suppose when you have the likes of Davis and JRM and tabloid darlings like BoJo telling them it'll be grand, a good portion see them as their "leaders" or there's at least a degree of gravitas (however subconscious) attached to being an MP, its maybe easier to see how they've been duped.
