malumbu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Warning - Remoaner alert.
>
> ...So firstly the PM is not acting as a democrat but
> an autocrat. Not my original thought.
>
> But what other government would not care about a
> sizeable percentage of the population, with a high
> proportion of professionals, intellectuals
> artisans and the type (pomposity alert I also warn
> you). A crass comparison (and I am sure that you
> can also draw from Stalin), Pol Pot.
>
> The Khmer Rouge wanted to eliminate the
> professional classes, the current UK one wants to
> alienate many of them. KR wanted to take the
> country back to year zero. This government back to
> the 1950s. KR wanted to move to an agrarian
> economy. This one both secondary and primary
> production. OK all in bad taste, and probably
> replace 'the government' by some hard line
> Brexiteers.
>

Yes, that is both crass and in bad taste (not to mention it being a manifestly absurd comparison). Somewhat disrespectful to the 1.8 million people murdered by Pol Pot, too.

Talk about losing perspective!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was march 14, 10:22am by robbin.

The problem with May's deal is it scuppers ANY chance of negotiating a trade deal with the EU, other than one that will cause the UK damage.

Indeed, with all the focus pre-MV2 on the Backstop, that seems to have been lost. May's deal puts us over a negotiating barrel, if Brexiters think the EU have been tough up until now, they ain't seen nothing yet...

That is because of the backstop. The media have focussed on the Irish border point but the structure of the WA and political declaration is such that it would render negotiations on the UK's side impossible. The arbitration procedure could never in reality be invoked to enable the UK to leave the backstop, because of the (stated) conditions that have to be met before the arbitrators could or would find in the UK's favour. Those conditions are so broad and in such terms that permit the EU to insist on pretty much anything they want in the trade negotiations(provided it is not dishonest/in bad faith) without engaging the conditions necessary for the UK to leave the backstop.

The upshot of that is that once the WA becomes effective the EU will know that it does not have to do a trade deal with the UK and the UK will have to stay in the backstop/CU indefinitely. The ONLY way for the UK to get out of it would be to agree whatever the EU requires on a trade deal (i.e. full fishery rights as before). In other words the UK would have no negotiation power of any sort whatsoever. As I read the WA the position is that stark. The UK would undoubtedly be better off staying in the EU than taking May's deal - it would positively harm the country (and for the long term).

Does anyone who has actually read these crucial documents that so much is being posted about, disagree or construe the documents differently?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit was march 14, 11:05am by robbin.

ANy thoughts on the "Common Market 2.0" being put forward by Letwin/Kinnock and a few others.

TM has taken it down to the wire and left the ultimate choice to be her deal as it stands (with the legal risks of tying UK into subservience to the will of the EU) or No Deal.

An extension does not offer any further choices.

So - as it is when we vote - the choice will be Which Do You Want Least? rather than which do you actually WANT

Angelina Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TM has taken it down to the wire and left the
> ultimate choice to be her deal as it stands (with
> the legal risks of tying UK into subservience to
> the will of the EU) or No Deal.
>
> An extension does not offer any further choices.
>
> So - as it is when we vote - the choice will be
> Which Do You Want Least? rather than which do you
> actually WANT

This is Mays fault - she should have reached out both to other parties and Remainers long ago. Whatever the EU says I'm sure they know this.

Anyway the ERG and a minority in the country have now decided that NO Deal is the only real Brexit - that wasn't the case at the beginning or before the referendum and she's let that view build purposely for her own benefit.

Even IF TM had collaborated at the onset, there is a chance but no promise that this would have progressed more smoothly - and agreement in our own Parliament achieved. It's debatable.

The second challenge would be to get this agreement signed off with the EU - and the scale of our shoddiness in terms of negotiation skills would not have met this challenge (unless it was on the EU terms, whcih is where we are now).

There is no point is looking at who is to blame and what could have been done.

TM will leave the stage once this is finished - she will wash her hands of it - there will be continuity and no responsibility for it (whatever it is) going forward.

LOL @ The Speaker annoying ERG today

Refuses to pick the amendment that rules out a 2nd Referendum
Picks one saying Theresa May can't put her deal again.

I'll miss Bercow when he goes.

So if we're allowed a second referendum, but TM's deal is off the table, what will the votes be for?

Leave the EU without a Deal
Stay in the EU

How can it be for anything else? they can't have an option for a new WA, as how would that be achieved?

They may as well not bother and just say we're staying, but of course - they can't as it was a democratic vote to Leave...

Angelina Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even IF TM had collaborated at the onset, there is
> a chance but no promise that this would have
> progressed more smoothly - and agreement in our
> own Parliament achieved. It's debatable.
>
> The second challenge would be to get this
> agreement signed off with the EU - and the scale
> of our shoddiness in terms of negotiation skills
> would not have met this challenge (unless it was
> on the EU terms, whcih is where we are now).
>
> There is no point is looking at who is to blame
> and what could have been done.
>
> TM will leave the stage once this is finished -
> she will wash her hands of it - there will be
> continuity and no responsibility for it (whatever
> it is) going forward.

I really have no idea who is fit to become PM.

Tories (sorry for the derogatory remarks): Definitely not Boris J not fit IMHO, Gove is a little squirt, Hunt is a ****, Javid I don't trust. Ken Clarke - Maybe I would but too old, Raab no gravitas. Lidington - better than some.

Labour: People supporting Corbyn say like Clem Attlee he can pick a team around him. McDonnell is good on TV. If you're a centrist maybe Yvette Cooper - she's good at questioning May. Whats all the support for Jess Phillips recently ? Keir Starmer: maybe could do it

Angelina Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So if we're allowed a second referendum, but TM's
> deal is off the table, what will the votes be
> for?

No deal can't be there - everyone sane thinks it would be a disaster.
If Mays deal goes or voted down again I think you'd need some kind of EFTA/EEA option for 5 years with further options decided down the road.

ok, so a 2nd Referendum would not include options for No Deal and would not include options for TM Deal..

So - only would be vote to stay in EU.

A one-box vote? That would mean it's based purely on HOW MANY PEOPLE turn out to vote - if it's more than do not. That is absurd.

If you count EEA/EFTA as staying.

For me no freedom of movement is a large loss and also a future PM once we are parked in EFTA/EEA/Customs Union could move us further away from the EU (that's how I originally always saw the exit going once we left - a gradual parting).

I forgot Hammond above - he's making his typically cautious move

"Chancellor Philip Hammond said that although he backed Mrs May’s deal, “other options” should be considered at the same time in the House of Commons."

.

I think that anyone voting to back May's 'deal' is either lacking in basic intelligence and/or is negligently lazy(because they have not read and/or understood the two documents) or is consciously putting other interests before those of the country. It is indefensible and I remain surprised that commentators have not picked up on the point I mentioned above - I suppose it is easier for them to stress the simpler to understand concept of the Irish border, but the real killer about the deal is the fact that it will prevent a properly negotiated free trade deal.

You have to ask why they would not be picking up on that.

It's hidden in the legalities and should be made absolutely clear that the implications are restrictive.

It may be that the public are not expected to understand that (or if you are capable, you will do your own research).

The TM agreement is dangerous for the UK and would leave us far worse off than we are now. I don't see how anyone would endorse it (unless you're in the EU.....)

And if it's a choice between no deal and TM deal then the risks need to be very very clear. Something which is lacking in the mainstream media.

robbin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think that anyone voting to back May's 'deal' is
> either lacking in basic intelligence and/or is
> negligently lazy(because they have not read and/or
> understood the two documents) or is consciously
> putting other interests before those of the
> country. It is indefensible and I remain
> surprised that commentators have not picked up on
> the point I mentioned above - I suppose it is
> easier for them to stress the simpler to
> understand concept of the Irish border, but the
> real killer about the deal is the fact that it
> will prevent a properly negotiated free trade
> deal.

All TM cares about is stopping FOM and escaping the ECHR.

There must be a reason for that.

Any one out there related to guy Fawkes if you fancy another bash and do us all a favour.

it's not just parliament

4:08 PM
Latest from Cabinet
Theresa May raised concerns about frequency & scale of leaks from Cabinet

4:10 PM
May "went batshit" at Remain rebels
Clark's effort to defend himself "ended badly"
Rudd "bashful".

So obviously journalists on both Leave and Remain Whatsapp groups.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was march 14, 04:54pm by JohnL.

Benn amendment defeated 314 - 312

Mays deal done and dusted really

Why do you say that John?...

Probably because she will keep coming back using long extension (or if EU don't allow an extension, therefore alternative is no deal) as leverage. Is this too simplistic? It may all be interesting as an academic study/making history/uncharted territory but boy does this depress me and it is real people's lives that will be for the worse. Anyway don't answer the second point.

diable rouge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do you say that John?...

My gut reaction to the loss of the Benn amendment as I left work LOL - there's still a lot to go but any motions in parliament will now come through the government and be worded as such.

True, but as Benn said yesterday, they will have another chance if May's deal is voted down again next Mon/Tues. Winning the Benn amendment wouldn't have made any difference in that respect as it would've kicked in on Wed. In fact there's a good argument that not winning the Benn amendment was a blessing in disguise, as had it won it could've spooked the ERG May's deal refusniks ahead of MV3. It's all about timings now, I also think Labour did the right thing not backing the 2nd Ref amendment yesterday...

diable rouge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True, but as Benn said yesterday, they will have
> another chance if May's deal is voted down again
> next Mon/Tues. Winning the Benn amendment wouldn't
> have made any difference in that respect as it
> would've kicked in on Wed. In fact there's a good
> argument that not winning the Benn amendment was a
> blessing in disguise, as had it won it could've
> spooked the ERG May's deal refusniks ahead of MV3.
> It's all about timings now, I also think Labour
> did the right thing not backing the 2nd Ref
> amendment yesterday...

Silver lining.

I thought the 2nd Ref amendment should have been pulled - apparently caused a bit of a spat between Labour and the Tiggers.

Everything depends on May's third attempt with her deal now. Basically she is trying to squeeze her own party into backing her, all of them.

So next Wednesday, either Parliament backs her deal, and we seek a three month extension for getting required legislation through (and we leave on June 30th).

or

Parliament rejects her deal and we enter the MEP elections and seek something like a two year extension to figure out some cross party agreed kind of deal that is then put back to the people.

Farage's hopes of finding a member state to veto have been shot down as Italy, Hungary and Poland have all said no to him. So I think it is safe to say that no deal is now off the table.

The EU has said it would agree to extensions but the longer one would have to have something like a 2nd ref at the end of it to make sure a final decision is made, one way or the other.

So, my guess is that the vote next Wednesday will be narrower, but will still be defeated. Even with the DUP and the ERG on board, May would still be behind. It only takes a handful of MPs in her party to reject the deal to lose the vote and nothing significant has been changed in the deal itself.

Suffice to say that there were some very angry UKIP protestors outside Parliament on Thursday night, but not in any kind of numbers that suggests civil disorder is coming. I think most people are so exhausted by the process now that an ambivalence is returning.

From The Times today.
‘May is at the mercy of a “gang of 15” Brexiteer MPs who won’t budge, including a “suicide squad” of around 10 plotting to vote with Labour in any no-confidence motion. If the Tories lost such a vote they would have 14 days to install a new leader or Jeremy Corbyn could become prime minister’

May knows the Tory party will become the Toxic party if she fails to get this through. If Brexit ‘doesn’t happen and the division in this country over ‘the will of the people’ not being carried out, then it will be the direct actions of the Tories that caused it. The whole sorry idea from Cameron’s permatanned butternut squash of a head, through to a stupid country dividing referendum, then the very people who insist that ‘Brexit will be Brexit’ or some other dogs dinner of a phrase, can’t actually carry out the instructions of a f*cked up democracy.
May knows she’ll go down as one of the biggest failings in political history, along with the ERG and their likes. They’ll have failed for all their guff to deliver anything other than chaos.

It’s been and still is, a fascinating time in history and politics. I’m sure we’ll discuss Ye Olde Brexit for years to come, in between endless series of Master Chef and the Voice.