The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[peterms]

9 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

“but it’d be really bad form to have told the House and then not bring the vote back.”

 

10 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

May has the means, motive and opportunity to shirk. Nothing is stopping her kicking the can further down the road – and there is reason to believe she is poised to do so.'

I'm sorry, this makes no sense.  We are told that nothing prevents her, but we have previously been told that it would be regarded as bad form, which obviously completely rules it out.

Some consistency would be nice.

[mjmooney]

[sharkyvilla]

Christ on a bike, Shami Chakrabarti (sp?) on Politics Live.  I sometimes wonder why Labour even bother putting their senior figures on TV, it's embarrassing.  

[desensitized43]

Interesting quote from Government advisor Len Baker today

Quote

 

"She will get her deal through"

Dr Ben Laker says he believes most MPs will decide to vote Mrs May's deal through because it would be a "huge gamble" not to.

He told Sky News: "She will come back empty handed but this puts additional pressure on MPs and parliament to vote through her deal on the second time.

"A lot of MPs were split three ways - yes, we should vote, no we should renegotiate, or we should have a people's vote.

"But May has ruled out a people's vote so you get that down to two. Then you have those MPs who believe the Irish backstop can seek a breakthrough.

"By going and then saying to the house there is no compromise, she will say there are two options - my deal or no deal.

"Her deal will be more favourable, and in the end she will get it."

 

5

Confirming everyone's worst fears. The last 2-3 months has just been an exercise in delaying and kicking the can down the road until she can turn round at the last minute and say "it's this or no deal".

She's a despicable piece of work.

[blandy]

18 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

Confirming everyone's worst fears. The last 2-3 months has just been an exercise in delaying and kicking the can down the road until she can turn round at the last minute and say "it's this or no deal".

She's a despicable piece of work.

She is. But I dunno if the Gov't advisor is impartial exactly and so his view might be skewed.

It looks like a high stakes game of chicken to me.

Ireland and the EU have both said that "no deal" means a hard border. The UK has also said the same (though some of the brexit throbbers claim they can invent something to get round that, but they haven't, obviously, come up with anything). So no deal = hard border.

Absolutely no-one wants a hard border. Not the EU, not the UK. 

SImilar in a way is trade. No deal = all kinds of damage to the UK economy and jobs, and no deal = damage to the EU economy and jobs. SO neither side wants no deal, for that reason, either.

But both sides are talking up their own (alleged) willingness to have a no deal Brexit, in order to make the other side blink first. (or in May's case make both the EU and her own party/parliament blink first).

Because neither the EU nor UK will actually countenance no deal, and because the UK isn't remotely ready or prepared for no deal brexit. It won't happen.

Thus the Adviser implies, May's deal (in his view and hers) will get through. But while that's her aim, it's not actually a binary choice. Parliament can reject her deal (again) and then (for example) direct a softer brexit (with SM or CU or both) membership, or this 2nd Ref thing, or just kick the can down the road a bit. They'll kick the can and the EU will let them. May's deal is terrible.

[desensitized43]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Thus as the Adviser implies, May's deal (in his view and hers) will get through. But while that's her aim, it's not actually a binary choice. Parliament can reject her deal (again) and then (for example) direct a softer brexit (with SM or CU or both) membership, or this 2nd Ref thing, or just kick the can down the road a bit. They'll kick the can and the EU will let them. May's deal is terrible.

1

Is there time for this?

If we assume that they'll be directed to go back and discuss a softer brexit it will require either an extension of A50 or it's withdrawal entirely. They won't withdraw it so that leaves extension. That'll require time for the EU to discuss the reasons why we need this, discuss with the 27 at which point it's possible some of the 27 won't agree. If we assume that we won't request an extension before week 2 of March (date plucked out of thin air based on how I interpret May's last-gasp blackmail vote), can we be confident the particulars can be done in 2 weeks?!

[snowychap]

Meanwhile, elsewhere in EU land, the French have apparently recalled their ambassador from Rome because of the ongoing fued between them and the Italian government.

[snowychap]

A no-deal Brexit won’t result in a siege. The EU will be more clinical than that

Quote

One of the most striking features of the ongoing Brexit shambles is the consistent failure of Britain’s political class to correctly assess the consequences of their decisions or the likely response from EU member states or institutions. So it is with the prospect of a no-deal Brexit.

With every passing week, new heights of hysteria are reached about the impact of crashing out of the bloc. Politicians and the media have embraced the aesthetic of the disaster movie, outlining all the most vivid ways in which our economy and society will fall to pieces after exit day in an imagined dystopia.

The government amplifies rather than dampens the threat in the hope that fear will bring MPs from both main parties into acquiescing to the prime minister’s Brexit deal. And the EU, keen to assist the government in getting the deal through parliament, does little to lower the temperature. But almost all of the fear-mongering is wrong.

In truth, the short-term impact of a no-deal Brexit would be not nearly as bad as predicted, but the long-term impact will be much worse than feared. Why? Because the British political class still fails to understand how the EU will respond to the crisis.

In a no-deal Brexit, the EU will not place the UK under some medieval siege; there won’t be trucks filled with rotting food in Calais or shortages of medicines in pharmacies. Planes will continue to fly, though British travellers would face longer queues at borders (yet still enjoy visa-free travel). A thin agreement – covering areas from aviation to contract continuity – would be quickly concluded.

Most households would feel the impact not through shortages but through rising prices, the result of a rapid weakening in sterling driving up the cost of imports. Living standards that have barely improved for more than a decade would get noticeably worse. But 3,500 troops are not going to be deployed to the streets.

Instead, the EU’s response to a no deal will be strategic: opening up advantage, sector by sector, calmly and patiently dismantling the UK’s leading industries over the course of a decade. They will eat the elephant one bite at a time. The problem with abandoning the rules of the international order is that you no longer enjoy their protection.

A no-deal Brexit would hand the EU enormous power: it would decide how and when to introduce new frictions between the UK and the single market, giving sufficient time for firms like Airbus, Nissan or AstraZeneca to relocate production. As recent decisions have demonstrated, even seemingly fixed capital investment is more mobile than many Brexiters imagine.

... more on link

 

[snowychap]

 

Mail/Torygraph translate as:

"Tusk wants Brexiteers dead so they can go to hell."

[bickster]

20 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Patrick Maguire:

Will Theresa May postpone next week’s Brexit vote?

'When MPs voted to give Theresa May a mandate to renegotiate the Irish backstop last month, the prime minister promised them another vote on Valentine’s Day should she fail to reach a new deal with the EU by February 13.

Interpreted in some quarters as a sop to ministers opposed to leaving without a deal, the prime minister’s promise of a statement on her next steps, followed by a debate and vote on an amendable motion, effectively teed up a repeat of the January 29 vote which saw Graham Brady’s amendment pass and Yvette Cooper’s fall.

With no new accord with Brussels in sight, and intra-Tory relations regressing to the status quo ante, the stage would appear to be set for another parliamentary reckoning for a prime minister next Thursday. If she keeps to her word, that is.

Next week’s parliamentary business will be laid before MPs tomorrow. Unlike last week’s vote, the timing of which was dictated by the EU Withdrawal Act, the Prime Minister is not obliged to follow through on her promise of another on Valentine’s Day. “Nothing binds her,” a Commons source admits, “but it’d be really bad form to have told the House and then not bring the vote back.”

But the object lesson of the past few months in Westminster is that when May is only bound by convention, unwritten rules or political decency, she is not squeamish about disregarding them for her own ends. And with attempts to broker a so-called compromise on the Irish border within the Conservative Party still underway, there is little political incentive for the prime minister to subject herself to another vote so soon.

Asked whether next Thursday’s vote will still happen, a Downing Street source refused to deny it would be postponed and said only that it is the government’s ambition for MPs to have their say “as soon as possible.” It is hardly a firm commitment, and in any case one that May has the means, motive and opportunity to shirk. Nothing is stopping her kicking the can further down the road – and there is reason to believe she is poised to do so.'

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/02/will-theresa-may-postpone-next-week-s-brexit-vote

So, I still don't get how we can have a second meaningful vote, it's like she's ignoring the will of the people (as expressed through their elected representatives)

Hypocrisy of the highest order

[Enda]

On 06/02/2019 at 09:51, chrisp65 said:

To be honest, not a clue.

Possibly nothing that you'd notice, nothing that would genuinely impact day to day life.

A large bomb going off in the centre of an English city on a busy Saturday afternoon is going to make people notice the consequences of no deal Brexit. I'm not wishing it (obviously) but I am predicting it. Northern Ireland voted Remain. Crash out, and the car bombs that are currently restricted to Derry will start spreading.

And of course the English media will blame Ireland.

[Enda]

From University of Sussex:

 

Quote

 

Not Backing Britain: FDI Inflows Since the Brexit Referendum

Since the EU referendum, inflows of FDI to the UK have followed a downward trend: the longest continuous decline since the beginning of the data series in 2003.

Our analysis shows that the Brexit vote may have reduced the number of foreign investment projects to the UK by some 16-20 per cent. For services FDI, the gap is even larger: investment may be some 25 per cent lower than if the UK had voted to remain in the EU.

 

 

[/quote]

[chrisp65]

Just now, Enda said:

A large bomb going off in the centre of an English city on a busy Saturday afternoon is going to make people notice the consequences of no deal Brexit. I'm not wishing it (obviously) but I am predicting it. Northern Ireland voted Remain. Crash out, and the car bombs that are currently restricted to Derry will start spreading.

And of course the English media will blame Ireland.

Well, firstly you've only quoted half my answer where I've said it could be good it could be bad.

Secondly, you've added 'no deal' to the scenario. So you've kind of skewed it to the worst possible angle.

But as it happens, I don't live in England so I'm still quite relaxed about it.

 

[Enda]

Just now, chrisp65 said:

Well, firstly you've only quoted half my answer where I've said it could be good it could be bad.

Secondly, you've added 'no deal' to the scenario. So you've kind of skewed it to the worst possible angle.

But as it happens, I don't live in England so I'm still quite relaxed about it.

Sorry I gave the impression I was disagreeing with you, Chris.

[bickster]

9 minutes ago, Enda said:

A large bomb going off in the centre of an English city on a busy Saturday afternoon is going to make people notice the consequences of no deal Brexit. I'm not wishing it (obviously) but I am predicting it. Northern Ireland voted Remain. Crash out, and the car bombs that are currently restricted to Derry will start spreading.

And of course the English media will blame Ireland.

and the EU

[peterms]

I see Madame Tussaud's have been quick to commemorate the most recent talks.

[bickster]

She's got a chin for each "meaningful vote"

[chrisp65]

Just now, Enda said:

Sorry I gave the impression I was disagreeing with you, Chris.

 

As it happens, it's an outcome that is on the spectrum of the possible. 

There will be groups just hoping there's something they can hang a resurgence of violence on coupled with the promise that if the border goes in to meltdown they'll just let people and trucks through.

I'm sure there will be arguments that the security services are a lot better at stuff these days and there's a lot more surveillance. But what that often means is the day after an incident they can say they know who did it and they'd been watching them for a while. Always very comforting.

Frankly, if it is a real no deal hard crash out (which I still think is very unlikely but possible), I think there will be civil disobedience from a few groups. Statues will daubed, burger bar windows will be broken, and the Telegraph will think that's the worst thing about brexit.

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

if the border goes in to meltdown they'll just let people and trucks through.

Didn't they announce that as policy earlier in the week anyway? Serious question, sure I heard that on the radio somewhere

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Didn't they announce that as policy earlier in the week anyway? Serious question, sure I heard that on the radio somewhere

Yes, they did.