Not greatly sensible perhaps

Senior Conservatives vowed last night to fight a guerrilla campaign to stop a “disastrous” no-deal Brexit after inflicting the first Commons defeat on a government finance bill in more than 40 years.

Twenty Tory MPs, including seven former cabinet ministers, broke a three-line whip to restrict the Treasury’s powers to prepare for leaving the European Union without a deal in March.

The rebels, who included the former defence secretary Sir Michael Fallon and the former Cabinet Office minister Sir Oliver Letwin, warned that they would continue to sabotage all no-deal Brexit legislation until Theresa May ruled out the option.

“I want to make it abundantly clear that a majority in this house will not allow a no-deal exit to occur at the end of March,” Sir Oliver told MPs.

Significantly, the Tory rebellion brought together the supporters of a second referendum and former Remainers who now back Mrs May’s deal or a Norway-style soft Brexit.

Well, yes. Except there’s no majority in the House for any of the other available options either. Whihc, given that no deal is he default is something of a problem, isn’t it?

It’s that old political problem really. Sure, w’re all in favour of sugar, spice, things nice, it’s the plan to get from here to there which is the problem.

So, other than no deal and WTO terms, what can you actually gain a majority of the House for? And, an important little caveat, a deal the EU itself would agree to?

68 comments on “Not greatly sensible perhaps

  1. They really do want us to pitch up outside the HoC with pitchforks and pianowire. ITMT add them to Ecks little list.

  2. They can legislate all they want
    If the EU turns around and says “Well, you’re out now, f**k off!” then we’re out. Right?

    Wouldn’t be surprised if that’s what they do, just to screw around with us.

  3. I find it somewhat amusing that it’s Gina Millar’s “meaningful vote” success that’s caused all this stress and deadlock in Parliament.

    All the Remainers thought it would be a back door to staying in the EU but instead it created a situation where the default is their worst case scenario or no deal and WTO terms. Instead they now have to come together to find a solution that isn’t May’s deal but won’t be committing political suicide at the next GE when they go back to their Leave voting constituencies.

    If Millar hadn’t won her case the executive would probably have pushed through May’s deal or sought some other compromise, without a full commons vote or it would have been a straight forward no confidence vote. In both those scenarios they could have gone back to their constituencies and shrugged that no matter what the outcome “it wasn’t my fault, Guv”.

  4. @BiND, yes, I have wondered if Gina Millar’s intervention might accidentally (in her eyes, propitiously in mine) end up getting us cleanly out.

    Who knows what machinations will occur between now and end of March though, by those suffering from the Remainer Stockholm Syndrome.

  5. I wonder, since Ms. Millar got a court ruling that an act of Parliament was required before the article 50 letter could be sent, is an act of Parliament required to withdraw it.
    As to “no deal” preparations, I suspect very few are needed, so this will have the effect of preventing spending just for show.

  6. Is there a plurality in the House for no deal? I rather doubt it.

    Is there a plurality in the country for no deal? Similarly I doubt it, because this far in people still believe that the benefits without the costs are a reasonable expectation. And continue to labour under the delusion that they can ignore that little caveat of the EU agreeing to it.

    And before you all pile on, I believe the UK should honour the referendum result and leave. Any new referendum should be May’s deal versus no deal, since those are the only options at this point.

  7. Is there a plurality in the House for no deal? I rather doubt it.
    There is no real or imagined option that would have majority support, so I think you’re on a safe bet there.

    Is there a plurality in the country for no deal? Similarly I doubt it, because this far in people still believe that the benefits without the costs are a reasonable expectation.

    This may be what the Süddeutsche Zeitung would have you believe but it’s not at all a mainstream view in the UK

    And continue to labour under the delusion that they can ignore that little caveat of the EU agreeing to it.

    You’re wide of the mark here – people here have seen quite enough of the EU’s behaviour over the last two years to believe that Brussels will agree to anything reasonable.

  8. Is there a plurality in the country for no deal?

    Based on my completely unscientific and biased method of talking to people, yarp there is.

    this far in people still believe that the benefits without the costs are a reasonable expectation

    Who?/Whom?, innit.

    The CBI is absolutely mad-keen on unlimited and unending immigration of cheap foreign labour (subsidised by the mug taxpayer) and no pesky democratic barriers to the schemes of vast, politically-connected multinationals in a system which also smothers smaller potential competitors under a blanket of rules and regs.

    The benefits of being in the EU to, say, a working class boy from Sunderland who’s wondering how the fuck he’s ever going to be able to afford to buy a home and start a family when even shelf-stacking jobs are going to job lots of Bulgarians who live 10-to-a-rented-house are… rather more elusive.

  9. According to Guido that little fucker Bercow has selected a Bill for debate that would force a rolling vote every three days on May’s shite. These fuckwits really are asking for it.

  10. Ecksy, I am actually with you. May’s deal is pointless, arguably worse than remain for everyone.

    Meißen, I don’t read Süddeutsche. I’m more of a FAZ-reader.

    Steve, the UK’s unemployment rate was last this low in 1973. And before you wibble about students, sicko and such, the number of people in employment is at its highest since records began. Your boy in Sunderland has never had it so good.

  11. ” Your boy in Sunderland has never had it so good.”

    And it would be a lot better still without your EU mates and cheap imports.

    Meanwhile Germany stumbles. The EU will do you all in.

  12. BiG – And before you wibble about students, sicko and such,

    Never been my style.

    the number of people in employment is at its highest since records began. Your boy in Sunderland has never had it so good.

    I fear not, for a whole clusterfuck of reasons, but mainly this:

    Achieving a normal middle class lifestyle (own home, car, spouse + sprogs) is increasingly as fantastic as Harry Potter for younger Milennials and Z-ers. Why do you think there’s so much free-floating anxiety and social dysfunction about?

    For example, the rented sector doubled in the UK between 2004 and 2017. Doubled! It’s not all because of immigration, either: home ownership rates are at a 30 year low. Birth rates are in the toilet. Marriage continues to decline into irrelevance.

    It doesn’t actually matter much how many people have McJobs and cheap plastic iDildos and payday loans. It’s the fundamentals that matter.

    So take our hypothetical Mackem. Do you think he feels like he has a stake in this system? What’s in it for him?

  13. The Committee to Elect Jeremy Corbyn

    While May is a sack of shit, Corbyn is the same but with unlimited immigration, mass nationalisation and fascist Islamist associates attached.

  14. Ho ho ho

    Why are you doing this Ollie?

    To stop the mob fucking up the country

    And how are you going to accomplish this?

    By fucking up the country of course.

  15. Ecks, you just confirm to me that Brexit is the broadest coalition ever assembled in British postwar politics. You want Brexit to stop cheap imports, Tim and company want Brexit so they get more cheap imports.

    What is it to be then?

    Steve, if you have a problem with asset prices (which I totally grok), you need to tell Alan Greenspan, not me. How’s that for “sovereignty”? You have a housing bubble because an American didn’t want a recession on his watch, instead bequeathed a bigger one to his successor, and they still haven’t figured it out.

  16. Cheaper goods–because EU thieving halted–yes. Cheap workers to undermine my country –no. Those who do work as opposed to sign ons and criminal lifestyles.

  17. BiG – re: your first point to the Right Honourable Member For String-Em-Up-On-the-Thames.

    Yarp. Which should tell us something (as should the ongoing riots in France). The status quo isn’t working for a critical mass of the public. The solutions presented (if any) are inchoate and/or contradictory, but it doesn’t change the fact that the system ain’t working, innit?

    You’re absolutely right that housing prices aren’t the EU’s fault. Western civilisation is entering, I reckon, a deep crisis for a lot of not-neccesarily-related reasons, some of them dating back 100 years or more.

    (And it’s not just Western civ. Japan’s demographic malaise is well documented, fewer people know that even China has some terrifying challenges ahead as its population rapidly greys and the repeal of the One Child policy doesn’t seem to have had much success yet. The uber reactionary in me thinks it quite possible that modern urban civilisation itself is socially unsustainable, but as with the French revolution, it’s too early to say)

    My take on the EU is that leaving is necessary but very far from sufficient to give us a chance to right the ship. Though it didn’t create all of the problems, the EU can’t be a part of the solutions because its very nature makes that impossible.

  18. @BiND

    My understanding is that no, GM’s court case didn’t lead to Parliament being required to withdraw article 50 – it is asymmetric because leaving the EU involves removing some rights. What has made a bigger difference to the current situation is the ECJ ruling that the UK gov can simply choose to withdraw A50 and resume the previous position in the EU, opt outs and all, with no penalty. This is the reason that the pro-Remain faction in Parliament feel confident (plus the odd Leaver who wants a deal different to May’s, the pro-unicorns as they’ve been dubbed) they can vote down May’s deal without risking the No Deal alternative that was previously the default. It’s now assumed that if there is no time left on the clock and no sign of a deal passing, then May (or whoever replaces her if she quits) will simply cancel Article 50. Before the ECJ case it was not even clear this was legally possible. Now many MPs view it as the political default option, even if it isn’t the legal default, because they don’t honestly believe the government would risk it given so little preparation has been done.

    There’s been a lot of discussion on this on http://www.politicalbetting.com which is worth a read. Currently punters do not expect the UK to leave in March.

  19. Nobody gives a flying fuck what cunt MPs want.

    They take Brexit–announcing the end of any illusion of democracy– then this country burns. Do these fuckwits think we are just going to say–“Oh Dear–shame that didn’t work out then”.

  20. Whatever scenario you choose there will be winners and losers. Everyone has to do their own cost-benefit analysis. While a lot of people are good at that most fail to take into consideration the factors beyond their control, such as US interest rates, or the willingness of the EU to allow a departing country to cherry-pick. I know highly intelligent and successful people who can’t see even the first unintended consequence of their actions, let alone the nineteenth.

    The EU will respond to the changed mood – it just takes time. It’s a big ship and takes a long time to turn around. 20 years ago it was all “fortress Europe”*, and I am sure it will be again. My prediction – you can hold me to this – there will be a big change in direction this year, once the result of the May election sinks in. They will realise that the people really will eventually vote for Hitler mark 2 if they don’t stop this madness.

    And just what the EU should be doing. Rather than regulating the size of bananas, it should be preparing for and fighting off the incipient colonisation attempt from our south and east. There are too many countries on the med border to do this individually – it has to be done, however it is done, collectively, and at collective expense (including the countries to the north who would profit from fewer boats arriving in the south).

    Dawkins once said you should be open-minded, but no so open-minded that your brain falls out. Likewise Europe should be open but not so open that it gets entirely overrun by a culture hostile to the liberal (European definition) society we have, by-and-large, if imperfectly, built. Somehow moving away from the lazy black-and-white thinking (refugees welcome or you’re a far-right Nazi) that is now endemic on both left and right.

    *: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=“fortress+Europe”&year_start=1800&year_end=2000

  21. @ BiG
    You are displaying your ignorance of Sunderland in public for all to see. Nissan chose Sunderland because it had a large pool of highly skilled unemployed workers.
    When I was younger Sunderland had two successful unsubsidised shipyards, a first-class football team (dubbed “the Bank of England team” including Len Shackleton “the clown prince of soccer”), a thriving port, good Grammar Schools and municipal pride. The shipyards were so successful that they elected a Conservative MP.
    The lad in Sunderland who got an apprenticeship had to work but he did and he could reasonably expect to marry in his early twenties and buy his first house (on mortgage) by the time he was 30.
    Sunderland & Doxford Shipbuilders were the first to use a production line in shipbuilding to the benefit of customers, employees and shareholders (in that natural order) until government-subsidised shipbuilders in Japan and Korea copied and undercut them.

  22. @ Steve
    House prices are Tony Blair’s fault but partly the EU’s because Tony Blair allowed unlimited immigration from Eastern Europe when Germany didn’t, so the number of UK residents born outside the UK rose by over 3 million between Census day 2001 and Census day 2011.
    *That*, coupled with the low rate of housebuilding under New Labour as a secondary cause, is the reason for absurd house prices. [Tim will tell us that it’s all the fault of Attlee’s 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, but even without that the NET increase of immigrants (the netting includes children fleeing from Nazis in the 1930s who died in that decade) would create a problem you need to build not 125k houses per year but an *extra* 125k houses a year – Wimpey, Barratt etc just don’t hoave that sort of unused capacity]

  23. @ BiG
    Dawkins used to claim “there is no God” until some of us pointed out that his statement implied omniscience and, hence, that he himself was God. He then backed down. Do not rely on anything from Dawkins

  24. @Ecks

    “then this country burns”

    On current form seems unlikely. A big mass of people completely disaffected with mainstream politics? Yeah, somehow politicians are going to be held in even lower regard than presently. But this seems more likely to manifest itself in reduced vote share for the main three parties and a fall in turnout at future elections. There’s no sign that Brexiteers can do serious street politics – while students, Greens and anarchists have been able to do quite large-scale street politics in this country for years and still failed to achieve their objectives (scrap tuition fees, overthrow the government etc).

    What MPs want, and how they are calculating, matters in so far as it determines what we are going to get. What I wonder is just how correct the gamble is that withdrawing article 50 is de facto the new default. It’s a bet that May, when pushed into a corner, will decide that the consequences (for the country and her party) of stopping Brexit are less harmful than the consequences of No Deal. That might well be the correct bet, but a lot of MPs who see themselves as voices of moderation and reason, and who would hate to see No Deal come to fruition, are betting the house on it. May assumed the threat of No Deal would ultimately cajole such MPs into backing her Deal even if they would have preferred Remain. Now they are treating that threat as impotent and there is little incentive MPs she needs to sway to back her deal. They know many of the cabinet would resign if May opted for No Deal. Can they really be 100% sure that would stop her, though, if on principle she decided the UK had voted to leave so it was jolly well going to leave? That might be the slim hope you’ve got to rest on if No Deal is your preferred outcome. I don’t think patting yourself on the back thinking it’ll happen because it is the legal default and there’s no parliamentary majority for any of the alternatives will cut it – the betting markets certainly aren’t taking that view anyway.

  25. Yeah cause them Yellow Jackets are nothing for Macron to worry about right?

    And a lot more than street action will happen. We no longer live in a democracy–so that is how things will be played.

    There are no consequences to No Deal MBE. None. It is all lies puked up by the remainiac scum.

  26. @Ecks
    It isn’t whether you or I think that No Deal would be devastating or desirable, it’s whether MPs do that will dictate the way they vote on it.

    As for the street politics – there’s simply no sign of it, to any serious degree. Not yet anyway. A pro-Brexit rally would only muster a fraction of the headcount of a pro-Remain one. There are Remain groups fighting rearguard campaigns all over the country when most Leave campaigners have treated the job as done and gone home. I don’t think MPs are seriously concerned that a route that leads to Remain (particularly one they regard as democratically mandated, eg a second referendum) would be seen as spelling the end of democracy and they certainly aren’t concerned about serious civil disturbances. What they’d regard as the odd nutter, maybe.

    Incidentally, even if Brexit could muster forces equivalent to the yellow jackets, then what? In terms of changing the direction of their country the yellow jackets look like failing. In Britain the Stop The War march, the Countryside Alliance march, the student riots, the fuel protests under Blair all got people out and they all lost.

  27. Yea gods, how THICK are these people? Theresa May ***CAN’T*&** rule out a no-deal Brexit, that is the job of ****PARLIAMENT****

    The current status quo is Leave With No Deal. The only way to change the status quo in the British Parliamentary System is for Parliament (hint hint) to legislate to change the status quo.

  28. @jgh

    May could declare that she will not allow a No Deal Brexit, and she could ensure this occurs by withdrawing the Article 50 notification if no alternative passes Parliament. So ruling out No Deal is within her power and would not need parliamentary approval. An alternative is that she could request an Article 50 extension, which would likely be granted, but it is the ECJ ruling that the UK can withdraw its Article 50 notification which is the cast-iron guarantee.

    Of course May hasn’t declared that this is what the government will do, but many MPs believe it is – particularly since the No Deal preparations have been so limited. Pro-remain MPs will obviously try to force the government’s hand through parliamentary procedure. But even without the government being explicitly compelled to avoid No Deal, there are plenty of pro-remain MPs who view No Deal as implausible at this stage and therefore believe they can vote against May’s deal with impunity. Since May was relying on capturing some of their votes based on the terror No Deal presented to this group of MPs, it’s very hard to see how her deal can pass. So I guess we will soon discover whether she is prepared to lose much of her cabinet by seriously pursuing No Deal – or to lose much of the other side of her cabinet by putting Remain back as an option.

  29. MBE: What has made a bigger difference to the current situation is the ECJ ruling that the UK gov can simply choose to withdraw A50 and resume the previous position in the EU, opt outs and all, with no penalty.

    I’m not sure that that’s entirely accurate – the ECJ ruling does allow for the §50 notice to be withdrawn but subject to a tail-between-the legs form of words which effectively means that §50 cannot subsequently be invoked a second time.

  30. @TMB

    Fair point.

    “With no penalty” is perhaps overegging it – but my understanding is that experts have mixed opinions on whether a second invocation of Art 50 is actually prevented by that ruling – using it as a hokey-cokey negotiating trick perhaps, reattempting it after a fresh referendum or election, probably not. Certainly a lot of lawyers were surprised how generous the ruling was to the UK.

    And the ruling does seem to have substantially changed MPs’ expectations, and therefore voting strategies. If people on this thread are very confident about No Deal Brexit having a smooth, default path, then there are lots of mugs on the betting markets who you can go and win some money from. But I don’t think the political punters are likely to be mugs – have a peek at http://www.betdata.io to see a summary of where the markets are at.

  31. So what you’re saying is a few companies went bankrupt because they aren’t competitive and so local people can’t get local employment.

    As someone who got out of Dodge and moved country, twice, to find gainful employment, I can really only shrug.

    BTW, I’m not at all a fan of Dawkins (even though I agree about the whole god stuff), I pick that quote out because it is unusually perceptive of him.

  32. MBE–Cos pissing on democracy and 17.4 million voters (and a lot more since) and declaring that votes no longer mean anything is just a gentle breeze right.

    Your smug remainiac crap marks you as mug set to lose more than your shirt. Your mug punter pals were wrong about June 16 as well.

  33. Mr Ecks, you know what your problem is? You’re a man of principle.

    I’ve read Mr Ears’ analysis with interest, only inasmuch as it is a tribute to his intellect.

    And maybe that’s the crucial dichotomy: beliefs versus analysis.

    I fear that principles no longer have a place.

  34. “Dawkins used to claim “there is no God” until some of us pointed out that his statement implied omniscience and, hence, that he himself was God. He then backed down. Do not rely on anything from Dawkins”

    Observing there is no Santa Claus (or Easter Bunny, etc) does not imply omniscience.

    Rather, it’s a question of what is rational to believe.

    Dawkins certainly makes a complete arse of himself when he expounds his leftist wankery, but he is irrefutably correct when he points out that all the evidence says that magic pixies do not exist and that it is irrational to maintain otherwise.

  35. @Mr Ecks January 9, 2019 at 3:08 pm

    Re: Macron & GiletsJaunes

    Former Education Minister says police should use Live Bullets on them, not rubber bullets.

    I can see that backfiring

  36. Soubry is a hypocrite

    https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1082680514425905159

    A bit of an uncomfortable scenario where Soubry calls some other folk “fascists” & then they call her a “fascist” in return, & we only condemn the latter & only call for the latter to be arrested…

    https://twitter.com/DancerGuard/status/1082678435112255488

    Dear Met Police, This woman is recorded here calling innocent Leave campaigners “fascists” and “racists” with “no respect for the law”. Please investigate urgently and protect the campaigners against these abusive individuals.

    There is a video clip verifying the accusation:
    ….Soubry is a hypocrite

    A bit of an uncomfortable scenario where Soubry calls some other folk “fascists” & then they call her a “fascist” in return, & we only condemn the latter & only call for the latter to be arrested…

    https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1082680514425905159

    Dear Met Police, This woman is recorded here calling innocent Leave campaigners “fascists” and “racists” with “no respect for the law”. Please investigate urgently and protect the campaigners against these abusive individuals.

    https://twitter.com/DancerGuard/status/1082678435112255488

    There is a video clip verifying the accusation:
    ….

  37. ….
    Anna Soubry calls UK @GiletsJaunesUK “Fascists” and “Racists” and say they need “sorting out”, then plays the victim when she is called a “nazi” in return.

    Short – 1min: https://twitter.com/NicTrades/status/1082616925547622400
    Longer – 6min: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrLekZuMK1k

    Anna Soubry’s claim of intimidation is the most hollow case of ‘victimhood’ in history. It’s been confected to bring in more legislation to shut us up. People who disagree with her and her policies need “sorting out”.

    How very totalitarian of her. She’s a cry bully.

  38. Steve,

    “Yarp. Which should tell us something (as should the ongoing riots in France). The status quo isn’t working for a critical mass of the public. The solutions presented (if any) are inchoate and/or contradictory, but it doesn’t change the fact that the system ain’t working, innit?”

    You’ve got a bunch of cunts running the system, with useless political cunts failing too.

    It’s significant that a lot of movements happening aren’t linked to party politics. People aren’t getting behind some grinning PPE cunt as their new saviour. They see right through these people now. People can share a fact, or history or whatever about a politician and people realise most of them are empty, untrustworthy.

  39. @ wat dabney
    It is quite acceptable for Dawkins to say that he does not believe in God, but that is NOT what he said. He stated as an alleged “scientific fact” that “there is no God”. He now says that the existence of God is “undisprovable” – having previously claimed the existence of disproof.
    Please do not “make an arse of yourself” by trying to support a claim that even Dawkins has abandoned

  40. @ BiG
    You are quite entitled to shrug but you could also admit that you were wrong. The EU’s insistence that the UK government could do nothing to protect the “Redcar” steelworks – it should really be called a Middlesbrough steel works – from Chinese dumping while they pondered for half a year or more about studying evidence that it was dumping [a high weight:value ratio with a low labour cost per £ gets transported more than 12.000 miles by the shortest sea route and is still cheaper than the locally-produced product from a modern efficient factory and the EU needs more than 5 minutes to spot that it is dumping] was a reason for the North-East to vote “Leave”.
    P.S. I’ve physically worked in seven countries and by email in two more but that doesn’t give me a sense of superiority.

  41. john 77 said:
    “Do not rely on anything from Dawkins”

    Generally good advice, but the quote in question is basically a re-hash of Chesterton, so in this case is sound.

  42. @Ecks

    Hey, I want Brexit too. And until about a fortnight ago I’d presumed its “legal default” status plus its existing democratic mandate made it by far the most likely outcome of this process. People smarter than me, both remainers and leavers, have persuaded me that this analysis is lazy, hasn’t incorporated the full effect of the ECJ ruling, and fails to grasp what the world looks like from the perspective of the politicians who get to call the shots.

    The current state of the betting markets looks about right to me in terms of implied probabilities. Those who think it’s oh-so-simple and the idiots have failed to twig that parliamentary chaos renders Brexit a near-certainty, should take the fact that intelligent people are betting significant sums of money to the contrary as an indication they should at least reassess their assumptions. If they still think the idiots are wrong, there is some money to be made…

    Whether you like it or not, government technically has the power to stop No Deal Brexit without parliamentary approval. Whether you think it would be devastating for the UK and its democracy or not (I think it would be pretty godawful, personally), many MPs find this less damaging to the country and to their re-election prospects than what they regard as the “cliff-edge” No Deal scenario. Whether you think May agrees with that or not (and I’m not sure, but I know she’d come under pressure from the softer elements in her cabinet), plenty of MPs and analysts believe she would not press ahead with Hard Brexit if her deal fails in the Commons. And pretty much everyone thinks the deal is going to fail. There’s no incentive for remainers to accept it if they believe No Deal won’t happen even if the deal doesn’t pass, and the viable alternatives are more favourable to super-soft Brexit (e.g. the Norway option) or remain (via People’s Vote Again Until You All Do What We Say, or government/parliament just giving up on Brexit altogether). Such MPs do not believe this will cause the populace to rise up en masse, and assume any limited civil unrest will be controllable by policing. (Which I think is probably realistic – it’s vanishingly rare for UK street politics to force a change in direction of national policy, and how many divisions does The Brexit have?)

    I might just be being a pessimist (plus ticked off with the government – would feel a smidgeon more confident if we had an out-and-out leaver for PM) but the prospects of getting Brexit delivered are looking worse and worse..

  43. MBE,

    “Whether you think it would be devastating for the UK and its democracy or not (I think it would be pretty godawful, personally), many MPs find this less damaging to the country and to their re-election prospects than what they regard as the “cliff-edge” No Deal scenario.”

    The Conservatives would be a dead party. At least half the membership and activists would go to another party. The UKIP vote would rise beyond what it was in 2010. They’d get less seats than Labour/SNP combined. They’d become the 3rd party behind Labour and UKIP in many areas which would cause permanent damage.

  44. @BoM4

    Tend to agree with most of that – the effect on the activist base, in particular, would be devastating. Not sure re UKIP because they’re a mess, and I wonder whether a Tory splinter group might be the main beneficiary (indeed can even imagine it ultimately cannibalising the establishment party, as happened in Canada – see the 1993 election with a final takeover of the remnants of the mother-party in 2003).

    However, there are dozens of Tory MPs who think that No Deal Brexit on their party’s watch would also have cataclysmic electoral consequences. A good number would prefer remain to May’s deal – with the ERG and DUP taking their current anti-deal positions, this is enough to kill any prospect of the deal passing, unless something odd happens like Labour MPs abstaining en masse – but if the deal is off the menu then a lot more, including many of the cabinet, would prefer remain to no deal. If they feel they can get away with, say, a second referendum then that would be an attractive option for them.

    It’s what they think that matters, and there are enough of them that I can not see an easy route to Brexit. I agree with you that by taking steps to block Brexit they are risking consigning their party to oblivion but for whatever reason the view looks different from where they’re standing. Tory MPs is leafy suburban Remainia; Tory MPs in Scotland and who see Brexit as an imminent threat to the Union; Tory MPs who think No Deal will collapse of the economy and lead to folk dying without medicine; the odd Tory MP who’d be prepared to resign the whip or even defect to the Lib Dems (Wollaston, Soubry, Boles, maybe Morgan). They may be a minority within the parliamentary party, but with the parliamentary arithmetic as it is, it could still be enough.

  45. @MBE

    Marr: PM Theresa May trying to push her Brexit deal and project fear on no deal (06Jan19)
    “Traitor Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May still trying to push her bent Brexit deal with the EU, which nobody likes, trying to blackmail MPs and voters in frightening them with a no-deal Brexit…. in reality Article50 process will be stopped.

    May: certainty* for businesses (which May & Remoaners cite ad-infinitum) – that EU will impose more anti-competitive laws

    Brexit vote was Leave EU

    A “Deal” not voted for

    Project Fear & Cameron/Gov’t made clear the consequences of Leave

    We voted Leave knowing there may be negative consequences on businesses & economy

    Gov’t putting certainty for businesses & economy, who have no vote, above The Peoples Vote in 2016 is contempt of voters.

    We didn’t vote for “Leave, but only with a deal”; we voted “Leave EU”

    Gov’t & Remain told us we’d be worse off, we voted Leave anyway.

    All this “must have a deal” is rabbit hole diversion

    ———
    * certainty? Certainty is Leave, not transition, more negotiation & cough “maybe” backstop

    imo May’s body language & voice shows no strength, confidence or conviction – head movements and breaking voice most apparent.

  46. The ECJ ruling is only about EU law, not UK law, and EU laws cease to apply on 29th March, so it doesn’t change the legal position, only the political one.

    The European Union Withdrawal Act repeals the European Communities Act on Exit Day, which removes the legal underpinning in UK law of our membership of the EU.

    Without the European Communities Act, even if the UK withdraws its Article 50 notice (and the EU accepts the withdrawal, so that, so far as the EU is concerned, the UK remains part of the EU), there will be no legal basis in UK law to impose any new EU law or decisions of the ECJ on us (existing EU laws and ECJ decisions are covered by the European Union Withdrawal Act effectively incorporating them into UK law). That would need an Act of Parliament to repeal the European Union Withdrawal Act or enact a new equivalent to the European Communities Act.

    The only wobble in that is sub-clauses 20(3) and 20(4) of the European Union Withdrawal Act, which allow the UK government to change “exit day” without approval from Parliament. However that only applies if the change is necessary because Brexit Day under Article 50 of the EU Treaty is different to 11pm 29th March 2019. If our Article 50 notice is withdrawn there will not be an alternative Brexit Day, so there will not be a different date to amend it to.

    However Article 50(3) of the EU Treaty allows the EU Council and the UK government to agree to postpone Brexit Day. That would allow the UK government to delay the operation of the European Union Withdrawal Act and keep us in the EU without the UK Parliament needing to vote on it. That can only be temporary – 29th March 2019 can only be over-ridden by replacing it with a new date, so a new date must be set – but May could prolong the agony a bit more.

    I suppose they could theoretically set the new date so far in the future that it becomes irrelevant, at which point Ecksian solutions would seem to be called for.

  47. BoM4

    “The Conservatives would be a dead party. At least half the membership and activists would go to another party. The UKIP vote would rise beyond what it was in 2010. They’d get less seats than Labour/SNP combined. They’d become the 3rd party behind Labour and UKIP in many areas which would cause permanent damage.”

    This is one big gap in all the political shenanigans, Remainers appear to think that the nearly 4m who voted UKIP in 2015 will just shrug and return to their “natural” party, which isn’t necessarily Tories in the North. That’s before we consider the 17m who voted Leave. The next general election after Remaining will be a blood bath, and I hope that’s just metaphorical.

    I say that because I watched the C4 Brexit civil war program last night. I know it was a drama but quite a lot of serious political pundits on both sides think its fairly accurate. The big thing that’s struck me is that the Remain side still hasn’t got, let alone addressed, the underlying issues of why so many voted Leave.

    If we do end up either staying in the EU or with Brexit in name only Remainers acting victorious and continuing to treat Leavers as either too stupid to have understood that the Leave campaigns were lying or are just thick racist bigots is going to piss off an awful lot of people, and not just Leave voters.

  48. If you chose to take out one remoaner as an act of revenge in the event that Brexit was denied, who would it be?

    I might go the celebrity route and plump for Gary Lineker. Death by empty Walkers crisps packets. A win win, a significant decline in smugness and a reduction in litter.

  49. John77,

    I would have more employees in my office and more competitors in Europe if there weren’t so many Indians doing my job at “dumping” prices. Can I have a subsidy and protectionist tariffs as well please?

    See what I mean about Brexit? The elite Brexiteers did it to get a zero regulation open–door country, the voters wanted a high-regulation closed-door country.

  50. Mr Ears, if as you say the situation looks different from the point of view of Troy MPs, I wonder if it is merely that they think Corbyn is a sufficient trump card to help them avoid electoral extinction …

  51. Jezza is the most likely winner here. It will almost be worth it to see the well off middle class left get shitkicked for cash by Grandpa Death and the gang.

    Still–despite his Pro-EU , islam -sucking scum MPs he don’t think he will order an abstention. He loses millions of the votes he got back last year. Plus the DUP –if they lose because of Jiz are not going to give him the GE he craves. So they should vote against absolutely everything the Tories do EXCEPT in a confidence vote. That way both Treason May and Jiz can be kept wrecking at the top of their Parties hopefully until 2022. By that time both gangswill be largely destroyed.

  52. Absolute bollocks Biggie. Third world rapists and leftist -voting parasites add NOTHING to this country and threaten to take all away. Fuck em they stay out.

    As for competing with low cost economies then we will see. If you pay sub-continentals to undercut your own workforce–as the Yanks found out–you have to factor in that lots of your new employees are con-men who have only bogus qualifications. Because India is a low trust society where that sort of cheating is well thought of.

    Let them stay in India and we will see who can compete with whom. Dumping EU shite will be a huge bonus.

  53. m’Lud: the situation looks different from the point of view of Troy MPs

    Just so – stupid enough to fall for that horse trick, stupid enough for anything.

  54. Ecksy, I am merely asking for sauce for the goose. If we should come out so we can protect steelworkers and shipbuilders then I want protection too. S’only fair.

    Just that it’s a bit hard to do protectionism on back-end services you can do over the internet.

    Same with shipbuilding as well.

  55. @ BiG
    You want protection in Germany – go ask Jean-Claude Drunker and Angela Merkel *if* you can show that the Indians are working for less than it costs to feed them – which is what “dumping” would mean in the case you are trying to invent.
    Meanwhile stop trying to talk down to me from a position of ignorance.

  56. No, I (rhetorically) want Britain to protect my job the way you want it to protect other peoples’ jobs (but protest the EU doing exactly the same thing with its tariffs and regulations).

    You can’t have free trade and protectionism any more than you can have cheap labour and high wages. Ask Tim, he will take the “dumped” goods any day – has written numerous articles about how wonderful it is for foreign governments to subiside our consumption. I think it’s a one-sided view (while all political cost-benefit analyses deliberately omit either the costs or the benefits) but he has a point.

  57. @Richard

    Thanks. Somewhat reassuring but doesn’t look unfudgeable …

    Guido thinks that “Brexiteers are right in their criticisms of the deal but they are seriously overestimating their chances of forcing ‘no deal’ in whatever happens next. An unholy alliance of Downing Street and Cabinet Remainers with Labour’s Remainer MPs will far sooner force through a Brexit-in-name-only than allow ‘no deal’ to happen”. He views May’s Plan B as “not to press ahead with ‘no deal’ but to seek support from the Labour benches instead by softening up the deal further” and wonders whether members of the cabinet proposing increasingly soft alternatives might be communicating on May’s behalf.

    https://order-order.com/2019/01/10/greg-clarks-soft-brexit-push-sign-things-come/

    Whereas James Forsyth thinks that’s just a sign of a divided cabinet pushing their own agendas, without knowing what May actually has up her sleeves, and if May loses heavily she may not even have a Plan B at all – ” No one, perhaps including May, knows what she would do. She has quite deliberately burnt all her boats on the beach, believing that this increases her chances of victory in this parliamentary battle. That means there is no obvious tactical retreat available to her.”

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/does-may-even-have-a-plan-b/

  58. MBE @12:31
    “The current state of the betting markets looks about right to me in terms of implied probabilities”

    Betting reveals the weight of money not the weight of opinion, still less intention. Asking people to put money where their mouth is can show up the contradiction between the two. (‘Money talks loader than words’ as a long-ago friend used to say.) But unless votes were to be had for money that does not make betting odds much of a guide. Besides remember Goodhart’s law.

  59. Get yer brain around it Biggie–migrants aren’t coming here to work in shipbuilding even if they had the skills . 50-60% are coming here to do fuckall but sign on. Let them stay in India or wherever and then see how well they compete with us. We don’t need protection from anything except the unwelcome import of their poison cultures.

  60. Ecks, I haven’t advocated importing any migrants at all, let alone to work in shipbuilding. I have no idea where you got that from. You can stay in the EU and totally ban migration from outside of it. In fact leaving the EU is likely to give you more non-European migrants because you’ve made it (even if only trivially) harder for EU citizens to move to the UK.

    Allowing free movement of Europeans within Europe doesn’t require the importation of Syrian or African “asylum” “seekers”. Europe can (and should to my mind – as far as possible) cut itself off from cultures hostile to our way of life and people who want to only take and not give. Africa and Syria can solve their own problems. Our help should be limited to humanitarian funding of safe spaces outside of Europe, perhaps along the Australian model. But just as Europe stopped colonising Africa a long time ago, Africa has zero right to colonise Europe.

    Allowing Europeans to move, live, and work freely within Europe is not inconsistent with this policy, neither is having an EU. It just requires that EU (and mostly some member states) to undergo a change of policy and create a more hostile environment to further immigration from cultures and people that pose an economic threat and cultural chilling effects to a civilisation that (for all its faults) is among the best, wealthiest, most democratic, and freest ever to have existed. This will happen, it is already happening, in Italy, Austria, Netherlands, Hungary. Merkel has ignored her wake-up call but at least the flow of “refugees” has dwindled.

    I don’t want to see Merkel’s open-arms policy, I equally don’t want to see Hitler 2 or the breakup of the EU when changing it would have a better outcome than destroying it (I know I am in the minority on this but I am sure we can agree to disagree). Watch the May 2019 elections and then watch the subsequent change of direction. It will happen.

  61. BiND,

    “I say that because I watched the C4 Brexit civil war program last night. I know it was a drama but quite a lot of serious political pundits on both sides think its fairly accurate. The big thing that’s struck me is that the Remain side still hasn’t got, let alone addressed, the underlying issues of why so many voted Leave.”

    Absolutely. Dominic Cummings is on record repeatedly saying that politicians don’t grok the world outside London.They assume it’s just like London.

  62. @ BiG
    Maybe we can agree to agree on one point – I voted “remain” because I thoight it was easier to reform the EU from the inside than from the outside.
    However not when you confuse the UK, which does not claim extra-teritorial jurisdiction, with the USA, or protection against fair competition from Indians who are willing to work for less pay than you, with protection from unfair state-subsidised competition

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.