RugbyRebels

Letwin wins, now its going to get very weird! I'll wager May resigns before end of week.

Banquo wrote:Letwin wins, now its going to get very weird! I'll wager May resigns before end of week.

Well, she's got another 3 resignation letters she can crib.

Don't see her resigning over this though, especially given so many better reason. She has no shame! Besides, her plan is to kick the can further down the road, and trynto fracture parliament as much as possible in the mean time, then bring back her deal aroind April 9th or 10th, hoping that being last minute will finally convince people that she was right all along.

lol....from the beeb
What happens now?
Indicative votes will now be held on Wednesday on various Brexit options, in addition to Theresa May's deal, which could include:

Revoking Article 50 and cancelling Brexit
Another referendum
The PM's deal plus a customs union
The PM's deal plus both a customs union and single market access
A Canada-style free trade agreement
Leaving the EU without a deal

So......three and four mean leaving and a transition period, wherein we negotiate back some of what we already have, freedom of movement, ECJ, no free trade deals, EU tariffs, but no say/vote and still pay money. Sounds eminently sensible.

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:Letwin wins, now its going to get very weird! I'll wager May resigns before end of week.

Well, she's got another 3 resignation letters she can crib.

Don't see her resigning over this though, especially given so many better reason. She has no shame! Besides, her plan is to kick the can further down the road, and trynto fracture parliament as much as possible in the mean time, then bring back her deal aroind April 9th or 10th, hoping that being last minute will finally convince people that she was right all along.

I said end of week; IF one of the alternatives gets a majority, what will she then do.

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:Letwin wins, now its going to get very weird! I'll wager May resigns before end of week.

Well, she's got another 3 resignation letters she can crib.

Don't see her resigning over this though, especially given so many better reason. She has no shame! Besides, her plan is to kick the can further down the road, and trynto fracture parliament as much as possible in the mean time, then bring back her deal aroind April 9th or 10th, hoping that being last minute will finally convince people that she was right all along.

I said end of week; IF one of the alternatives gets a majority, what will she then do.

Ignore it as not "delivering the result of the referendum" and schedule the next vote on her deal, obviously.

Puja

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:Letwin wins, now its going to get very weird! I'll wager May resigns before end of week.

Well, she's got another 3 resignation letters she can crib.

Don't see her resigning over this though, especially given so many better reason. She has no shame! Besides, her plan is to kick the can further down the road, and trynto fracture parliament as much as possible in the mean time, then bring back her deal aroind April 9th or 10th, hoping that being last minute will finally convince people that she was right all along.

I said end of week; IF one of the alternatives gets a majority, what will she then do.

Ignore it? Condemn it as being a betrayal of democracy?



Beckett amendment fails... By 3

That's if the UK is seven days away from leaving without a deal, the government must move a motion within two sitting days (or recall Parliament) to vote on whether to go ahead with no-deal or request an extension "to give time for Parliament to determine a different approach".


May now shipping Tories against her own motion now it's been ammended... Again.

I'm not actually sure what the actual motion is (I'd though Letwins was the motion, and Beckett's the amendment)

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: Well, she's got another 3 resignation letters she can crib.

Don't see her resigning over this though, especially given so many better reason. She has no shame! Besides, her plan is to kick the can further down the road, and trynto fracture parliament as much as possible in the mean time, then bring back her deal aroind April 9th or 10th, hoping that being last minute will finally convince people that she was right all along.

I said end of week; IF one of the alternatives gets a majority, what will she then do.

Ignore it? Condemn it as being a betrayal of democracy?



Beckett amendment fails... By 3

That's if the UK is seven days away from leaving without a deal, the government must move a motion within two sitting days (or recall Parliament) to vote on whether to go ahead with no-deal or request an extension "to give time for Parliament to determine a different approach".


May now shipping Tories against her own motion now it's been ammended... Again.

I'm not actually sure what the actual motion is (I'd though Letwins was the motion, and Beckett's the amendment)

Govt put forward a motion on indicative votes, which Letwin amended, which govt didn’t like.

Thinking on May as she returns to parliament one might conclude old red eyes is back taking a mother's pride in the idea that after taking a little time she can move from saying I'll sail this ship alone and I hate you to noting of her deal here it is again, it's not merely a song for whoever and I think the answer's yes, the important thing of course is not merely being seen to carry on regardless

Banquo wrote:lol....from the beeb
What happens now?
Indicative votes will now be held on Wednesday on various Brexit options, in addition to Theresa May's deal, which could include:

Revoking Article 50 and cancelling Brexit
Another referendum
The PM's deal plus a customs union
The PM's deal plus both a customs union and single market access
A Canada-style free trade agreement
Leaving the EU without a deal

So......three and four mean leaving and a transition period, wherein we negotiate back some of what we already have, freedom of movement, ECJ, no free trade deals, EU tariffs, but no say/vote and still pay money. Sounds eminently sensible.

Option 3 is the WA with the backstop becoming permanent I reckon.

Digby wrote:Thinking on May as she returns to parliament one might conclude old red eyes is back taking a mother's pride in the idea that after taking a little time she can move from saying I'll sail this ship alone and I hate you to noting of her deal here it is again, it's not merely a song for whoever and I think the answer's yes, the important thing of course is not merely being seen to carry on regardless

That's beautiful - very much a Southern viewpoint, but beautiful nonetheless

One Tory apparently supported and opposed Letwin's amendment. Lol

FFS- no sh*t you absolute idiot. They- and its not just him- have not understood that this is exactly what the EU view Brexit as. I do think May et al should have explained the WA better in this context, but hey


"Leading Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg tells Conservative Home: "Inevitably leaving the European Union, even leaving it inadequately and having work to do afterwards, is better than not leaving it at all.

"Perhaps the thought processes that people like me hadn't gone through before is the thought that Brexit is a process rather than an event." "

Banquo wrote:FFS- no sh*t you absolute idiot. They- and its not just him- have not understood that this is exactly what the EU view Brexit as. I do think May et al should have explained the WA better in this context, but hey


"Leading Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg tells Conservative Home: "Inevitably leaving the European Union, even leaving it inadequately and having work to do afterwards, is better than not leaving it at all.

"Perhaps the thought processes that people like me hadn't gone through before is the thought that Brexit is a process rather than an event." "

Surely he does actually know better than that, and that's just spin.
He'd rather No Deal and crash out without any process (making millions for his hedge funds); but he'd take a managed exit over the risk of staying in.
He currently thinks his best bet of getting that is to get rid of May and replacing her with BoJo - which means supporting May's deal with a promise of resignation.

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:Thinking on May as she returns to parliament one might conclude old red eyes is back taking a mother's pride in the idea that after taking a little time she can move from saying I'll sail this ship alone and I hate you to noting of her deal here it is again, it's not merely a song for whoever and I think the answer's yes, the important thing of course is not merely being seen to carry on regardless

That's beautiful - very much a Southern viewpoint, but beautiful nonetheless

I'd intended to reference ten tracks as a nod towards the perfect 10, but now I look at it I can only see nine. This sort of ineptitude seems about par for the course, if I keep this up I could have Grayling's job

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:FFS- no sh*t you absolute idiot. They- and its not just him- have not understood that this is exactly what the EU view Brexit as. I do think May et al should have explained the WA better in this context, but hey


"Leading Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg tells Conservative Home: "Inevitably leaving the European Union, even leaving it inadequately and having work to do afterwards, is better than not leaving it at all.

"Perhaps the thought processes that people like me hadn't gone through before is the thought that Brexit is a process rather than an event." "

Surely he does actually know better than that, and that's just spin.
He'd rather No Deal and crash out without any process (making millions for his hedge funds); but he'd take a managed exit over the risk of staying in.
He currently thinks his best bet of getting that is to get rid of May and replacing her with BoJo - which means supporting May's deal with a promise of resignation.

Maybe- though the levels of ignorance about the WA everywhere I look remains surprising. It’s also been obvious for ages that they’d end up deciding between the WA and no Brexit/Brino

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:FFS- no sh*t you absolute idiot. They- and its not just him- have not understood that this is exactly what the EU view Brexit as. I do think May et al should have explained the WA better in this context, but hey


"Leading Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg tells Conservative Home: "Inevitably leaving the European Union, even leaving it inadequately and having work to do afterwards, is better than not leaving it at all.

"Perhaps the thought processes that people like me hadn't gone through before is the thought that Brexit is a process rather than an event." "

Surely he does actually know better than that, and that's just spin.
He'd rather No Deal and crash out without any process (making millions for his hedge funds); but he'd take a managed exit over the risk of staying in.
He currently thinks his best bet of getting that is to get rid of May and replacing her with BoJo - which means supporting May's deal with a promise of resignation.

Agreed. JRM is not stupid. He is a slippery, self serving fuck hole. He would love people to think this statement comes out of stupidity rather than one last attempt to thwart any revocation of article 50.

canta_brian wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Banquo wrote:FFS- no sh*t you absolute idiot. They- and its not just him- have not understood that this is exactly what the EU view Brexit as. I do think May et al should have explained the WA better in this context, but hey


"Leading Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg tells Conservative Home: "Inevitably leaving the European Union, even leaving it inadequately and having work to do afterwards, is better than not leaving it at all.

"Perhaps the thought processes that people like me hadn't gone through before is the thought that Brexit is a process rather than an event." "

Surely he does actually know better than that, and that's just spin.
He'd rather No Deal and crash out without any process (making millions for his hedge funds); but he'd take a managed exit over the risk of staying in.
He currently thinks his best bet of getting that is to get rid of May and replacing her with BoJo - which means supporting May's deal with a promise of resignation.

Agreed. JRM is not stupid. He is a slippery, self serving fuck hole. He would love people to think this statement comes out of stupidity rather than one last attempt to thwart any revocation of article 50.

Either way he's is being stupid tbh. And my comment still stands, loads of people voting on and commenting on the WA don't understand what it is, what it contains, or its purpose.

cashead wrote:

Banquo wrote:Revoking Article 50 and cancelling Brexit

Didn't Juncker or someone basically go "no backsies" already?

No, they specifically said yes, we can. They said we could not renegotiate this deal. So the options are easy...

Sray
Leave with May's appalling deal
No deal

Stom wrote:

cashead wrote:

Banquo wrote:Revoking Article 50 and cancelling Brexit

Didn't Juncker or someone basically go "no backsies" already?

No, they specifically said yes, we can. They said we could not renegotiate this deal. So the options are easy...

Sray
Leave with May's appalling deal
No deal

I think you can still add in "Renegotiate May's deal without May's red lines"

Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms (limited to 10 years*) and got on with negotiating the future relationship; whilst also negotiating with the rest of the world for deals to start on 29th March 2029. That working agreement could have been agreed inside a month, essentially giving us 12 years to get our shit sorted.
However, that would have required competence with the leaders of both main parties, a willingness to find consensus and compromise - something our parliamentary system seems specifically designed to discourage; and neither May nor Corbyn in positions of any power. Not to mention an acknowledgement that we live in the real world, not cloud cuckoo land.


*10 years should be plenty; the EU-Japan deal took 4 years, and EU-Canada took 7 from disparate starting points on quality etc. Though they were both negotiate in good faith - mind you, my above plan would have included negoitating in good faith - unlike May.

So we pretty much know what today's options for MPs are then. Not many suggestions have been put in to Bercow to pick his 6ish.


Which gives us:
B - Leave the EU without a deal April 12 - this may not be an option as parliament has already voted to remove it as an option, so on of the "Malthouse Compromise" options may get this spot
F&J - Leave the EU with a customs union
D - Common Market 2.0 / Norway+
G - Revoke article 50

L - Revoke article 50 in the event of a No Deal
M - Any withdrawal agreement must be put to a second referendum

Which we basically knew already; they just needed someone to actually propose them.
Interestingly, absolutely nobody has suggested May's deal.

I quite like option A if he'd included the original referendum, and set the 2/3 majority "rule" for any future constitutional changes / referenda

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/237819
Allow all British citizens to vote should there be a new referendum on Brexit.
When the referendum on leaving the EU took place in 2016, a large number of British Citizens were not allowed to register their vote for a series of reasons laid down by the government. Obviously this matter affects ALL British citizens equally, therefore they should all have an equal right to vote

More details
British citizens living abroad for more than 15 years can’t vote.
I was one of the 700,000 British people denied a vote in the first EU referendum – that's why we need another Brexit vote

Which Tyler wrote:

Stom wrote:

cashead wrote: Didn't Juncker or someone basically go "no backsies" already?

No, they specifically said yes, we can. They said we could not renegotiate this deal. So the options are easy...

Sray
Leave with May's appalling deal
No deal

I think you can still add in "Renegotiate May's deal without May's red lines"

Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms (limited to 10 years*) and got on with negotiating the future relationship; whilst also negotiating with the rest of the world for deals to start on 29th March 2029. That working agreement could have been agreed inside a month, essentially giving us 12 years to get our shit sorted.
However, that would have required competence with the leaders of both main parties, a willingness to find consensus and compromise - something our parliamentary system seems specifically designed to discourage; and neither May nor Corbyn in positions of any power. Not to mention an acknowledgement that we live in the real world, not cloud cuckoo land.


*10 years should be plenty; the EU-Japan deal took 4 years, and EU-Canada took 7 from disparate starting points on quality etc. Though they were both negotiate in good faith - mind you, my above plan would have included negoitating in good faith - unlike May.

Love the fact that you state ‘Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms’ before going on to completely contradict that by listing a number of the reasons why it isn’t even close to being that simple.

Mellsblue wrote:Love the fact that you state ‘Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms’ before going on to completely contradict that by listing a number of the reasons why it isn’t even close to being that simple.

I don't see anything there that couldn't be overcome by a fairly basic level of competence (possibly barring the leader of the opposition)

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Stom wrote:
No, they specifically said yes, we can. They said we could not renegotiate this deal. So the options are easy...

Sray
Leave with May's appalling deal
No deal

I think you can still add in "Renegotiate May's deal without May's red lines"

Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms (limited to 10 years*) and got on with negotiating the future relationship; whilst also negotiating with the rest of the world for deals to start on 29th March 2029. That working agreement could have been agreed inside a month, essentially giving us 12 years to get our shit sorted.
However, that would have required competence with the leaders of both main parties, a willingness to find consensus and compromise - something our parliamentary system seems specifically designed to discourage; and neither May nor Corbyn in positions of any power. Not to mention an acknowledgement that we live in the real world, not cloud cuckoo land.


*10 years should be plenty; the EU-Japan deal took 4 years, and EU-Canada took 7 from disparate starting points on quality etc. Though they were both negotiate in good faith - mind you, my above plan would have included negoitating in good faith - unlike May.

Love the fact that you state ‘Any half-way competent PM would have had us ot of the EU by now, on Norway+ terms’ before going on to completely contradict that by listing a number of the reasons why it isn’t even close to being that simple.

its a weird train of logic that persuades itself that instead of being honest and saying Norway plus is a much inferior relationship than we already have with the same 'downsides' and less upside, we will propose that as a valid leaving proposal so we look like we are supporting the people's will, and be in that inferior relationship for maybe 10 years. Plus that does sound a little like the WA with a 10 year backstop.

Those proposing these BRINO minuses just need to tell the truth and say we don't support leaving at all.

See Labour are once again missing the open goal