Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[Wolveryeti]

I think that post of wolveryeti demonstrates perfectly why only stupid bastards use gammon (i can guess what pic will follow this btw) - because it ties you into highlighting the common ground you share with these pro-capital, pro-eugenics class doesn't exist sons of privilege like that. It says well i can forget everything else, they don't matter that much to me - that, in fact, i don't give too much of a shit about the social issues that need politically addressing.

Nah - mainly laughing at the ridiculous notion espoused by Spackletwat that people will be rioting in the name of democracy against people being allowed to exercise their democratic rights.

As for Brexit addressing social issues - also v. laughable. On the evidence so far and the clueless comments on this thread about what the EU (rather than elected UK govts) are stopping us from doing.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Nah - mainly laughing at the ridiculous notion espoused by Spackletwat that people will be rioting in the name of democracy against people being allowed to exercise their democratic rights.

As for Brexit addressing social issues - also v. laughable. On the evidence so far and the clueless comments on this thread about what the EU (rather than elected UK govts) are stopping us from doing.

I believe in the possibility of redemption and positive growth for the vast majority of people but some broken records belong in the bin.

 

[zahir]

She has no bargaining chips, let alone a 'best' one.

No deal is a heavy weapon.

Is no deal really that much of a bargaining chip? I’m sure the EU would rather it didn’t happen but I’m not convinced they’d concede much to avoid it. The idea of it being used as a negotiating tactic brings this to mind for me:

 

[SpackleFrog]

Is no deal really that much of a bargaining chip? I’m sure the EU would rather it didn’t happen but I’m not convinced they’d concede much to avoid it. The idea of it being used as a negotiating tactic brings this to mind for me:

I don't think it's as simple as it being a bargain chip but it represents a challenge and a decision to be made - not so much for the official bodies of the EU but of the European bourgeoisie. They could a) punish the UK severely (capital flight, de facto trade embargoes, protectionist measures etc) or b) not do so, and then the predictions of economic catastrophe will look a bit silly. The former feeds into the problems with the EU 'brand' and the latter will suggest to other member states that leaving won't be so bad.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Ireland would suffer from a no-deal Brexit though so that may be an important factor.

 

[ska invita]

Interesting from Robert Peston: Tories maneuvering to stop a crash out and the increasing possibility of an election:

Robert Peston

Theresa May's opposition to ruling out a no-deal Brexit looks increasingly like defiance of the laws of gravity.

On Monday we'll see at least two motions laid against the PM's amendable motion on its Brexit plan - the Boles one, which would legislate to force the government to sue the EU for a nine-month delay to Brexit, in the event that no-deal loomed, and a Spelman/Dromey one, which would more simply express the will of the House against no-deal.

Now the calamity for May's opposition to no deal is not just that a majority of backbench MPs would support one or both of these motions - which are likely to be put to the vote on 29 January - but that significant numbers of her own ministers would feel obliged to defy her will and also support them.

Here are some choice quotes from ministers who are thinking of doing just that, and for obvious reasons wish to stay anonymous (for now).

Minister A: "This looks the only way of stopping no deal".

I asked how many government rebels there are. "From what I hear 15 to 25", said minister A.

So I put the same question to Minister B: "Hard to be sure, but enough!"

And on to minister C: "There are at least 20 [of us]".

What would happen to them if they voted against, I enquired.

Minister C: "Frankly she can't lose more than one [of us]. There's no one left [on the backbenches] to replace even the modest PPS's [most junior ministers] who haven't rebelled recent".

Or to put it another way, she could not make voting against her on no-deal a sacking offence, because there's no way she could replace all the offending ministers.

And then on to Minister D: "I think it all depends quite a bit on what the final version of [Boles's] bill ends up saying, But if he gets it right...there will be pressure for a free vote".

To put it another way, May's official position may be to oppose no-deal, but if she doesn't allow her ministers to vote with their consciences for one in ten days, she could see the collapse of her government (yes again!).

Her position however is that once no-deal is dead, so too would be her leverage in future talks with dithering Labour MPs, who might prefer some version of her Brexit plan to what they see as the chaos of no deal, and her leverage in any future talks with the EU.

All this is another illustration of why I said on News at Ten last night that I am pessimistic the PM can get any Brexit deal through this parliament.

That is why plenty of MPs and officials are talking about the rising probability of a fairly imminent general election, because if parliament is the impasse, perhaps parliament has to be changed (I discussed this in bulletins a couple of days ago).

But there is a flaw even in the election route through the Brexit blockage - because neither Labour nor the Tories has a settled position on what kind of Brexit or no-Brexit they want, and there would be no point in having a general election unless and until each party was able to spell out in their respective manifestos how and even whether we leave the EU.

To state the obvious, simply arriving at a manifesto position on this could split each of them (I talked yesterday about Labour's divide on a referendum, and the Tories on the degree to which the UK after Brexit should follow EU rules).

It might come down to an election. But an election would still force May and Corbyn to do what each has eschewed as if it were Kryptonite, namely make a definitive Brexit choice.

 

[Wookey]

Interesting from Robert Peston: Tories maneuvering to stop a crash out and the increasing possibility of an election:

Robert Peston

Theresa May's opposition to ruling out a no-deal Brexit looks increasingly like defiance of the laws of gravity.

On Monday we'll see at least two motions laid against the PM's amendable motion on its Brexit plan - the Boles one, which would legislate to force the government to sue the EU for a nine-month delay to Brexit, in the event that no-deal loomed, and a Spelman/Dromey one, which would more simply express the will of the House against no-deal.

Now the calamity for May's opposition to no deal is not just that a majority of backbench MPs would support one or both of these motions - which are likely to be put to the vote on 29 January - but that significant numbers of her own ministers would feel obliged to defy her will and also support them.

Here are some choice quotes from ministers who are thinking of doing just that, and for obvious reasons wish to stay anonymous (for now).

Minister A: "This looks the only way of stopping no deal".

I asked how many government rebels there are. "From what I hear 15 to 25", said minister A.

So I put the same question to Minister B: "Hard to be sure, but enough!"

And on to minister C: "There are at least 20 [of us]".

What would happen to them if they voted against, I enquired.

Minister C: "Frankly she can't lose more than one [of us]. There's no one left [on the backbenches] to replace even the modest PPS's [most junior ministers] who haven't rebelled recent".

Or to put it another way, she could not make voting against her on no-deal a sacking offence, because there's no way she could replace all the offending ministers.

And then on to Minister D: "I think it all depends quite a bit on what the final version of [Boles's] bill ends up saying, But if he gets it right...there will be pressure for a free vote".

To put it another way, May's official position may be to oppose no-deal, but if she doesn't allow her ministers to vote with their consciences for one in ten days, she could see the collapse of her government (yes again!).

Her position however is that once no-deal is dead, so too would be her leverage in future talks with dithering Labour MPs, who might prefer some version of her Brexit plan to what they see as the chaos of no deal, and her leverage in any future talks with the EU.

All this is another illustration of why I said on News at Ten last night that I am pessimistic the PM can get any Brexit deal through this parliament.

That is why plenty of MPs and officials are talking about the rising probability of a fairly imminent general election, because if parliament is the impasse, perhaps parliament has to be changed (I discussed this in bulletins a couple of days ago).

But there is a flaw even in the election route through the Brexit blockage - because neither Labour nor the Tories has a settled position on what kind of Brexit or no-Brexit they want, and there would be no point in having a general election unless and until each party was able to spell out in their respective manifestos how and even whether we leave the EU.

To state the obvious, simply arriving at a manifesto position on this could split each of them (I talked yesterday about Labour's divide on a referendum, and the Tories on the degree to which the UK after Brexit should follow EU rules).

It might come down to an election. But an election would still force May and Corbyn to do what each has eschewed as if it were Kryptonite, namely make a definitive Brexit choice.

Pretty fucking bang on from the Pest there.

 

[Winot]

Is no deal really that much of a bargaining chip? I’m sure the EU would rather it didn’t happen but I’m not convinced they’d concede much to avoid it. The idea of it being used as a negotiating tactic brings this to mind for me:

For ‘no deal’ to be an effective bargaining chip it has to be believable. And that meant HMG starting serious preparations 2 years ago. The fact they are only just starting shows it is an empty threat. Hence the description of Grayling’s recent exercise as a ‘Potemkin traffic jam’.

 

[Chz]

By that logic, the Tory party in the 1950's and 60's was to the left of Corbyn.

This is a real thing everywhere. Back home in the Old Country, the province of Ontario was run by the Conservatives (called the "Big Blue Machine" for their consistent election wins) for 42 years straight. But they couldn't manage that in the world of the 60s and 70s without being considerably to the left on many policies of Canada's so called "left wing" parties today. Education spending went up by 250% in one 5 year term. They decided to fund Catholic schools equally. They went deeply into debt building highways and nuclear reactors that are still the bedrock of the province's infrastructure.

50 years ago was a different time. Shocking. Inequality still exists, but the baseline level of comfort in the West is such that no-one wants to rock the boat too much.

 

[TruXta]

Reagan was more left wing than Obama. So what?

 

[belboid]

Reagan was more left wing than Obama. So what?

Bush nationalised more banks than Lenin, so.....

 

[Mr Moose]

There's a sort of bittersweet feeling watching all the great expectations on both sides being dashed by the price they suddenly realising they have to pay to get their choice through.

Even two years after the result, there's no rest for the fantasists on both both sides thinking that one more push will lead them towards a brave new world be it some mythical pan-European free market or the 51st State of a WTO based Atlantacist market.

Such fantasy poison. Street by street faith in liberal democracy is collapsing as social concerns are dismissed as stupid questions. Migrants are villified as vagabonds if they happen to be poor or feted as innicein victims if they're on an Erasmus.

Yet, the Remainer vote has yet to translate into a political voice for Lib Dems or Green and grey men in grey suits chip away at liberal democracy in the name of democracy.

The howl of "get me out" that the referendum result gave voiced is portrayed as impractical Brexiteer purity by the media and the soi-disant moderates as they Scrabble for BINO, but their failure to address this voice leaves a space for others to fill, others perhaps more intent on exploiting division, for good or ill. Here comes the war.

Ignore these voices at your peril, for vengeance will be sought, one way or another

May's deal is not a wonderful way to go. Obviously, she's not the Queen of My Heart or anything, nor anyone elses, but this island is simmering with discontent on all sides. The clock for Article BD3 or whatever it's called is ticking and it's wired to s powder keg that's gonna blow....


I think that's all of them. I'm really, really sorry. Blame butchersapron

Like for giving a nod to the fact they are still going. You nearly jumped off around 1989.

 

[SpackleFrog]

This is a real thing everywhere. Back home in the Old Country, the province of Ontario was run by the Conservatives (called the "Big Blue Machine" for their consistent election wins) for 42 years straight. But they couldn't manage that in the world of the 60s and 70s without being considerably to the left on many policies of Canada's so called "left wing" parties today. Education spending went up by 250% in one 5 year term. They decided to fund Catholic schools equally. They went deeply into debt building highways and nuclear reactors that are still the bedrock of the province's infrastructure.

50 years ago was a different time. Shocking. Inequality still exists, but the baseline level of comfort in the West is such that no-one wants to rock the boat too much.

I think somebody might be rocking the boat.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

I think somebody might be rocking the boat.

I’m not hanging around then as urban’s archives taught me what happens to the Boathappy.

 

[Ming]

This reads like a fucking wind up.

I’m not on a wind up. I know a few Oxbridge grads and they’re all clever. I feel if you call the Tories incompetent your letting them of the hook in a way. Saying what they do is not deliberate.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

I know a few Oxbridge grads and they’re all clever.

IT’S LIKE PLAYING WHACKAMOLE IN THIS THREAD MUN

 

[SpackleFrog]

I’m not on a wind up. I know a few Oxbridge grads and they’re all clever. I feel if you call the Tories incompetent your letting them of the hook in a way. Saying what they do is not deliberate.

How do you know they're clever?

If May wants no deal, why doesn't she just do no deal?

 

[Ming]

IT’S LIKE PLAYING WHACKAMOLE IN THIS THREAD MUN

My prediction is in 10 years the Tories will have sold off the NHS, reduced regulation to US levels, shifted taxation to indirect hugely, reduced social safety nets to as low as they can politically get away with without civil insurrection, etc, etc. And i think these ‘stupid incompetents’ will succeed. I hate them don’t get me wrong but underestimate them at your peril. They do lie you know?

 

[Ming]

How do you know they're clever?

If May wants no deal, why doesn't she just do no deal?

Can’t be that blatant politically because of what’ll happen after March 29th. They need to say ‘it was the forrins fault’.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

My prediction is in 10 years the Tories will have sold off the NHS, reduced regulation to US levels, shifted taxation to indirect hugely, reduced social safety nets to as low as they can politically get away with without civil insurrection, etc, etc. And i think these ‘stupid incompetents’ will succeed. I hate them don’t get me wrong but underestimate them at your peril. They do lie you know?

I don’t underestimate their power but I think you overestimate their intelligence.

 

[Ming]

I don’t underestimate their power but I think you overestimate their intelligence.

Look at the track record since 1979. And they changed the nature of the Labour Party (remember Thatcher said New Labour was her proudest achievement). I hate all that but don’t underestimate the opponent.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

Look at the track record since 1979. And they changed the nature of the Labour Party (remember Thatcher said New Labour was her proudest achievement). I hate all that but don’t underestimate the opponent.

Thatcher was clever, but being thick doesn’t prevent cunts floating to the top.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

See: the entire fucking EU ref debate.

 

[ska invita]

I’m sure May wants her withdrawal agreement, or a version of it, to be agreed. The question is what her plan B is if some form of it can’t be agreed.

Plan B that will be presented at the end of the month probably wont be that much different to Plan A other than it will happen nearer the impending March date. However Plan B's amendments will hopefully kill the crash out option once and for all. Even No Dealers in parliament wanted a so-called 'managed' no deal, not a crash out. Since the Brexit process is now killing off each option and possibility one by one, crash out does need killing, and hopefully that will happen on Jan 29th.

It was reported that the semi-secret government plan was to keep bringing back the deal with the most minor tweeks and getting parliament to vote for it again and again until the cliff edge really loomed and they forced their hand. In theory with Crash Out ruled out that will be May done and off to the dustbin of history.


Speculation on top of speculation on top of speculation here on in, but if Robert Peston is right and it does go to an election at some point soon its interesting to imagine how that would play out. May would have to go and I expect a managed no deal brexiter would take her place. Thats who the party membership would vote in.

What would Labour do? I expect Corbyn and bench would go for Norway. If there was any sanity the centrists wouldnt try and oust Corbyn but there's no sanity there, so there'll probably be a leadership fight there too. Whatever happens it will be time consuming and A50 would have to be suspended to allow it all to happen.

Taking the above as correct, who would win such an election? Hardcore remainers would peel off the labour vote and go lib dem. Some Tories would also not vote Tory, but would they vote Labour? And what if abandoning Labour let the Tories win through the back door? Or maybe a new party would launch and further split votes? People who vote UKIP of late would vote Tory, which would give the Tories a big boost. It could get really crazy...Based on all that nonsense I could see the Labour vote splitting more than the Tories and the Tories winning. Probably thats enough speculation

 

[Ming]

See: the entire fucking EU ref debate.

I think that was a bunch of cynical liars lying to a bunch of very gullible angry people. I think the involvement of Robert Mercer and Cambridge Analytica indicate a plan (i’m Not Dr Jazzing it look them up). I get that the EU is a neo-liberal organization which i’m not very fond of but as a country we stand a better chance of reforming from within.

 

[zahir]

Plan B that will be presented at the end of the month probably wont be that much different to Plan A other than it will happen nearer the impending March date. However Plan B's amendments will hopefully kill the crash out option once and for all. Even No Dealers in parliament wanted a so-called 'managed' no deal, not a crash out. Since the Brexit process is now killing off each option and possibility one by one, crash out does need killing, and hopefully that will happen on Jan 29th.

It was reported that the semi-secret government plan was to keep bringing back the deal with the most minor tweeks and getting parliament to vote for it again and again until the cliff edge really loomed and they forced their hand. In theory with Crash Out ruled out that will be May done and off to the dustbin of history.

How does an amendment remove the possibility of a crash out, given that a crash out is the default option if nothing else is agreed?

 

[Raheem]

Probably thats enough speculation

You might think so.

The thing with an election is that there's so much it could set off, so it's really unpredictable. Either main party could properly fracture as a result of an election being called. The Lib Dems and UKIP will get guaranteed TV coverage and either might capture the public's attention. How do the EU respond? They'll be reluctant to be seen to interfere, but can they really just stand by if you have the Tories and/or Labour standing on a daydream manifesto commitment?

If it happened and it was relatively drama-free, I agree that the Tories would probably win. But May would put her deal in the manifesto and a significant proportion of Tory candidates would, for different reasons, openly campaign in opposition to it. So she'd finish the election still not able to Brexit unless she got a majority far more massive than is likely. Alternatively, she might put her deal minus backstop in the manifesto, but that's still not something that she will be able to make happen.

I think there's a chance she might go for it, just on the basis that it will buy some time. And even if she loses, at least she never sold out. But I think it's more likely that this is a tactical rumour being put out in the hope that it will make her party fall into line with whatever nonsense she comes out with on Monday.

 

[Raheem]

How does an amendment remove the possibility of a crash out, given that a crash out is the default option if nothing else is agreed?

Cos the amendment would agree something else.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Can’t be that blatant politically because of what’ll happen after March 29th. They need to say ‘it was the forrins fault’.

They could have done that months ago if they'd wanted. In any case, it's abundantly clear about 2/3rds of the Parliamentary party never wanted to leave in the first place and still don't now.

 

[ska invita]

How does an amendment remove the possibility of a crash out, given that a crash out is the default option if nothing else is agreed?

in all honesty i dont really understand whats going on with amendments, and theres work in progress, but the signs are that there will be at least one that will be designed to block a crash out and it will be supported by the house

You might think so.

The thing with an election is that there's so much it could set off, so it's really unpredictable. Either main party could properly fracture as a result of an election being called. The Lib Dems and UKIP will get guaranteed TV coverage and either might capture the public's attention. How do the EU respond? They'll be reluctant to be seen to interfere, but can they really just stand by if you have the Tories and/or Labour standing on a daydream manifesto commitment?

If it happened and it was relatively drama-free, I agree that the Tories would probably win. But May would put her deal in the manifesto and a significant proportion of Tory candidates would, for different reasons, openly campaign in opposition to it. So she'd finish the election still not able to Brexit unless she got a majority far more massive than is likely. Alternatively, she might put her deal minus backstop in the manifesto, but that's still not something that she will be able to make happen.

I think there's a chance she might go for it, just on the basis that it will buy some time. And even if she loses, at least she never sold out. But I think it's more likely that this is a tactical rumour being put out in the hope that it will make her party fall into line with whatever nonsense she comes out with on Monday.

May will be gone. She actually promised not to stand again. But she'd have to go as she is tied to her deal. Her deal would be dead in this scenario. The Tory manifesto would inevitably take a different position, more extreme in either direction. I expect harder.
May: I won't lead Tories into election