[snapdragon]

A pretty piss poor one, though.

A bit like Lambrini being a compromise if you can't get a bottle of Pol Roger blanc de blancs.

[Rich]

It is my contention that both the major parties have handled Brexit pretty brilliantly. The 2017 General Election was a massive vote of confidence in the 2 major parties. With UKIP and Farrage planning to split the ultra Brexit vote and the Liberal Democrats and the Independent Group set to split the hard Remain centrist vote, as far we can tell at this stage the two main parties look nicely set up for the next General Election.

My analysis seems to displease a lot of people and one counter to my argument that Cameron and May have led the Conservative party well is that we could end up with Corbyn in number 10. But this fails to apply the simple formula: Self, Party, Nation. Obviously the Conservatives would prefer not to lose the next General Election, but if they are going to lose it they'd rather lose it to Corbyn. They are confident that a Corbyn government would be a disaster for Britain and hence that there's a good chance of the them returning at the succeeding election with a huge majority. In fact the Conservatives are quite hopeful that if they did lose to Corbyn, he wouldn't last a full term and that the Conservatives might even be back in power within months.

This is how the two party system works and both sides play the same game. Thatcher was incredibly unpopular throughout her premiership. If the Labour party had wanted to, they could have demanded early elections under some kind of proportional representation. For most of the time the Tories were so unpopular, I doubt they could have survived such a challenge to the legitimacy of their government. But the Labour party didn't want that. They were always prepared to endure up to five years of Thatcherite government, confident that they would win a majority at the next election and be able to rule unhindered. The more left people were in the Labour Party the more vociferously they opposed proportional representation.

In the two party system, the two parties are invariably over confident of their electoral chances. But aside from this bias, the two parties are both acting rationally within the system. And both parties are rational to want to maintain the system.

[Nonsense]

It is my contention that both the major parties have handled Brexit pretty brilliantly. The 2017 General Election was a massive vote of confidence in the 2 major parties. With UKIP and Farrage planning to split the ultra Brexit vote and the Liberal Democrats and the Independent Group set to split the hard Remain centrist vote, as far we can tell at this stage the two main parties look nicely set up for the next General Election.

My analysis seems to displease a lot of people and one counter to my argument that Cameron and May have led the Conservative party well is that we could end up with Corbyn in number 10. But this fails to apply the simple formula: Self, Party, Nation. Obviously the Conservatives would prefer not to lose the next General Election, but if they are going to lose it they'd rather lose it to Corbyn. They are confident that a Corbyn government would be a disaster for Britain and hence that there's a good chance of the them returning at the succeeding election with a huge majority. In fact the Conservatives are quite hopeful that if they did lose to Corbyn, he wouldn't last a full term and that the Conservatives might even be back in power within months.

This is how the two party system works and both sides play the same game. Thatcher was incredibly unpopular throughout her premiership. If the Labour party had wanted to, they could have demanded early elections under some kind of proportional representation. For most of the time the Tories were so unpopular, I doubt they could have survived such a challenge to the legitimacy of their government. But the Labour party didn't want that. They were always prepared to endure up to five years of Thatcherite government, confident that they would win a majority at the next election and be able to rule unhindered. The more left people were in the Labour Party the more vociferously they opposed proportional representation.

In the two party system, the two parties are invariably over confident of their electoral chances. But aside from this bias, the two parties are both acting rationally within the system. And both parties are rational to want to maintain the system.

Nonsense -

The Tory Party are unlike the Labour Party Rich, save in one respect-self preservation.

With Labour, they would rather face decades of opposition, than eject a 'leader' whilst in government, whereas the Tory Party would not hesitate to ditch a 'leader' when in power , if they concluded that they would lose power at the following election if they did not do so.

With Labour, it's the Party that's expendable(politically), with the Tories, it's their 'leader'.

That's why for the Tories, it's self preservation & 'political, attempted suicide for the Labour Party, for which Labour people at the bottom are the ones that pay the price.

It's all about accountability & how it's handled politically.

It's either decisive, as with the Tories, or indecisive with Labour, because, to them, it's a 'collective' failure.

Power, is a means to an end for Labour, for the Tories, it's an end in itself.

[Potemkin]

Power, is a means to an end for Labour, for the Tories, it's an end in itself.

I think that sums up the difference between the parties rather well.

[Nonsense]

This week promises to be much,much more of the same in parliament, Grant SCHAPPS has just confirmed that there is, even now, no concensus, in which to agree on anything in respect of the 'options' available in parliament.

At the same time of course, the 'indicative' voting due in parliament, is no 'government' business, it can(although,be taken account of)probably ignored, as they are not binding.
Further, even if parliament agreed anything related to the WA, it would not pass muster in the E.U, because, the 'deal' is signed, sealed & just has to be delivered,

The only thing that's changed is the withdrawal date(in theory)& that(in theory)has changed to the 12th April.

The date's do not change the 'deal', one is amenable, the other is not, but parliament has yet to agree an ammendment on the date shifting & passed in Brussels.

Of course, once again, Theresa MAY could well 'bottle' her original 'bottling decision' & revert to ratifying the WA by the 29th March(who says the 'lady' is not for turning-again)?

The paint is not yet dry on the proposed changes agreed with Brussels,so, basically, the 29th is still on until any 'changes' take effect & I'm sure that any 'leaver' worth their salt would challenge any 'technical' irregularities' in court.



It's crucial for MAY to regain some lost credibility, to take back control of the government's business away from parliamentary MP's, otherwise, with the prospect of no concensus, we will exit without any 'deal' on the 12th April.

Only if a 'deal' is agreed in parliament, will we then leave by 22nd May, otherwise, any government or parliament initiated decision to stop leaving, must result in a general election being called, or, we leave on the original date(her decision).

I strongly suspect very significant changes from the May local & E.U election results, we shall see.

[fokker]

Without agreement of parliament for one of options, the only responsible option left is to revoke article 50. No politician should lead the UK into hard brexit with such divided parliament. After that new elections need to be held, brexit deal needs to be renegotiated and possibly new referendum held. Revoking article 50 should be the last May's action before stepping down.

[Heisenberg]

del

[Nonsense]

Without agreement of parliament for one of options, the only responsible option left is to revoke article 50. No politician should lead the UK into hard brexit with such divided parliament. After that new elections need to be held, brexit deal needs to be renegotiated and possibly new referendum held. Revoking article 50 should be the last May's action before stepping down.

Nonsense -

...no thanks.

There's a 'blame-game' going at the moment, they must be in preparation for the final betrayal.

Theresa MAY is the architect of her predicament.

She agreed the WA with Brussels-before - allowing parliament one 'meaningful' vote on the issue, that amounted to by-passing the democratic process of having it's passage through parliament before completing the agreement with Brussels.

Secondary to that error, she compounded it further, by ceding more 'meaningful' votes to parliament, which has allowed MP's to have a dog's breakfast with pulling it to pieces.

The above error's have effectively & deliberately obfuscated what should have been a relatively simple parliamentary process of delivering the 2016 referendum result to leave Europe.

Remainers cry out for another referendum, because they cannot accept the first one, just supposing there was one, with an identical binary question as to 'remain' or 'leave', where the result was reversed, how would you as a remainer feel about it if 'leavers' demanded a 2nd referendum or revocation of A50?

The fact is, we entered europe through a general election manifesto, where the only policy was to negotiate an entry into the EC as it was then called, along with EURATOM.
I believe that policy was wrong, which is why Harold WILSON had a referendum in 1975, whence people voted 'remain', now, the 'difference' between then - now, is that the people who voted leave, accepted that democratic decision, even it being a referendum, whereas currently, remainers are not accepting that same question, again, in a referendum, but, with a result that they disagree with.

The whole point of democracy, is to accept with grace, when your side doesn't 'win', but to accept victory when it does, not necessarily with alacrity, but with silent satisfaction, until, with time, it confirms one's judgement or causes some regret , whichever it is, one cannot 'win' or 'lose' all of the time.

Nothing is perfect, if it was, the universe would not exist, so too with democracy, it's imperfect, but it allows for change, which allows for course correction's over time & allows society to evolve to a degree.

[snapdragon]

Remainers cry out for another referendum, because they cannot accept the first one, just supposing there was one, with an identical binary question as to 'remain' or 'leave', where the result was reversed, how would you as a remainer feel about it if 'leavers' demanded a 2nd referendum or revocation of A50?

Absolutely fine. why not? Although why on earth would leavers demand A50 to be revoked when it wouldn't have been invoked in the first place is beyond me.

The reason we can't accept the result of the first one is because of the lies told by the leave campaign and the dodgy funding. You should know that.

Rees-Mogg suggested a second referendum should be held after renegotiation, way back in the October before the referendum was held, so I don't see the problem.

[anarchist23]

MPs vote to take control of Commons business in unprecedented move to try to find majority for any Brexit option....

In unprecedented move, MPs vote to take control of Brexit process
So-called indicative votes will be held on Wednesday to try to find a majority for a form of Brexit
Theresa May rules out third vote on her Brexit deal on Tuesday
But she says she could hold vote later this week
Jeremy Corbyn says the PM's deal is "dead" and she must abandon it
The DUP has said its position has not changed and it will not be backing the PM's deal
Meanwhile, the EU Commission says it has completed its preparations for a no-deal scenario

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-poli ... s-47696409

[Nonsense]

MPs vote to take control of Commons business in unprecedented move to try to find majority for any Brexit option....


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-poli ... s-47696409

Nonsense -

IT confirms my previous assertion that the loonies have now officially took over the Westminster loony asylum, not that it amounts to anything in particular, because it's the government's perogative to determine the business agenda in parliament & any indicative votes taken for the short duration available are meaningless.

[Rich]

It's crucial for MAY to regain some lost credibility, to take back control of the government's business away from parliamentary MP's, otherwise, with the prospect of no concensus, we will exit without any 'deal' on the 12th April.

How are all the people, not just May, who said over and over again that we would be leaving on the 29th March going to regain some lost credibility. I have to say the Brexiteers faith in EU leaders is touching. They were telling us till just recently that the EU would guarantee we left on the 29th March, now they're relying on the EU to deliver a no deal Brexit on the 12th April.

As I say the child like faith of the Brexiteers in the other EU members is touching, but have they considered the prospect that EU leaders are actually playing the hard Brexiteer MPs for fools. By holding out the prospect of an EU forced no deal, they are encouraging the hard Brexiteers to hold out against May's deal. But perhaps they are playing for time in the hope of revoking Article 50 altogether. I say playing the hard Brexiteers for fools, but that assumes that all the hard Brexiteer MPs actually care leaving and are not just engaged in Brexit virtue signalling.

As I said before the delay to Brexit seemed crucial to me. Now that we've accepted one delay it will surely be a lot easier to accept a second.

[Atlantis]

What's left of Brexit if even the hardliners admit that it puts the UK in a worse position than it would have had otherwise?

Countries are likely to offer the United Kingdom worse trade deals than it currently enjoys as an EU member, the former head of Liam Fox's International Trade Department has told Business Insider.

The United Kingdom alone can offer significantly less in terms of market access or government procurement than can all of the European Union," Donnelly said.

"Major trading partners of the UK including Japan and the USA have indicated that they will seek tough concessions from the UK in trade talks because it is a relatively small trading partner.
"Trade negotiators are not sentimental," Donnelly said.

Brexit trade deals will be worse than current EU deals, says Liam Fox's former trade chief

All of this was obvious even before the referendum. Why did the Brexitters pretend otherwise?

Trade Secretary Fox promised that the UK would roll over dozens of existing EU free trade arrangements "the second after" the UK left the EU, the scheduled date for which has been delayed by at least two weeks beyond March 29.

But major trading partners of the UK including Japan have indicated that they will seek tougher concessions from the UK in trade talks than it secured from the EU when they agreed the terms of a free trade deal in 2018.

Japanese trade negotiators are confident they can extract better terms, the Financial Times reported, a sign of how difficult Fox's task may be in attempting to strike independent trade deals once the UK has left the EU.

"By negotiating as a country of 65 million, we start in a significantly less attractive position than when we are a part of a bloc of around 500 million," Donnelly told BI.

"That's what's coming back to us from the negotiations, and that is not surprising."

[Nonsense]

How are all the people, not just May, who said over and over again that we would be leaving on the 29th March going to regain some lost credibility. I have to say the Brexiteers faith in EU leaders is touching. They were telling us till just recently that the EU would guarantee we left on the 29th March, now they're relying on the EU to deliver a no deal Brexit on the 12th April.

As I say the child like faith of the Brexiteers in the other EU members is touching, but have they considered the prospect that EU leaders are actually playing the hard Brexiteer MPs for fools. By holding out the prospect of an EU forced no deal, they are encouraging the hard Brexiteers to hold out against May's deal. But perhaps they are playing for time in the hope of revoking Article 50 altogether. I say playing the hard Brexiteers for folls, but that assumes that all the hard Brexiteer MPs actually care leaving and are not just engaged in Brexit virtue signalling.

As I said before the delay to Brexit seemed crucial to me. No that we've accepted one delay it will surely be a lot easier to accept a second.

Nonsense -

I wouldn't put it the way that you do Rich.

It's long been known that the E.U are against our leaving the club, so, as one they are acting like CORBYN, to reverse the democratic decision to leave.

Like Theresa MAY, CORBYN of course, they say one thing & do another.

They all said that they 'respected' the democratic decision of the British people to leave, both in parliament,as well as Brussels & that is a lie of course.

That both institutions are acting against democracy is an appalling situation, it's also counter-productive, for, who in their right minds in the europe of today, wants to be part of psuedo-democratic structures whose basis of existence, like religion, is deceit, the promise of things to come, just don't bet on their delivery-if you think that voting will achieve that end-it won't.

I have yet to see any true leaver believe in MAY to deliver, we shall see in 3 days time.

If I were her, I would instruct all her ministers to withdraw from parliament until the Commons is handed back to the government so that it can continue with it's business there, it should not accept any instructions or any communications by the Speaker or parliament, until parliament has been fully restored.

That means, in effect, that Theresa MAY can run the government-without parliament from the Cabinet Office & on the 29th MAY, apart from issuing a formal government statement refering to it's basic obligations to the E.U, with the actions required to keep the economy running across our borders, will mean that her government is on 'strike' in respect of parliament.

The Speaker cannot demand Ministers attend parliament, the business in parliament, is government business, parliament has shown it's contempt for democracy, by hijacking parliament, that was elected by the people & having acted mutinously expects to dictate to the 'captain'(PM)on how to proceed-unbelievable.

The government is not compelled to do parliament's beckoning, the government's job is to govern for the people, by the people, they must get on with it, with, or without parliament.

That parliament has shown contempt for the government, the government should express it's contempt for the MP's mutinous actions, by ignoring everything taking place in the Commons, until the status quo anti is restored.

[layman]

@Nonsense any reply to @Atlantis facts on trade deals?

Sorry you get all the questions but you seem to be the last brexiteers showing their face around here these days. You get points for bravery

[Nonsense]

@Nonsense any reply to @Atlantis facts on trade deals?

Sorry you get all the questions but you seem to be the last brexiteers showing their face around here these days. You get points for bravery

Any 'difference' is likely to be minimal IMHO.

The premise is only relevent if you assume an imbalance of outcomes from any trade deal & that's not the case.

It's not so because any trade deal is weighted between cost or benefits for either side, based upon mutual benefits & not on the downsiudes.

The same is true of all treaties, consent, based on equity between partners, why would any potential 'partner' seek a deal based on the disadvantage of just one side?

The whole point of trade deals is that both countries benefit from the universal modus operandi of trade- economic activity- not some perceived negative downside that produces negative or reduced activity.
As with all any country's trade situation, there are always 'imbalances' in trade, these are offset by increasing trade elsewhere, in global terms, 'the world is our oyster'.

[Nonsense]

Rumours of MAY's 'abdication' are somewhat premature.

She is still at the 11th hour attempting to get her deal through by lecturing her MP's, one is tempted to think that there is a void in her cranium.

She is saying that BREXIT, if MP's don't accept her deal, will be long & protracted.

Also saying that we could end up being in the Customs Union, Single Market, continuation of the Free Movement & subject to the European Court of Justice(ECJ).

if the above is true, of which it cannot be, it would mean no 'Brexit', 'remaining' in the E.U & the end of the Tory Party.

So, I think it's fanciful choreography by the BBC as usual.

However, I have never witnessed such cynicism & deceit on such a timescale without being called to account for it than with Theresa MAY.

The truth is, the E.U, though relishing the prospect at controlling a nation like the U.K-without this country being able to rectify things, really ought to force MP's to think twice, because MAY's deal is that to what she hints at, one foot in, one out of the E.U, with no say in what happens thereafter.
The fact is, the scenario she paints is against the E.U Single Market rules, as BARNIER , the E.U chief negotiator stated in 2017:

“We take note of the UK decision to end free movement of people.
“This means, clearly, that the UK will lose the benefits of the single market. This is a legal reality.”

Those 'benefits' mean, no tariffs, no customs, no borders freedom to move people, goods,services & capital within the E.U single market borders.

They exist in opposition to MAY's 'red lines', any one, of which contravenes E.U law.

'No Deal, is the only logical exit on the 29th March, based on the current stalemate in parliament, even though the WA is still(despite it's rejection in parliament-it's still the government's 'deal') the only 'deal' awaiting ratification, whether MAY goes or not & there is no limitation for which length of time it awaits that ratification.

[Heisenberg]

Rees-Mogg has officially caved, despite previously saying this deal is the "worst vassalage since the days of King John", or something similarly pretentious.

While trying to predict this clusterfuck is a mug's game, if I had to make a prediction, I'd say Theresa May will probably sneak her deal through by a handful of votes and then declare Absolute Victory. Commentators (and Rich) will praise her for "holding her nerve" and the comparisons to Thatcher will be innumerable and insufferable.

[SolarCross]

I don't think it matters much if we brexit with or without a deal but May's deal will do well enough for now if it makes people less afraid of the sky falling on exit. If it gives away too much we can re-negotiate later on when an opportunity makes it feasible. At least whatever happens we will have dodged the bullet of political union. Who knows if there will even be an EU in a year's time when France is in the middle of a revolution right now? Yellow vests are the new sans-culottes.

[layman]

@Heisenberg its possible but not sure the numbers still stack up. I think there are 20 odd tories who would never follow mogg, along with the dup. How many labour rebel’s would vote for it?

My last prediction here was for short extension plus version of this deal but I’m moving towards longer extension plus election/soft brexit.