|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 22, 2019 17:12:16 GMT -5
May's implicit plan has been to keep running down the clock in an effort to scare Tory MPs into voting for her deal in enough numbers to get it passed by reminding them that without it there will be a no-deal crash-out on March 29. Given how far short she fell last week that may not happen, but you can seen the direction this is going: (1) "The scale of no-deal panic gripping major companies has been thrown into sharp focus by a series of damage-limitation announcements, as corporate Britain signalled it is running out of patience with Westminster gridlock. Sir James Dyson, the Brexit-backing billionaire, dealt a further blow to the government by revealing he is shifting his company headquarters to Singapore in a move that drew sharp criticism. Dyson’s decision to move his HQ out of the UK came on a day in which a series of high-profile names revealed measures to mitigate the impact of a disorderly departure from the EU: • P&O announced that its entire fleet of cross-Channel ferries, will be re-registered under the Cypriot flag, as the 182-year-old British maritime operator activated its Brexit plans. • Sony confirmed it is moving its European headquarters from London to Amsterdam. • The chief executive of luxury carmaker Bentley said the company was stockpiling parts and described Brexit as a 'killer' threatening his firm’s profitability. • Retailers Dixons Carphone and Pets at Home announced plans to shore up supplies in the event of chaos at British ports." linkDyson's move has drawn special scorn from all sides because he's been bankrolling the Brexit campaign from the start. Apparently, what's good for the country isn't good enough for him. Ironically, the soon-to-be "Cypriot" ferry fleet includes the Spirit of Britain, the Pride of Kent, and the Pride of Canterbury. Perhaps a bit less spirited and prideful these days, eh? And that panic is affecting the House of Commons: (2) "Tory Brexit supporters alarmed by the prospect of a delay have hinted they could be won over in the coming weeks – if Theresa May can produce a serious concession from Brussels on the Irish backstop." The key for many will be whether the DUP support any agreement that emerges, but Ireland is steadfastly opposed to a time limit that could result in a hard border between the Republican and Northern Ireland down the line. Then again, "Other Brexiter sources warned there were a hardcore of MPs, especially those who had resigned from the government, who would be far less easily moved. 'For MPs like Boris Johnson or Dominic Raab, it is a very personal opposition to the deal and to the prime minister,' one source said." And on the other side, "Downing Street indicated that Tory MPs would be whipped to oppose the amendment tabled by Labour’s Yvette Cooper, which would pave the way for a bill to mandate an extension of article 50 in the event of no deal. The prime minister’s spokesman said it would 'simply delay the point of decision'. But Amber Rudd, the work and pensions secretary, is understood to have told May that some ministers could resign if they were not permitted to back efforts to stop a no-deal Brexit." linkSo, at least some Tory Brexiteers are taking on board May's threat that without her deal the choices are to crash out without a deal (which nearly everyone except some extremists believe would be an economic disaster) or stop the Brexit process (which would be a political disaster for most, but not all, Tories). That would seem to give the Labour Party an outsized role in the decision, but: (3) More than a dozen Labour frontbenchers have been to see the chief whip, Nick Brown, to issue a warning about the scale of opposition to the idea of a second Brexit referendum...The hastily-arranged meeting was requested after Labour published an amendment to Theresa May’s Brexit motion, calling for a public vote to be among the options presented to MPs to allow parliament to decide on what should happen next." This may not be a critical situation yet, however. "Campaigners for a people’s vote have not yet decided whether to table an amendment to the government’s Brexit motion next week that would test the strength of support for a referendum...A campaign source said: 'A people’s vote will probably not secure a majority in the House of Commons until every Brexit option has been exhausted but there will be multiple opportunities in parliament to give the public the final say when it has become clear this is the only way forward.'” linkSo, basically, there are four main groups: (a) Brexit without a deal supporters, an extreme group of (mostly) Tories (e.g., Boris Johnson); (b) a much broader swath of Tories, DUP, and a small number of Labourites who support Brexit with a deal more or less like May's; (c) Brexit with a deal that includes at least remaining in the EU's Customs Union (no tariffs with EU members) backed by a few Tories, some Labourites, and perhaps a few small-party Members; and (d) no Brexit Members, for whom a delay and a second referendum is the last best hope of reversing the 2016 vote. None of these currently constitutes a majority, but one of these options eventually will win out. And the clock keeps ticking.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 22, 2019 18:34:01 GMT -5
"Former speaker Baroness Boothroyd delivered a powerful speech as she rejected Theresa May’s Brexit plan and called for MPs to support a People’s Vote. "
Best speech on this topic I've heard yet. Delivered in the House of Lords last week.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 22, 2019 22:50:20 GMT -5
The Brits may not know how to govern any more, but they still can do wry humor:
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 23, 2019 15:25:02 GMT -5
The practical alternatives to May's deal, a no-deal crash-out, or an end to Brexit largely were killed by the EU's top negotiator today: Block a no-deal exit: "Michel Barnier has warned that the move led by Labour MP Yvette Cooper to block the prime minister from delivering a no-deal Brexit is doomed to fail unless a majority for an alternative agreement is found...'There appears to be a majority in the Commons to oppose a no-deal but opposing a no-deal will not stop a no-deal from happening at the end of March', he said. 'To stop "no deal", a positive majority for another solution will need to emerge.'" link Time-limit the Irish border backstop: "It is understood that Downing Street’s chief Brexit adviser, Olly Robbins, has been told by EU officials that there was little point in the prime minister returning to Brussels to seek concessions on the Irish backstop...'The question of limiting the backstop in time has already been discussed twice by European leaders', Barnier said...'We cannot tie the backstop to a time limit', he added. 'Imagine if your home’s insurance was limited to five years and you’d have a problem after six years...That’s difficult to justify. It’s similar with the backstop.'” Suspending Article 50 to have more time: "Barnier said that extending the two years of the negotiating period beyond 29 March should not be the primary focus for the UK parliament. 'We need decisions more than we need time actually', he said. 'I don’t know whether postponing or extending will be raised but it's the head of state and government [of the EU 27] that will have to answer that question by consensus. Some have said to me that if the question is raised, then why would we do that? What would the purpose be? How long would be required?'” Basically, this is telling those MPs who think they can legislate their way out of the current conundrum either by mandating no exit without a deal or stopping the clock that the EU 27 won't agree to either, unless the Brits have a practical proposal to end their own impasse, and that time-limiting the Irish backstop isn't such a proposal. The backstop limit is what May's using to try to win over her own party's extreme Brexiteers and the DUP, but if the EU won't accept that it's hard to see what else she can offer. The no-deal ban and extra-time proposal really don't solve anything, and cannot be legislated unilaterally by the UK, anyway. So, if the Commons can't agree on May's plan with virtually no changes--a plan they voted down by 230 votes last week, the biggest government proposal loss in history--that leaves either a crash-out or the end of Brexit. But the House is not going to stop Brexit (though a majority would like to) unless they can go to the public with a second referendum to get their OK on overturning the 2016 results. There does not appear to be a majority for a referendum, and both party leaders oppose the idea for reasons of party unity. Which leaves one possible way out: "Barnier reiterated in his address to the European economic and social committee, a civil society organisation, that he believed the key to getting an agreement through parliament lay in the prime minister, Theresa May, embracing a permanent customs union as backed by Labour...'If the UK red lines were to evolve in the next few weeks or months the union would be ready immediately and open to other models of relationships which are more ambitious', Barnier said. 'We’re ready to rework the content and ambition of the political declaration.'” The EU has been telling the Brits this for two years. "Senior EU diplomats are concerned, however, that this push by Brussels, which would involve redrafting the political declaration on the future relationship accompanying the withdrawal agreement, is falling on deaf ears." And that's because agreeing to remain in the customs union would be anathema to the right-wing Tories who created this mess in the first place, even though it's generally agreed that there's a cross-party majority for this solution. Come January 29, just six days from now, as Trump plans (somehow) to give a State of the Union Address at the Capitol to which he has not been invited, the various factions in the Commons will offer amendments to see if there's a majority for anything at all on Brexit. There's a meltdown underway on both sides of the Atlantic, on which more later this week.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 24, 2019 20:14:56 GMT -5
Bit of a bombshell today:
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 26, 2019 19:35:34 GMT -5
"Thousands of British companies have already triggered emergency plans to cope with a no-deal Brexit, with many gearing up to move operations abroad if the UK crashes out of the EU, according to the British Chambers of Commerce. Before a crucial week in parliament, in which MPs will try to wrest control from Theresa May’s government in order to delay Brexit and avoid a no-deal outcome, the BCC said it believed companies that had already gone ahead with their plans represented the “tip of the iceberg” and that many of its 75,000 members were already spending vital funds to prepare for a disorderly exit. It said that in recent days alone, it had been told that 35 firms had activated plans to move operations out of the UK, or were stockpiling goods to combat the worst effects of Brexit." linkThis is not what Rees-Mogg, Johnson, and Gove promised in 2016, is it? They said it would be easy, that the EU would give the UK huge concessions on a trade deal, and no one would notice anything except a burst of good old English (this really is about England, not the UK) pride. How's that working out for them?
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 27, 2019 11:47:31 GMT -5
"Theresa May’s hopes of securing compromise from the EU on the backstop element of her withdrawal plan have been dealt a blow after Ireland firmly said it must stay. The Irish deputy prime minister, Simon Coveney...said: 'The backstop is already a compromise. It is a series of compromises. It was designed around British red lines.'” linkThe Brexiteers forgot about the Irish border in 2016, of course. But that's literally where withdrawal from the EU hits hard reality: you can't simultaneously have a border and no border. Leaving the customs union requires a border between the UK and the EU. Technically, the UK could leave the EU and remain in the customs union, but that would defeat the promise that the UK could set up its own free trade deals with non-EU countries. Being in the customs union means any free trade deal would have to be part of an EU-wide agreement with the other country(-ies) involved, not a bilateral agreement between them and the UK. So, to get the ability to negotiate their own trade deals--a key promise of the Brexiteers--the UK must leave the customs union. Alas, that means putting up a trade barrier between the Province of Northern Ireland (UK) and the Republic of Ireland (EU), a direct violation of the Good Friday accords that ended the civil war in Northern Ireland, obliquely called The Troubles. The hope is that the UK will work out a new free trade deal with the EU. That's where the backstop comes in, keeping the border on the island open while the two sides negotiate a new trade arrangement. But that could take years to settle, and years more to implement. Brexiteers object that in practice the Irish open border could become permanent, creating a back door through which EU goods and services could enter the UK freely. Northern Ireland's governing party fears that without an agreement the UK would treat the Province as if it were still part of the EU, effectively moving the border to the middle of the Irish Sea, and creating the predicate for the Republic to absorb the North. This mess is in part a consequence of the English Oxbridgians not giving a thought about Ireland, the habit of centuries. But it also represents more broadly the fact that the Brexiteers gave no thought at all to what would happen the day after a decision to leave the EU. Apparently these children of wealth, like American Wilbur Ross unsure why missing a paycheck is a problem, simply could not understand why there'd be a fuss. And they still haven't given any of this a moments' thought, going by their breezy assertions on how easy a crash out from the EU will be come March 29.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 28, 2019 21:57:02 GMT -5
The Commons will take up a Government motion on Brexit on Tuesday, at around 2:00 pm ET here, that will allow votes on amendments from Members, a relatively unusual procedure for a Government bill. There have been at least 19 amendments offered, but it will be up to the Speaker (who's technically neutral, not part of the Government or Opposition) to determine which ones will get a vote. The PM now has endorsed one that would demand an alternative to the Irish backstop be negotiated with the EU, but given Ireland's strong opposition to changing that provision it's unlikely anything would come of it; however, the move has split the Brexiteer wing of the Tory Party, though the Remainers have indicated their faction will mostly oppose it, while the DUP says it's not enough to gain their support (presumably why May endorsed it). A Labour MP's amendment to demand an extension of the March 29 deadline also seems likely to fail as the party's front-benchers (many of them from pro-Brexit constituencies) are not supportive. One possibility: "The doubts about the backing for both amendments could potentially lead to parliament voting down all possible routes proposed by MPs to break the Brexit impasse." link That would just reinforce the impression that there's no majority for anything in the House, opening the way for a second referendum. A great place to follow the debate and voting is on the UK's equivalent of C-SPAN: parliamentlive.tv/Commons. I highly recommend it, if for nothing else than to watch the Speaker, John Bercow, in action. He's quite an amazing character. Even the WP had an article about him this week; it includes a pretty funny video of the man in action.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 29, 2019 20:49:25 GMT -5
Theresa May's answer to her overwhelming defeat two weeks ago was this: "she caved to Tory Eurosceptics and pledged to go back to Brussels to demand changes to the Irish backstop." linkAs Jeremy Corbyn noted, all she's done is to extend the life of her tottering government by at most a few weeks. By giving in to the hardliners, who helped defeat amendments to extend the leave date beyond March 29--a date that cannot be met because it will be weeks before the House could pass any Brexit bill, and then they'd have to pass about 600 laws to replace EU statutes currently in force--May proved once more that this whole exercise has been a charade designed to keep the Tory Party together, rather than to deal across all parties on finding a way to deal with the 2016 referendum result. So, the House passed a motion to go forward on her deal, but on a major condition: "MPs narrowly passed [317-301] a government-backed amendment, tabled by the senior Tory Graham Brady, promising to replace the Irish backstop with unspecified 'alternative arrangements'." What these might be was not specified, but a number of opposition MPs noted that the Government itself had said just months ago that after a long search they could not find any alternative; now they've got to do it in about two weeks, and convince the EU to accept what they come up with. The promise here is completely vacuous. One Labour MP noted (correctly--I watched the debate): “We are still no nearer any detail on what the phrase ‘alternative arrangements’ [might] mean, except that the prime minister said that they were ‘arrangements’ that were ‘alternative.’” And a Member from Northern Ireland complained, “The prime minister is trying to encourage this house to vote for an amendment which uses the words ‘alternative arrangements’ to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. Forgive me, prime minister, if I say those words are nebulous.” The EU isn't likely to give her anything, anyway: "But within minutes of the Commons result the European council president, Donald Tusk, announced that the EU was not prepared to reopen the deal...'The backstop is part of the withdrawal agreement, and the withdrawal agreement is not open for renegotiation.'” And the hard Brexiters did not commit to voting for her deal, even if she gets a change: "Steve Baker, the deputy chair of the backbench European Research Group (ERG), announcing that its members would vote for the Brady amendment, made clear they could still reject any renegotiated deal she brought back. 'A vote for the Brady amendment is a vote to see if the PM can land a deal that will work. If not then we are not committed,' he said." Even Government supporters are skeptical, with one cabinet source saying: “I’m trying not to say the word ‘unicorn’.” To make matters worse for May, the House also passed by 318-310 an amendment sponsored by both a Labour and Conservative MP indicating that Members would not accept a no deal outcome. May has tried to avoid this restriction precisely because it removes whatever leverage no-deal might exert on the EU to negotiate on the Irish border issue. In practice, it's not clear that this is much leverage, however, since UK businesses have been screaming loudly about the need to avoid it, and some already have begun moving operations to the Continent in anticipation of no deal--moves that likely are irrevocable now, even if the UK stays in the EU or at least the Customs Union. May is supposed to report back to the House with her revised deal on February 13, or a statement that there is no new deal, with more votes on the 14th. ("Happy Valentine's Day! Don't wait dinner for me, Dear.") My prediction: the EU will tell May that she either sells the deal already negotiated, crashes out on March 29, or unilaterally suspends Article 50, effectively ending Brexit. Then, presumably, her Government falls, and further chaos ensues.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 31, 2019 14:27:12 GMT -5
And now the inevitable: "On Thursday the British foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt, became the first cabinet minister to admit that the two years of negotiations allowed under article 50 may have to be prolonged, describing the Brexit impasse as 'a very challenging situation'." link Are we at all surprised? Oh, the PM's office demurred from Hunt's comment, made in answer to a question during radio interview, but it's now clear that May is planning to ask for an extension. And EU leaders are almost certain to grant it because they really do not want a no-deal exit, and their business communities will pressure them to agree. But the EU also is worried that May won't ask for enough time: "EU officials fear Theresa May is setting the UK on course for a no-deal exit at the end of June because she will not have the political courage to ask for the longer Brexit delay they believe she needs. Senior figures in Brussels have been war-gaming the likely next steps by the British government, and believe a delay to the UK’s exit date of 29 March is inevitable. But they fear the prime minister’s strategy of seeking simply to survive from day to day will lead to her requesting an inadequate short three-month extension for fear of enraging Brexiters in the Conservative party." Again, are we surprised? May has wasted two years trying to finesse Brexit in a way that does the least damage to the UK (damage is a certainty) while keeping the Tory Party from splitting up. The result is a "deal" that's the worst of all possible worlds, satisfying almost no one, which is why it went down to a historic defeat. Her response to that defeat has been to promise to talk to the EU about the Irish border, even though they've told her the will not budge on that issue. So, on February 13 she will have to report to the House that she's still got the same deal for them, and the odds are that it will again go down to defeat, no doubt by a smaller margin as some Tories recognize the futility of asking for changes and decide this deal really is all they're going to get. And then what? It's pretty clear they're going to ask for a delay until June 30, as widely rumored and all but confirmed by the Foreign Secretary. But what happens on June 30? The fear among hard-line Brexiters is not that there will be a no-deal crash; that's exactly what they're hoping to force by opposing May's deal. No, their fear is that all of this is leading up to a decision by Parliament, perhaps through a second referendum, to stay in the EU after all. The latest polls, completed this month, show the remain with a solid 10-point lead on leave, no doubt reflecting the reality of what Brexit really means, as opposed to the hopey-changey promises dished out in 2016. Among the most worried is the far-right UK Independence Party: "The leader of Ukip has written to the Queen asking her to suspend parliament until after 29 March to ensure MPs cannot thwart Brexit." link Yeah, like the Queen's gonna do that as if she were Henry VIII, lol! (BTW, the UKIP now is so xenophobic and openly racist that even former leader Nigel Farage has quit.) May's Mess cannot be fixed. In the end, despite May and Corbyn, it's going to be necessary to return to the voters, and that's what I anticipate will happen in the end. The House of Commons quite simply no longer can solve this existential issue. The voters created this problem through their 2016 vote, and only the voters can fix it.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 31, 2019 16:53:11 GMT -5
Brexit already is extracting a high price in the UK: "Today it’s the UK motor manufacturers reporting a 50% drop in investment last year and Barclays whisking £166bn of assets off to Dublin, joining a torrential outflow, including Jacob Rees-Mogg’s own investment company." link The automakers blamed the investment plunge directly on Brexit, as did Barclays, which needed to ensure that EU clients would have access to their money in case there's a no-deal Brexit. Of course, 150-300 jobs are following the cash. The Spanish Bank Santender took similar action earlier this month, and more are sure to follow. The obvious duplicity of no-deal Brexit supporter Rees-Mogg speaks for itself. The Labour-dominated Welsh devolved assembly voted to support a second referendum at the pleading of the Plaid Cymru (Welsh Nationalist) Members at Westminster. Scotland is revving up for a new independence referendum if Brexit takes place. And even Northern Ireland voters are nearly evenly split on whether to leave the UK and join the Republic in such a case. The crazy English nationalists behind Brexit might well win, but at the cost of the United Kingdom. Well, some of them would not regard an England without all those Gaelic/Celtic territories as a cost, I guess. But they could find themselves with two international borders on their own Island of Great Britain, getting them back to where they were last in 1272, when Edward I defeated Llywelyn the Last.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 6, 2019 16:16:59 GMT -5
While the Tories immolate themselves over Brexit, May is trying to find votes among Labour MPs by dangling this: Theresa May is expected to propose a draft bill guaranteeing that UK workers’ rights will keep pace with those in Europe in an attempt to get Labour MPs to back her Brexit deal...On Wednesday, the Labour MP Lisa Nandy, who has intimated she could back May’s deal, said the right offer from No 10 could win over up to 60 Labour MPs." linkThis is smart by May, because it's quite clear that the EU is not going to give her what she'd need on the Irish backstop issue to win over the hard-line Brexiteers in her own party and the DUP. Just today the President of the European Commission and the Irish Prime Minister held a joint news conference in which they again said that "alternative arrangements are not a substitute for the backstop." So May needs to look elsewhere for votes. Whether 60 Labour MPs will be enough to offset losses from her side of the House is doubtful. But if Brexit did pass with Labour support the result could be a bitter irony for the Labourite voters who support it. While that would end free movement of workers into the UK from the EU, reducing the number of those iconic Polish plumbers that so frightened voters during the referendum campaign, as one union source is quoted as saying, “[the Tories'] desire to bring in seasonal agricultural workers from around the globe, as well as barista visas, really does ring alarm bells.” Fewer Poles, more Asians, Africans, and Latin Americans. Worse, if Labour is seen as supporting any form of Brexit they may pay a big price: "A trade union affiliated with the Labour party has claimed that Jeremy Corbyn’s party could lose an additional 45 seats in a snap election if it fails to take an anti-Brexit position, in a leaked report...It says that the party’s supporters view Brexit as a 'Tory project'. It adds that four-fifths of them believe the current deal will hurt the British economy and 91.4% of Labour voters do not trust the government to deliver a good Brexit for people such as them. The report concludes: 'If there is an election in 2019, Labour will get a lower share of the vote in every seat in the country if it has a pro-Brexit policy than if it has an anti-Brexit position.'... "It warns there is a real risk with a centrist party because of polling suggesting that 17% of Labour’s 2017 voters would be very likely to support a new party to oppose Brexit, while 27% would be fairly likely to...One Scottish trade union source warned that Labour could be playing into the hands of the pro-independence SNP. "On the basis of this alarming evidence it is clear that trying to appease Brexit voters in northern England will not just cost us the chance to put Jeremy Corbyn in No 10. Scottish Labour has been rebuilding, but this blinkered Brexit strategy will cut us off at the knees.” linkOne reason why Labour is the Opposition rather than the Government today is that it lost so many seats it used to win in Scotland. Between 1923 and 2010, Labour always got between 35 and 50 percent of the Scottish vote, which translated into the bulk of the seats from there. In 2015 and 2017, by contrast, they got 24 and 27 percent, while the Scottish National Party had its best showings ever, with 50 and 37 percent vote shares. As a result, Labour went from winning 41 of 59 Scottish seats in 2010 to just 1 and 7 in the last two elections; the SNP went from 6 to 56 and then 35. No wonder Scottish Labour officials are so nervous about whether the national party is seen as supporting Brexit (even if tepidly) as opposed to opposing it with all guns blazing.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 6, 2019 18:49:19 GMT -5
"Jeremy Corbyn has written to the prime minister, offering to throw Labour’s support behind her Brexit deal if she makes five legally binding commitments – including joining a customs union...He says the changes to the political declaration must include: *A 'permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union', including a say in future trade deals. *Close alignment with the single market, underpinned by 'shared institutions'. *'Dynamic alignment on rights and protection', so that UK standards do not fall behind those of the EU. *Clear commitments on future UK participation in EU agencies and funding programmes. *Unambiguous agreements on future security arrangements, such as use of the European arrest warrant... Labour’s approach, which Corbyn called “constructive”, appears to be focused firmly on the forward-looking political declaration, rather than the 585-page withdrawal agreement, which contains the Irish backstop and the divorce bill." linkSo, after claiming that May was leading a "zombie government" it seems Corbyn is prepared to help resuscitate the corpse. Of course, it may be that he's holding out this offer because if May accepts it the Tory Party will be badly split, with the potential for some leaving the party altogether, pulling down the government. But there's a risk to Corbyn, too: "His intervention will dismay backbench Labour MPs and grassroots activists still hoping he will switch the party’s policy towards demanding a second Brexit referendum – which is not mentioned in the letter." Yes, exactly. Both major parties could be damaged by this...well, they already have been, of course, but more damage could be inflicted. What a bleeding mess!
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 7, 2019 15:30:02 GMT -5
Labour Party unrest is growing: "Owen Smith, the Labour MP who challenged Jeremy Corbyn in 2016, has said he is considering quitting the party, amid a growing backlash over the leadership’s Brexit stance...Asked whether he could 'in all good conscience' remain a Labour MP, Smith replied: 'I think that’s a very good question – and I think it’s something that I and lots of other people are considering right now.'” link Smith's description of Brexit as "ultimately a nativist, nostalgic, rightwing, ideological programme, that was sold on lies," is spot on. I would add that some left-wingers, such as Corbyn, share that nostalgia, just as we saw in the US in 2016 with Trump and Sanders, both of whom have views on economics and trade not far from those of the Brexiteers. Meanwhile, May is having her own problems in Brussels: "An EU official said it was remarkable that May had not offered 'any new concrete proposals' during her 45-minute meeting with Tusk, the European council president, which was described as 'OK' and 'honest'. [These are polite descriptors for international discussions that have not gone well.] Neither did the prime minister have 'any clear answers on the timeline' [for completing a post-Brexit trade deal], the official said. A second official warned of a 'vicious circle', in that the UK appeared unable to make any proposals and the EU was unable to act until it received a request." link There was one ray of hope for a deal: " Tusk had even suggested that Corbyn’s Brexit plan, spelled out in a letter by the Labour leader on Thursday morning, might be a way out of the impasse, but May did not respond to the point.' A senior Downing Street official said it was 'welcome that the leader of the opposition is engaging' in Brexit, but declined to go into what May told Tusk." The unraveling of UK government, politics, and economics continues apace. And now it appears that May has adopted the running-down-the-clock strategy she's long denied: "The Brexit negotiations are being pushed to the brink by Theresa May and the EU, with any last-minute offer by Brussels on the Irish backstop expected to be put to MPs just days before the UK is due to leave...officials believe it is increasingly likely that any renegotiated deal will only be put to the Commons at the end of March, necessitating even then an extension of the article 50 negotiating period to get legislation through parliament." Basically, May is going to hold the gun of a no-deal Brexit to the heads of Members with a take-or-leave it final agreement. It well could pass, but it will leave deep political scars for decades to come.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 9, 2019 23:23:42 GMT -5
OMG, British parliamentarians finally have come around to a proposal that many of us have been discussing for weeks or months: "Theresa May could win parliament’s approval for her controversial Brexit deal in return for guaranteeing another referendum, under a new plan being drawn up by a cross-party group of MPs. The new vote would give the British people a simple choice: to confirm the decision or stay in the EU...The amendment would offer all MPs the chance to support, or abstain on, the withdrawal bill and would specify that, if passed, the decision would be implemented on the condition it was put to the public for approval in a second referendum. If the amendment passed through parliament but the deal was rejected in the subsequent referendum, the UK would stay in the EU under current arrangements. If, however, the British people confirmed the decision of MPs to leave the EU under the terms of May’s deal, Brexit on these terms would immediately come into effect without any need for it to return to parliament." linkThis is the only way out of the impasse in the House of Commons. We know, because of the vote more than a week ago, that May's deal as it stands has virtually no chance of approval. Tory Brexiteers and the DUP will not support any plan that includes the Irish backstop, and the EU seems united in not being willing to abandon Ireland--which, after all, still will be a member if/when the UK leaves. Most of Labour, except the leadership and some northern England Members, firmly oppose Brexit, as do the SNP, Lib-Dems, and the lone Green Party Member. No one seriously believes May can get a majority of the House behind this agreement, even with the abyss of no-deal looming in less than 6 weeks. But if May agrees to submit her plan to the voters for final approval, then she probably can get a majority to agree. The Government side has been arguing all along that the 2016 referendum result is dispositive, so there's no need to go back to voters. This is nonsense. That vote was exquisitely close to start with. And it was made with no information on just what Brexit would look like. The Leave Campaign included prominent proponents with very different ideas of what Brexit would mean, which they mostly subjugated to the goal of just winning the referendum, or more accurately to push the idea forward to the public in hopes of winning at a later referendum, since they expected to lose--which is why they were unprepared to take over when they surprisingly won. With the implications of Brexit much clearer, voters are even less supportive than they were when they split 52-48. In fact, from 2016 to the end of 2018 voters went from a majority of about 2 percent saying Brexit was the "right" decision to a majority of 8-10 percent saying it was the "wrong" decision: Clearly, it makes little sense to argue, as the Government does, that Parliament has to "deliver on Brexit" without going back to voters because asking them to choose whether Brexit, as now understood, is what they want is anti-democratic. Yes, that's their argument. Apparently, once the people have spoken it's wrong to find out years later whether they've changed their collective minds. OK, even they don't believe that. What they really mean is that if they go back to voters and Brexit loses the Tory Party could break apart. Party first, country second. Not that Corbyn and his front-bench wafflers seem ready to take this opportunity to allow their minority of pro-Brexit Members to vote for the deal, and then the vast bulk of the party to work during the referendum campaign to defeat it, a win-win for both sides. Corbyn is a not-so-secret Euroskeptic himself, but would prefer a softer version, largely because his base is pro-EU. So, how has he responded to this obviously sensible idea? With his usual evasion, of course: “We will keep all options on the table – as agreed in our conference motion – including the option of a public vote.” *sigh* No wonder he's now got the worst net negative favorability rating of any party leader in Parliament!
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 11, 2019 21:05:56 GMT -5
"Philip Hammond’s claim that Britain can reap an economic dividend from Theresa May’s Brexit deal has been flatly rejected by MPs, as official figures confirmed the UK has suffered its worst year for GDP growth since 2012. In a highly critical report, the Treasury select committee warned that the chancellor’s claims of a “deal dividend” if Britain avoided a no-deal exit lacked credibility. The criticism came after data on Monday showed the economy grew by just 0.2% in the final three months of 2018, down from 0.6% in the third quarter. The fourth-quarter figures contained signs of an even sharper slowdown, with the economy posting a decline of 0.4% in December amid signs that Brexit uncertainty is taking hold. For 2018 as a whole, GDP growth slipped to its lowest since 2012, at 1.4%, down from 1.8% in 2017." linkBritish voters bought a bill of goods from the Brexiteers. Now they'll be paying the bill. One ray of sunshine, though: the UK did reach a trade deal...with Switzerland, lol. Meanwhile, with only 45 days left May has turned down Corbyn's proposal, as expected, and instead is going to ask tomorrow that Parliament put off their next consideration of her package from the 14th to the 28th, just one month before B-Day. She will say that she wants that time to come up with a solution to the Irish border issue. In other words, instead of reaching across the House for a deal that certainly would win--staying in a customs union with the EU--she's sticking with the strategy of mollifying the ERG and UDP extremists. link Once more this show that Brexit has nothing to do with the good of the UK and everything to do with holding the Tory Party together. There's some chance that the party will split anyway, and the country soon thereafter.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 13, 2019 15:05:13 GMT -5
The cat is out of the bag: "Theresa May’s high-stakes Brexit strategy may have been accidentally revealed after her chief negotiator Olly Robbins was overheard in a Brussels bar saying MPs will be given a last-minute choice between her deal and a lengthy delay...was overheard by a reporter from ITV, holding a late-night conversation in which he appeared to suggest she would wait until March – and then give MPs the choice between backing her, or accepting a long extension to article 50. According to the broadcaster, Robbins said the government had 'got to make them believe that the week beginning end of March...extension is possible, but if they don’t vote for the deal then the extension is a long one.'” linkThis actually makes sense of May's perplexing behavior in recent weeks. After the worse-than-expected defeat of her proposed exit agreement last month she promised to go to Brussels to negotiate changes to the Irish border issue. But following those meetings EU officials made public statements that she had not come with any proposals at all. And when senior officials followed up today an EU source said that “They are pretending to negotiate while they still don’t know what they want and how they want it.” link That would fit in with the idea that May is just letting the clock run down to around March 21, when she will present the House with a last chance to avoid a no-deal Brexit by accepting her deal, or to live with a long, undefined delay, avoiding a crash-out but also any Brexit at all. The hope is that Tory and Labour Brexiteers will vote for the package at that point, putting it over the top. Meanwhile, Corbyn and the Labour front bench are coming under pressure to allow a vote on a second referendum. The lead proponents of that approach intend to offer an amendment to a legally-binding vote in two weeks, but one MP is pushing for a vote this week on a non-binding proposal to support May's deal provided it is then sent to voters for an up-or-down referendum. He says, “There is a hidden majority in the house that want to support this position, but they are all waiting around for some guiding north star for them to follow before they take action, but we are running out of time.“ Meanwhile, senior Labour MPs, many of whom--including Corbyn--are long-time euroskeptics, also are pushing for a vote on a second referendum, not to win but because they believe "that the party needs a 'cathartic moment' to whip for a new referendum and prove that the plan has no parliamentary majority, with more than 20 Labour MPs likely to oppose." linkWhat I mess! And that's without even getting into the contract for emergency ferry service to get goods into the UK before March 29 in case of no-deal that the government signed with a company that owns NO ferries, and lacks the funds to buy/lease them, but claimed support from a Irish ferry company, that this week announced that they had only had preliminary discussions and were not signing a deal with the no-ferry company, causing the whole plan to collapse. Seriously! link
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 13, 2019 22:34:41 GMT -5
"More than 40 former British ambassadors and high commissioners have written to Theresa May warning her that Brexit has turned into a “national crisis” and urging her to delay proceedings until the government has greater clarity about Britain’s likely future relationship with Europe. The letter, signed by many of the most senior diplomats of the last 20 years, underlines concerns that British influence in the world will wane if the country leaves Europe’s trading and foreign policy bloc." link This is a powerful statement of the problem with Brexit and possible solutions: “Our country’s national interest must always be paramount. The Brexit fiasco has already weakened the UK’s standing in the world. We strongly advocate a change of direction before it is too late. It is clear that Brexit has turned into a national crisis. There is no possible deal that will be a sensible alternative to the privileged one we have today as members of the EU with a seat at the table, inside the single market and customs union but outside the Euro[zone] and Schengen [area]. “There is now, in addition to extending article 50, a powerful argument to go back to the people and ask them whether they want the negotiated Brexit deal or would prefer to stay in the European union. If the prime minister’s deal is passed in parliament it will not be the end of Brexit but will in fact mark the start of year upon on year of negotiation and renegotiation – truly a ‘Brexternity’ of endless uncertainty about our future for both citizens and businesses alike.” Brexternity. Nice coinage. And, of course, they're right on all points. Everyone not named Rees-Moog knows that the UK is in a privileged position by being inside a 500-million strong market, but with its own currency and control over its borders (unlike Schengen Area members). Virtually every economist and business leader has concluded that Brexit will make the country worse off economically. And there is a real possibility that Scotland will pull out of the UK...and (surprisingly) that Northern Ireland could, too. The Little England crowd will like that, but it would diminish the country's weight in world affairs significantly. Bravo for these diplomats to make a clear statement of just what's at stake for Britain.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 14, 2019 14:20:13 GMT -5
Another defeat for Theresa May in Commons tonight. The Government put forward a motion that read: "That this house welcomes the prime minister’s statement of 12 February 2019; reiterates its support for the approach to leaving the EU expressed by this house on 29 January 2019 and notes that discussions between the UK and the EU on the Northern Ireland backstop are ongoing." The key issue is in bold. The final vote on January 29 supported the Government in a motion that included two amendments, one of which would rule out a no-deal Brexit. So the ERG, for which this is anathema, decided to abstain on the vote, with the result that her motion went down, 258-303. As a number of commenters point out, this vote will make it much harder for her to get the EU to agree on an alternative to the Irish backstop because they have no idea whether she can pass anything, or even will remain PM. One EU official is quoted as saying: “This isn’t about machismo: us refusing to back down. We need to find a sustainable solution for the millions affected here. We see May trying to blackmail three groups simultaneously: EU+Ireland, Labour and Brexiteers. Chance of this ending badly is high.” Meanwhile, two other votes showed more trouble for both leaders. The first vote was on Corbyn's amendment that would have required "by 27 February 2019 a minister of the crown either (a) to move another motion under Section 13(1)(b) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 or (b) to make a written statement declaring that there is no longer an agreement in principle in the negotiations with the European Union and to move no later than that date an amendable motion on how the government proposes to proceed.” Effectively this would defeat May's two-year negotiation. The motion lost, 306-322, but that was an improvement of 10 votes over the last vote on the same motion in January, leaving Corbyn happy and May worried about the possibility that eventually this could pass next week or next month. But Corbyn could not have been happy that a motion by the SNP to extend the March 29 deadline by at least 3 months. That would weaken May's leverage, which relies on frightening soft leavers with the prospect of a no-deal exit, and Brexiteers with the possibility that the UK won't leave at all. Labour whipped an abstention from its Members but 41 supported the motion, providing nearly half the total yes vote, as the motion was defeated 93-315. Finally, one motion was withdrawn without a vote. It was sponsored by a Tory backbencher and a Labour MP and would have required the Government to release the latest briefing to Cabinet members of just how damaging a no-deal Brexit would be. The relevant Minister has agreed to release it before the next votes on February 27, but it was likely to pass had it been put to a vote; that would have embarrassed the Government. The story in the form of a rolling update is here. Again, this is a cluster-mess of the first order. If there is a special place in Hell for the Brexiteers who have pushed this scheme, the worst part of it should be reserved for David Cameron, who acceded to their demands for a referendum just to ease his re-election as Tory leader, which he would have won anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 15, 2019 10:40:51 GMT -5
The UK is paying dearly for Brexit--and it hasn't even happened yet: "The cost of Brexit to the British economy is running at £40bn a year and a damaging no-deal scenario could force an emergency cut in interest rates, according to a Bank of England rate-setter. Gertjan Vlieghe, a member of the Bank’s monetary policy committee, said that since the vote in June 2016, the economy had lost about 2% of GDP compared with a scenario where there had been no significant domestic economic events. The cost to Britain is currently £40bn a year, or about £800m a week of lost income, he said. Since the referendum, the UK’s economic growth has slowed while the rest of the world has recorded one of its strongest periods for growth of the past decade. Vlieghe’s estimate for the weekly cost of Brexit so far is more than double the £350m the Leave campaign claimed could be saved on EU membership fees and instead spent on the NHS. The claim, emblazoned on the side of the campaign’s battlebus, became a key focus for debate in the run-up to the vote...The Bank has calculated that the cumulative total of lost GDP since 23 June 2016 is £55bn." linkThe Leave Campaign admitted almost immediately after the referendum that they really couldn't promise £350m would go to shore up the NHS, which the Tory government already had shortchanged as part of its "austerity" program. No, they said, it was just one example of how money not going to the EU might, perhaps, be used. You can forgive voters for being confused, given how this was presented to them: But worse, their projected burst of entrepreneurial growth and prosperity is turning to dust. Not only has the UK seen its growth rate lag other countries, reducing the size of the economic pie, but it has hurt future economic development, as well: "He said business investment in Britain had been stuck around zero, with a drop of 3.7% in 2018, despite an upswing worth about 6% annually in the rest of the G7. Consumer spending also slowed as households came under pressure from higher prices, sparked by the sharp fall in the value of the pound straight after the Brexit vote...Mark Carney, the Bank’s governor, has previously said the vote cost households about £900 each in lost income. There are also various estimates for the potential hit from Britain crashing out without a deal on 29 March. Threadneedle Street estimates the worst-case disruptive scenario could spark a slump into a recession with worse consequences for Britain than the 2008 financial crisis, while the Treasury estimates that all Brexit options are worse for the economy than remaining in the EU." This is what happens when ideologues hijack political debate and encourage magical thinking that is utterly divorced from reality--and then lie about what they're doing. Sound familiar?
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 18, 2019 23:24:44 GMT -5
Both the Labour and Conservative Parties began their long-anticipated crack-ups over Brexit and related issues today. Labour's problems emerged this morning: "Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, has told Jeremy Corbyn that he must change direction or face a worsening Labour split after seven MPs quit to form a new movement in the party’s biggest schism in nearly 40 years. Watson’s emotional intervention came as a number of Labour MPs were poised to follow the founders of the new Independent Group – and after reports on Monday night that some Conservatives were also ready to defect...Labour MPs also told the Guardian they believe there will be another wave of defections if their party leadership does not move towards a second referendum on Brexit and commit to taking more steps to root out antisemitism from the party." link More Labour MPs told reporters that they are considering following the seven. The key issue is Brexit. Corbyn and many members of his inner circle long have been anti-EU, while the vast majority of Labour MPs, party members, and party voters are pro-EU. The latter are pinning their hopes on a second referendum to defeat whatever May's final agreement may be, and believe Corbyn's never going to allow that to happen, though he claims a second vote is "on the table." Relatedly, some of the paid party members who elected Corbyn party leader have been aggressively anti-Semitic, including towards Jewish Labour MPs, who complain that the party leadership has been slow to dismiss the miscreants from the party. Behind both of these splits is the influence of the group Momentum, which signed up thousands of new members and got them to vote for Corbyn in the last two leadership elections. Corbyn had spend much of his career as a far-left backbencher, and as leader he's been pushing for a far-left agenda. Meanwhile, on the other side of the House: "Four cabinet ministers have demanded the prime minister stop using the threat of a no-deal Brexit as a negotiating tactic, telling Theresa May that businesses and manufacturers now needed to be given certainty...The ministers who requested the meeting with May believe that while no deal had once been a sensible negotiating tactic, a number of alarming announcements by businesses and manufacturers over recent weeks meant it was time for the option to be categorically ruled out." linkMay has spent most of her time trying to craft a deal to placate the 100 or so hard-line Brexiteers in her party to prevent its breakup, as well as the 10 DUP Northern Islanders on whose votes she depends to stay in office. But in the process numbers of "remain" Members have grown increasingly anxious as we now are fewer than 40 days until Brexit and there is neither a Parliament-approved deal with the EU nor a guarantee from the PM that the country won't crash out without one. As noted above, several Tory MPs indicated they are considering joining the breakaway Labour faction, a big blow considering May has a minority government. The stupidity of putting something as complex as this, which involves some 600 statutes and dozens of international trade agreements, to a simple "leave" or "remain" vote should by now be obvious. The National Institute for Economic and Social Research estimated in November that May's proposal would cost the UK's economy about 4 percent of GDP by 2030; no-deal would reduce GDP by nearly 8 percent. And both estimates assumed that immigration levels would stay the same; if it falls, one of the aims of Brexit in the first place, the losses would be higher. Stupid really is not a strong enough word.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 20, 2019 12:21:44 GMT -5
On Tuesday an 8th Labour MP quit to join the Independent Group. And now on Wednesday three Tory MPs, all women, have joined them, saying there are many more "on the edge" of following. I'll wrote more about this in a new thread in the General Political News area.
|
|
|
Post by leftylarry on Feb 20, 2019 23:17:16 GMT -5
The only story here is that Leftist scum won’t allow the British electorate to do what they want, even after they voted for it, nothing new here, it’s how they operate, true fascists and its what they have planned here too.your First they will take everyone’s guns,so you have no options, like in Europe, then your gasoline and then whatever wealth you have accumulated through hard work and forget about your estate. That’s the game plan.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 21, 2019 16:50:09 GMT -5
The only story here is that Leftist scum won’t allow the British electorate to do what they want, even after they voted for it, nothing new here, it’s how they operate, true fascists and its what they have planned here too.your First they will take everyone’s guns,so you have no options, like in Europe, then your gasoline and then whatever wealth you have accumulated through hard work and forget about your estate. That’s the game plan. As to the "Leftist scum," I guess they're all over the Tory party: "Theresa May is facing the most serious cabinet revolt of her premiership next week, with as many as 25 members of the government ready to vote for a Brexit delay unless she rules out “no deal” – in a move that will challenge her to sack them. Rebel Conservatives believe there are now enough MPs across the House of Commons to pass an amendment that would require May to extend article 50 rather than allow the UK to leave without a deal. At least four cabinet ministers, almost a dozen junior ministers and many others on the government payroll are understood to be prepared to back the motion proposed by the Tory MP Sir Oliver Letwin and Labour’s Yvette Cooper, due to be debated on Wednesday. A senior source close to those plotting the rebellion said there was no way the members of the government would resign voluntarily and May would have to sack them." link Wait, where are the Leftist scum here? These are Ministers, State Secretaries, and Junior Ministers, part of May's own Cabinet, who are trying to defeat Brexit. Meanwhile, the far left in the UK is pro-Brexit, including much of the Labour front bench. So, your comment just shows that you don't know what you're talking about. It's the centrists in both parties who are trying to stop Brexit, or at least leaving without any trade deal with the EU in place. Just read this thread, where this all is explained. Meanwhile, other good news: "Jeremy Corbyn is inching closer to backing a second referendum, with the Labour leader under intense pressure from senior figures including Keir Starmer to prevent more restive MPs from leaving the party and spike the guns of the splitters. At a Brexit policy meeting this week, Starmer spoke out in favour of an amendment drawn up by the Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson, the Guardian understands. Under the terms of the amendment, Labour MPs wither would support the prime minister’s deal or abstain (so the Tories could pass it themselves) in exchange for it being put to a public vote...The idea of supporting a more straightforward, pro-referendum amendment also remains in play, the Guardian understands. 'If there was a freestanding second referendum amendment on its own we would have to vote for it,' said one shadow minister." Basically, here's what's happening in the endgame: May is facing a revolt from her own Cabinet if she continues to resist ruling out a no-deal Brexit, and Corbyn from his front bench if he continues to resist a popular vote on Brexit. It's clear that the majority in the House does not support a no-deal; they've already voted on that, though it was not a binding vote. But there's no majority for May's deal, either. The ERG won't support it, ostensibly because of the Irish backstop, but really most of them want a no-deal exit, regardless of the economic consequences. That leaves Parliament paralyzed. The clear way out is the Kyle-Wilson proposal that Labour support May's deal on the condition that it then goes to the voters for a final say. After all, the whole thing started with public approval of leaving the EU; the public should decide whether this is what they want, now that the reality of Brexit is in written documents rather than on the side of a campaign bus. Just do it, already! LL, I have no idea what that last sentence has to do with Brexit, but it's yet another laugh line. Thanks for that, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 22, 2019 11:53:35 GMT -5
Well, we already know one outcome of Brexit: "Ireland will no longer recognise the UK driving licences of people living in Ireland in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The Road Safety Authority of Ireland, a state agency, said this week a mutual recognition agreement would end and that holders of British licences would need to swap them for Irish licences before the UK is due to leave the EU on 29 March...Under the Brexit deal that Westminster rejected last month, Ireland and other EU countries would continue to recognise UK licences during a transition period." linkI'll bet the Brexiteers never mentioned that during the 2016 campaign. Meanwhile, things are going from bad to worse: "Michel Barnier has said he is more concerned than ever after a week of talks with Theresa May and the British negotiators that has left Brussels fearing an accidental no-deal Brexit in five weeks . As the British prime minister heads to Egypt for an EU-Arab summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, the bloc’s chief negotiator publicly said he believed there remained 'a chance' of ratifying the deal. But he told a French radio channel: 'Today I am more worried than before' over the talks, adding that the UK needed to make decisions fast. The EU official also told ambassadors privately, after the negotiations with the UK’s Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay, and a visit by May to Brussels, that the chances of an 'accidental' no-deal Brexit were high." linkBarnier was blunt about what May needs to do: "threatening the Brexiters with an extension of article 50, and a delay to the 29 March Brexit day, to win them round to her deal." Instead, she's using the threat of a no-deal crash-out to bludgeon the Opposition into voting for a deal her own party can't pass, a strategy that has shown no sign of working. Each week she promises that she'll throw a Hail Mary pass to win the game over the coming days, and each week she winds up with an incompletion. (OK, that's an American metaphor; in the UK it's said she's looking for the Unicorn.) Now she needs a real miracle. But a senior EU official says, “There will be no deal in the desert.”
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 23, 2019 11:04:40 GMT -5
"Three cabinet ministers who signalled they could vote to delay Britain’s withdrawal from the EU should resign, a Tory Brexiter MP has said. Amber Rudd, Greg Clark and David Gauke should step down, said Andrew Bridgen, a member of the hard-Brexit European Research Group (ERG). He said the ministers were rejecting government policy in breach of cabinet collective responsibility...He accused Downing Street of orchestrating their actions in an attempt to pressurise Tory Brexiters into backing Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement... "It comes after the Guardian revealed cabinet ministers will make it clear they believe May should step down after the local elections in May and allow a new leader to take charge of the next phase of the Brexit negotiations. Senior figures in government have suggested they want the prime minister to leave shortly after the first phase of the Brexit negotiations finishes, or risk being defeated in a vote of no confidence at the end of the year." linkThe crackup of the Tory Party over Brexit continues apace. This is going to be getting uglier on both sides of the House as the deadline approaches,
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 24, 2019 15:55:01 GMT -5
Incredibly, yet almost inevitably, May now has delayed a new vote on her deal yet again. It was supposed to come up on Wednesday of this week, but now she's promising only that it will happen by March 12--just 17 days before a no-deal crash-out. She can't bring up the deal because nothing's changed from when it was crushed on January 29, as May has gone through the motions of negotiating with the EU while actually negotiating with her own Tories, to the annoyance of the EU: "There is also bewilderment that the recent flurry of meetings in Brussels involving May’s Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay, and the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, are being characterised in London as 'negotiations' when the reality is the EU is still waiting for the prime minister to show them the alternative arrangements for the Irish backstop for which she claims to have a majority in support...One senior EU diplomat said May was to blame for failing to confront hardline Eurosceptic Tories. 'She gave the impression that you can stay in your delusional comfort zone, but you can’t,' the diplomat said. 'Unless she is ready to choose there is nothing we can do.'” linkIt's clear now that he UK will need an extension of the Article 50 deadline beyond March 29, even assuming her deal passes, which itself is unlikely. Ships already at sea will be entering Asian ports after that date without yet knowing whether and what kind of tariff regime they may face, or even whether they will be able to unload cargo at all. Most discussions have focused on a 3-month delay, but EU officials now are being cited as saying that a short delay of that kind would be possible only to clear up needed legal/technical issues after passage of the deal. But otherwise they're now talking about a 21-month extension, effectively keeping the UK as an EU member until about January 1, 2021. I'll bet Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nigel Farage will love that, lol! The House will vote on Wednesday on an amendable Government motion. One of the amendments now regarded as almost certain to pass would (again) rule out a no-deal Brexit, leaving the choices pretty stark: approve May's deal, extend the negotiations for 21 months, or drop Brexit altogether. May's deal does not have the votes to pass, but with no-deal off the table it's possible the hard-liners will vote for it to prevent either of the other two outcomes. That would suit May, But it's hard to see enough of the hard-liners coming to her support to pass the bill. The second is a distinct possibility, since kicking the can down the road has been the main strategy for both sides for two years; but that risks a prolonged period of uncertainty, which already has ground economic growth in the UK to 0 percent. The third is possible only if the Commons agrees to a new referendum, which the anti-Brexit MPs would love. The Lib-Dems will try to offer an amendment for a referendum this week, but it's unlikely the Speaker will put it up for a vote because of limited cross-party support. What is more likely is that when May's deal is voted on in March Labour will agree to support it, but only if there's a commitment to then submit it to the voters for final approval. Both major parties have been trying to avoid that because the first referendum showed splits among their base voters, but in the end I don's see how they can avoid it.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 25, 2019 11:35:55 GMT -5
The EU is now explaining to the UK what's going on because May won't or can't: Theresa May will not get her Brexit deal through the Commons, Donald Tusk has warned, leaving the UK with the option of “a chaotic Brexit” or an extension of its membership of the EU beyond 29 March. The European council president, to quell 'speculation', disclosed that, during private talks with the prime minister at a summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, he had walked through the legal process that would need to be followed to delay Brexit. Tusk said it was not the EU’s 'plan' to extend the two-year negotiation but that it was now evident to him that it was the 'rational solution' in light of the prime minister’s failure to corral a majority behind the deal." linkYep, that's what almost certainly is going to happen, too. But May either is lying or is totally oblivious to reality: "Shortly after Tusk spoke at a press conference together with the European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, at the end of the first EU-League of Arab states summit, May said they had had a good meeting but insisted that she remained opposed to any delay...'We have it within our grasp. I’ve had a real sense from the meetings I’ve had here and the conversations I’ve had in recent days that we can achieve that deal. It’s within our grasp to leave with a deal on 29 March and that’s where all of my energies are going to be focused.'” Apparently, "within our grasp" is the new code word for holding out hope something unforeseen will save her deal. But the EU leaders are saying otherwise, and so far they've been proven right every time.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 25, 2019 16:26:58 GMT -5
At long last Corbyn has committed Labour to support a second referendum. As usual with JC [small joke] he's couched it in conditions: first Labour will put up its own Brexit proposal as an alternative to May's, then when it fails will support or submit a motion to hold a referendum on any plan that May does get through the House. Significantly, the alternative to such a deal would be remain as Labour also will support an amendment to block a no-deal exit. These decisions were reached at a meeting of his leadership team today. One of his front benchers told reporters that Corbyn and Labour would campaign for remain. link
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Feb 26, 2019 11:02:47 GMT -5
The PM finally stated the obvious today: "May told lawmakers that if they reject her Brexit deal again next month, they will have an opportunity to vote on whether to ask the European Union to allow Britain to remain a part of the trading bloc beyond the scheduled March 29 departure date." linkIt is not too surprising that both May and Corbyn have been forced to abandon their deranged strategies as the fish-or-cut-bait date for Brexit nears. Both lead parties whose MPs actually oppose Brexit, but with significant blocs of pro-Brexit voters supporting the minority of anti-EU Members. Most UK voters are expressing to pollsters that they're more interested in having this debate over, one way or the other, than with any particular outcome, though each passing month finds less support for Brexit and more for remaining in the EU (remain currently leads by 8-10 points in polls). So, a day after Corbyn had to accede to supporters of a second referendum to stem defections from the Labour back benches, and even his own Shadow Cabinet, May has had to reject, in effect, a no-deal Brexit to keep many of her own Cabinet members from resigning their posts to vote against the government. Both had been straddling these positions for months, to increasing tensions within their own parties. May says any delay would have to be a one-time event (the EU won't agree to one after another delay) and “short and limited.” Just what such a delay would accomplish is unclear. Unless and until she decides to break with the ERG and form a cross-party coalition for a soft Brexit it's hard to imagine what deal she'll be able to pass in June, say, that she can't pass in March. I assume she got an OK on a short delay in discussions over the weekend at the big confab in Egypt, but it did not sound that way from EU leaders. The whole thing is a mess, and everyone knows it. The proposal to let her plan pass but only if it then goes to the voters for a binding final up-or-down vote seems the only way out of it.
|
|