Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit discussion thread IV
Comments
-
It's only a week or so since May said that Norway and Canada, the two deals on the table from the EU, were unacceptable.
So what happened since?0 -
Such a victory to eventually fold and accept the deal that was on the table from day 1, a deal that is still much worse than what they currently have as members of the EU
Absolutely. It's time to get a deal done. This shambles has gone on so long that I no longer care who runs a failing, disintegrating UK.
Whoever wins the election, either Labour or Cons, I just hope that the DUP are sent back, (powerless) to face the consequences of their actions here.0 -
-
Zubeneschamali wrote: »It's only a week or so since May said that Norway and Canada, the two deals on the table from the EU, were unacceptable.
So what happened since?
Her bluff has been called.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
One possible outcome is T May scraping this through without the DUP, she needs to find is it 10 current opposition MPs to balance the DUP voting against her. That's 10 MEPs that T May makes strong promises to, this should be possible as the alternative is a hard brexit and there must be many an MP that don't want that. After securing the deal she calls an election, dumps the DUP and probably renages on her promise to the 10 disciples , just to stay consistent.
She could then change the electoral zones in NI to gerrymander against the DUP, this is something she could tell the DUP is going to happen if they don't support her.
Parliament is then the issue but I think even they would sacrifice NI for a deal. NI still stays part of the UK, just with a border. The DUP get to keep sterling, Westminster, Harry Kane and farage. Sure what would they have to complain about !0 -
FrancieBrady wrote: »Won't May be cheered on as the triumphant EU beater by the media? She will be a shoe-in for majority government on that wave, would she not?
The next election will not be decided on Brexit though. It will be decided by local issues to people and I didn't see any new policies to make people's lives better from the Conservatives at their conference. Her speech was more like a opposition speech where she was only concerned to blame the opposition or spread fear for the leader of the opposition.
How will they solve the housing crises? How will they ensure people's wages go up? How will they ensure the NHS receives the funding it needs? Those are the issues that will win the next election, not Brexit.Professor Moriarty wrote: »In many ways, it boils down to the fact that it will be Corbyn who decides on a soft or hard Brexit and on May's future. She will come back with a Brexit deal that the ERG and DUP won't vote for. Corbyn then has a choice. Does he support the Brexit deal for the good of the country or does he seize the opportunity to stab May. If he does vote against then it's probably election time which will basically be a referendum on a soft or hard Brexit.
He will not vote for any deal as that will only prolong their time in charge. It will not matter if they negotiate the best deal they can that satisfy all the 6 tests (which they won't), Labour leadership will not vote for it. They could get Labour votes though but will it be enough to make up for the ERG and DUP votes that will not vote for different regulations for NI and the UK?0 -
One possible outcome is T May scraping this through without the DUP, she needs to find is it 10 current opposition MPs to balance the DUP voting against her. That's 10 MEPs that T May makes strong promises to, this should be possible as the alternative is a hard brexit and there must be many an MP that don't want that. After securing the deal she calls an election, dumps the DUP and probably renages on her promise to the 10 disciples , just to stay consistent.
She could then change the electoral zones in NI to gerrymander against the DUP, this is something she could tell the DUP is going to happen if they don't support her.
Parliament is then the issue but I think even they would sacrifice NI for a deal. NI still stays part of the UK, just with a border. The DUP get to keep sterling, Westminster, Harry Kane and farage. Sure what would they have to complain about !
My bet is that the DUP will itself implode. It is also a party riven internally and there is plenty of evidence of that.
Arlene was clearly instructed at the last minute to reject the December deal as she was with the deal to get the Assembly back up and running.
She isn't in control of her party either.0 -
One possible outcome is T May scraping this through without the DUP, she needs to find is it 10 current opposition MPs to balance the DUP voting against her. That's 10 MEPs that T May makes strong promises to, this should be possible as the alternative is a hard brexit and there must be many an MP that don't want that. After securing the deal she calls an election, dumps the DUP and probably renages on her promise to the 10 disciples , just to stay consistent.
She could then change the electoral zones in NI to gerrymander against the DUP, this is something she could tell the DUP is going to happen if they don't support her.
Parliament is then the issue but I think even they would sacrifice NI for a deal. NI still stays part of the UK, just with a border. The DUP get to keep sterling, Westminster, Harry Kane and farage. Sure what would they have to complain about !
She will need 10 Labour votes. Labour had a chance to really hurt her when the votes were being done on the customs union but those few Labour votes really screwed up. I doubt that next time there will be the same thing happening, as Labour want an election and the quickest way that happens is if the government cannot get a vote through on Brexit.
She would then not be able to proceed and will have to either call it all off, but will need parliament support for this as well, or negotiate a new deal when there is no time to negotiate one.
On the DUP, surely they would then go back to Stormont and get the assembly back up and running again before Theresa May could implement home rule? Then there is not way the Tories could gerrymander anything.0 -
Does Canada+++ pass Starmer's six tests? (If lines are smudged a bit)
I'm not sure if it does on it's own.
But an all UK customs union backstop - with the intention of proceeding to a Canada +++ trade package once the border could be sorted out mutually between Dublin and London?
I reckon there would be enough support in Parliament for that.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not sure if it does on it's own.
But an all UK customs union backstop - with the intention of proceeding to a Canada +++ trade package once the border could be sorted out mutually between Dublin and London?
I reckon there would be enough support in Parliament for that.
What do you mean by the border being sorted out mutually between Dublin and London?
Also, why would the ERG vote for a customs union when it doesn't allow them to negotiate their own trade deals?0 -
I think that Labour have set their six conditions in the almost certain knowledge that they cannot be met by any deal that May might bring to parliament. They are banking on May being defeated and a GE being triggered, (she be unlikely to win a vote of confidence).
However I don't think that Labour would win a GE.......Corbyn is simply too left for many of the British voters who might otherwise have voted for a more centrist Labour.
In other words :- Back to square 1.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote:It's only a week or so since May said that Norway and Canada, the two deals on the table from the EU, were unacceptable.
So what happened since?
The Tory party conference.0 -
-
What do you mean by the border being sorted out mutually between Dublin and London?
Also, why would the ERG vote for a customs union when it doesn't allow them to negotiate their own trade deals?
I think you have to ask yourself - if the political will and mutual good faith were there - what possible solutions there could be, or could have been, which would avoid the need to trigger a backstop. I am still not convinced that some combination of 'soft' checks along the lines of the ones proposed in the Irish Sea, but perhaps on the Island as well, together with some degree of regulatory alignment & mutual co-operation and technology could not provide a workable solution which - if the goodwill were there - would meet all the requirements of London & Dublin.
Without re-running the what-ifs of the border debate here and now it is impossible to escape the conclusion that there has been political posturing and grandstanding from almost every direction on this issue - that is *why* it needs to be de-dramatized. The DUP are perhaps the worst offenders, but their moment of power will melt away in due course, as will the valiant hope of some in Brussels and Dublin that the border issue might have proved enough of a spanner in the works to prompt a bigger rethink in the UK. In the meantime it will be enough to take their teeth out.
The problem with the situation as it stands is that the EU is taking a hostage - figuratively speaking - in the form of NI and the border. The backstop as presently conceived means that until the EU gets what it wants the UK doesn't "get it's province back"... what is needed instead, for a successful negotiation, is an exchange of hostages. As correctly pointed out yesterday the whole of a newly competitive UK remaining in the customs union is something of a threat to the EU and perhaps most of all to Ireland. If the UK remains in the customs union not only is the NI border issue solved pro-tem but there is a mutual need (UK for external trade deals, EU to remove the competitive threat) for the situation to evolve into something more permanent.
The ERG can be quietened because the CU status is temporary, and in any case there would - I think - be enough labour support to cancel them out.
The one thing labour dread is anybody scratching too hard at their stance on Brexit - it's just too much of an unfortunate issue and, unlike the Tories, it is not one of their own making. My honest opinion is that the last thing they want is a "Brexit Election" if it carries any risk that they would be seen to be either (a) breaking faith with the electorate and stopping Brexit or (b) Torpedoing a workable deal of any sort simply for their own political gain. In either case they would risk losing badly and it would surely be the end of Corbyn. Given their ambiguous position and their stated support for a customs union I'm pretty sure they could find a way to vote for one as part of a better backstop.0 -
-
Interesting article by Marc Roche, originally in French, on politico.eu. What I find scary, is I don't think it's satire, I think he's serious.
https://www.politico.eu/article/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-brexit/
Great lines, like: "The country’s acceptance of social and class inequalities, the total deregulation of the labor market, its pool of cheap labor, the weakening of trade unions and the reduced scope of its welfare state may be anathema to most Europeans. But together they will offer an advantage to a nation that has always been Darwinian and believed in the survival of the fittest."
"The U.K., free from economic nationalism, has not hesitated to sell the finest jewels in its industrial crown to the highest bidder. What other country would have given up entire parts of its nuclear industry to the Chinese in this way?"0 -
So where do we find ourselves today in order to get a deal?
Theresa May has repeatedly stated that the UK will leave the EU customs union and the single market when they leave the EU. She has proposed her Chequers plan as the way to get the best deal for the UK. She also has her red lines drawn in the sand.
Labour has said they will not support any deal that is basically not remaining the in EU. They will vote against Chequers. They have their own red lines marked as six tests.
The DUP is the only party in power in NI and they want to leave the EU. They will also not accept different regulations between NI and the UK. They have their own red lines as well.
The ERG wants only a trade deal with the EU and will not accept Chequers. They also have enough members to trigger a leadership contest and more than enough votes to vote down any plans from May if Labour doesn't support it.
The EU cannot change their rules to suit the UK and have given the UK the options. They also point out that due to GFA there has to be frictionless trade between Ireland and NI in the main. This is done through membership of the EU for both Ireland and the UK.
So the question is, unless someone walks back on their position that they have staked we will sleepwalk into a no-deal Brexit, who will be the first and possibly only one to blink?0 -
I think you have to ask yourself - if the political will and mutual good faith were there - what possible solutions there could be, or could have been, which would avoid the need to trigger a backstop. I am still not convinced that some combination of 'soft' checks along the lines of the ones proposed in the Irish Sea, but perhaps on the Island as well, together with some degree of regulatory alignment & mutual co-operation and technology could not provide a workable solution which - if the goodwill were there - would meet all the requirements of London & Dublin.
Without re-running the what-ifs of the border debate here and now it is impossible to escape the conclusion that there has been political posturing and grandstanding from almost every direction on this issue - that is *why* it needs to be de-dramatized. The DUP are perhaps the worst offenders, but their moment of power will melt away in due course, as will the valiant hope of some in Brussels and Dublin that the border issue might have proved enough of a spanner in the works to prompt a bigger rethink in the UK. In the meantime it will be enough to take their teeth out.
The problem with the situation as it stands is that the EU is taking a hostage - figuratively speaking - in the form of NI and the border. The backstop as presently conceived means that until the EU gets what it wants the UK doesn't "get it's province back"... what is needed instead, for a successful negotiation, is an exchange of hostages. As correctly pointed out yesterday the whole of a newly competitive UK remaining in the customs union is something of a threat to the EU and perhaps most of all to Ireland. If the UK remains in the customs union not only is the NI border issue solved pro-tem but there is a mutual need (UK for external trade deals, EU to remove the competitive threat) for the situation to evolve into something more permanent.
The ERG can be quietened because the CU status is temporary, and in any case there would - I think - be enough labour support to cancel them out.
The one thing labour dread is anybody scratching too hard at their stance on Brexit - it's just too much of an unfortunate issue and, unlike the Tories, it is not one of their own making. My honest opinion is that the last thing they want is a "Brexit Election" if it carries any risk that they would be seen to be either (a) breaking faith with the electorate and stopping Brexit or (b) Torpedoing a workable deal of any sort simply for their own political gain. In either case they would risk losing badly and it would surely be the end of Corbyn. Given their ambiguous position and their stated support for a customs union I'm pretty sure they could find a way to vote for one as part of a better backstop.
The EU isn't keeping NI hostage. NI is kept hostage by the terms of the Good Friday Agreement which was signed between the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
The EU would accept (or rather insist on) a hard border between NI and the Republic except for the fact that Ireland won't accept that because it would mean the end of the peace process (and significant economic hardship along the border regions)
If anything, It's Ireland who are holding NI hostage, but we are within our rights and morally obliged to ensure that there isn't a return to sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.0 -
Interesting article by Marc Roche, originally in French, on politico.eu. What I find scary, is I don't think it's satire, I think he's serious.
https://www.politico.eu/article/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-brexit/
Great lines, like: "The country’s acceptance of social and class inequalities, the total deregulation of the labor market, its pool of cheap labor, the weakening of trade unions and the reduced scope of its welfare state may be anathema to most Europeans. But together they will offer an advantage to a nation that has always been Darwinian and believed in the survival of the fittest."
"The U.K., free from economic nationalism, has not hesitated to sell the finest jewels in its industrial crown to the highest bidder. What other country would have given up entire parts of its nuclear industry to the Chinese in this way?"
I think he is right - not necessarily about whether Brexit will succeed (his crystal ball is no better than any of ours).. but about the gulf in understanding between Europe and the UK on this. I've been trying to convey that from time to time on this thread - particularly where the City of London is concerned - but it is very rare to find anyone, particularly here in Ireland, who sees both sides objectively.
I'm not sure that I agree with his assessment that the EU is on the brink of implosion. That day may come (again?), but it is a way off yet IMO.0 -
Advertisement
-
The EU isn't keeping NI hostage. NI is kept hostage by the terms of the Good Friday Agreement which was signed between the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
The EU would accept (or rather insist on) a hard border between NI and the Republic except for the fact that Ireland won't accept that because it would mean the end of the peace process (and significant economic hardship along the border regions)
If anything, It's Ireland who are holding NI hostage, but we are within our rights and morally obliged to ensure that there isn't a return to sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.
Hostage to peace?
That's an interesting take on it. A very DUP/Boris Johnson type take on it.0 -
So where do we find ourselves today in order to get a deal?
Theresa May has repeatedly stated that the UK will leave the EU customs union and the single market when they leave the EU. She has proposed her Chequers plan as the way to get the best deal for the UK. She also has her red lines drawn in the sand.
Labour has said they will not support any deal that is basically not remaining the in EU. They will vote against Chequers. They have their own red lines marked as six tests.
The DUP is the only party in power in NI and they want to leave the EU. They will also not accept different regulations between NI and the UK. They have their own red lines as well.
The ERG wants only a trade deal with the EU and will not accept Chequers. They also have enough members to trigger a leadership contest and more than enough votes to vote down any plans from May if Labour doesn't support it.
The EU cannot change their rules to suit the UK and have given the UK the options. They also point out that due to GFA there has to be frictionless trade between Ireland and NI in the main. This is done through membership of the EU for both Ireland and the UK.
So the question is, unless someone walks back on their position that they have staked we will sleepwalk into a no-deal Brexit, who will be the first and possibly only one to blink?
The most obvious solution is that everybody, from the EU to May to the DUP & the ERG will move away from their original positions and converge around the least worst solution.
They will console themselves, and their various interest groups, that the new position is only temporary, a part of a process, and in any case represents a victory for the most important of their stated principles.
And life will go on, because that is how deals work.0 -
I think you have to ask yourself - if the political will and mutual good faith were there - what possible solutions there could be, or could have been, which would avoid the need to trigger a backstop. I am still not convinced that some combination of 'soft' checks along the lines of the ones proposed in the Irish Sea, but perhaps on the Island as well, together with some degree of regulatory alignment & mutual co-operation and technology could not provide a workable solution which - if the goodwill were there - would meet all the requirements of London & Dublin.
Without re-running the what-ifs of the border debate here and now it is impossible to escape the conclusion that there has been political posturing and grandstanding from almost every direction on this issue - that is *why* it needs to be de-dramatized. The DUP are perhaps the worst offenders, but their moment of power will melt away in due course, as will the valiant hope of some in Brussels and Dublin that the border issue might have proved enough of a spanner in the works to prompt a bigger rethink in the UK. In the meantime it will be enough to take their teeth out.
The problem with the situation as it stands is that the EU is taking a hostage - figuratively speaking - in the form of NI and the border. The backstop as presently conceived means that until the EU gets what it wants the UK doesn't "get it's province back"... what is needed instead, for a successful negotiation, is an exchange of hostages. As correctly pointed out yesterday the whole of a newly competitive UK remaining in the customs union is something of a threat to the EU and perhaps most of all to Ireland. If the UK remains in the customs union not only is the NI border issue solved pro-tem but there is a mutual need (UK for external trade deals, EU to remove the competitive threat) for the situation to evolve into something more permanent.
The ERG can be quietened because the CU status is temporary, and in any case there would - I think - be enough labour support to cancel them out.
The one thing labour dread is anybody scratching too hard at their stance on Brexit - it's just too much of an unfortunate issue and, unlike the Tories, it is not one of their own making. My honest opinion is that the last thing they want is a "Brexit Election" if it carries any risk that they would be seen to be either (a) breaking faith with the electorate and stopping Brexit or (b) Torpedoing a workable deal of any sort simply for their own political gain. In either case they would risk losing badly and it would surely be the end of Corbyn. Given their ambiguous position and their stated support for a customs union I'm pretty sure they could find a way to vote for one as part of a better backstop.
We, Dublin, have had our say with regards to what we want to happen. However we are a small part in the EU machine that will do what is right for the EU. If not we can leave as well. We have thus passed on the negotiations to the EU and they are talking on our behalf. The story from yesterday stated that while the plan may be fine for Varadkar it still needs to be agreed by Barnier. So that is why I asked why you posted about Dublin and London when this is not where the negotiations are happening.
As my post above refers, there is way too many red lines in the sand right now for a customs union to be agreed. If Labour knows the ERG will vote against that deal why would they back it? They are prepared for a general election as they believe they will win.
Also, there will be zero threat from the UK if they join a customs union. The EU will not allow the UK to make their own trade deals if they are in a customs union with the EU. That cannot happen, so they will not have an advantage over other EU countries. They could lower their corporate tax rates, but they can do that now so I don't see any way that being in a customs union (or the EU customs union, its the same thing) will be an advantage. They will have to pay the EU to participate in the institutions that they will still require for day to day things (EMA, EASA) but will have zero (nil, 0, nothing) say or representatives there to shape any of those institutions.
So tell me again where is the advantage other than thinking they have the upper hand?0 -
The EU isn't keeping NI hostage. NI is kept hostage by the terms of the Good Friday Agreement which was signed between the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
The EU would accept (or rather insist on) a hard border between NI and the Republic except for the fact that Ireland won't accept that because it would mean the end of the peace process (and significant economic hardship along the border regions)
If anything, It's Ireland who are holding NI hostage, but we are within our rights and morally obliged to ensure that there isn't a return to sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.
NI is not "held hostage" by the EU position because that is what people in NI want.0 -
The most obvious solution is that everybody, from the EU to May to the DUP & the ERG will move away from their original positions and converge around the least worst solution.
They will console themselves, and their various interest groups, that the new position is only temporary, a part of a process, and in any case represents a victory for the most important of their stated principles.
And life will go on, because that is how deals work.
Are you sure you know why the EU works? Because thinking that the EU has to compromise on article 50 with the UK is the same type of thinking we have seen from Brexiteers that think the EU will fold as well.
The EU is a rules based organization. It works (most of the time) because of these rules. It is because of these rules that the EU cannot move their position. They cannot offer the UK a deal that is better than the deal with Canada or South Korea or Japan, otherwise they will need to re-negotiate those deals as well. So the UK can get a FTA like those countries if they leave the single market and the customs union (EU rules) but the terms will be worse than they currently have.
They will not get access to the single market for free. They will also not be in a customs union but be able to negotiate their own trade deals. There really is no compromise on this from the EU, otherwise all other countries outside of the EU will demand the same. All countries in the EU will want the same as well and that could well spell the end of the EU.0 -
We, Dublin, have had our say with regards to what we want to happen. However we are a small part in the EU machine that will do what is right for the EU. If not we can leave as well. We have thus passed on the negotiations to the EU and they are talking on our behalf. The story from yesterday stated that while the plan may be fine for Varadkar it still needs to be agreed by Barnier. So that is why I asked why you posted about Dublin and London when this is not where the negotiations are happening.
As my post above refers, there is way too many red lines in the sand right now for a customs union to be agreed. If Labour knows the ERG will vote against that deal why would they back it? They are prepared for a general election as they believe they will win.
Also, there will be zero threat from the UK if they join a customs union. The EU will not allow the UK to make their own trade deals if they are in a customs union with the EU. That cannot happen, so they will not have an advantage over other EU countries. They could lower their corporate tax rates, but they can do that now so I don't see any way that being in a customs union (or the EU customs union, its the same thing) will be an advantage. They will have to pay the EU to participate in the institutions that they will still require for day to day things (EMA, EASA) but will have zero (nil, 0, nothing) say or representatives there to shape any of those institutions.
So tell me again where is the advantage other than thinking they have the upper hand?
Firstly, not to put to fine a point on it, when making a deal thinking you have the upper hand, and being able to present it that way, is often more important than actually having it.
Would the UK in the CU be a threat? Long term I suspect it would, as others here have pointed out, but you are correct that it would come at the cost of external trade deals. It would therefore be a backstop which both sides had - in theory - an interest in avoiding or moving away from. That's a better kind of backstop than the one where NI does what the EU wants until the UK is able to produce a real live unicorn (to their satisfaction). Nothing is perfect but I believe that might get us somewhere.
As for labour - and bear in mind most of the electorate are sick of Brexit and "just want to get on with it".... would they really bring down a harmless enough looking deal in order to (try and) go to the country?
What would Corbyn say when asked on Newsnight why he brought down a plausible looking deal which would keep factories running on 29th March?
What reason would he have for voting with Rees Mogg (other than a cynical bid to win downing street).
He would be trying to sell no deal vs a deal and he wouldn't stand a chance.0 -
Firstly, not to put to fine a point on it, when making a deal thinking you have the upper hand, and being able to present it that way, is often more important than actually having it.
Would the UK in the CU be a threat? Long term I suspect it would, as others here have pointed out, but you are correct that it would come at the cost of external trade deals. It would therefore be a backstop which both sides had - in theory - an interest in avoiding or moving away from. That's a better kind of backstop than the one where NI does what the EU wants until the UK is able to produce a real live unicorn (to their satisfaction). Nothing is perfect but I believe that might get us somewhere.
As for labour - and bear in mind most of the electorate are sick of Brexit and "just want to get on with it".... would they really bring down a harmless enough looking deal in order to (try and) go to the country?
What would Corbyn say when asked on Newsnight why he brought down a plausible looking deal which would keep factories running on 29th March?
What reason would he have for voting with Rees Mogg (other than a cynical bid to win downing street).
He would be trying to sell no deal vs a deal and he wouldn't stand a chance.
Well what about having the upper hand and knowing you have it as well? What reason is there to compromise at all then?
The comment on the article yesterday seems to have the UK having all of the benefits of the EU without paying for it. If the EU agreed to that then it would be a major coup for the UK. I don't believe that will happen though.
On Labour voting against the government, yes they would to get into power. The government has had more than enough time to set out a position on Brexit and negotiate it with the EU already. The fact that they haven't even been able to do that yet means that Labour is under no obligation to allow them to continue. In any case if Labour would vote for a Theresa May deal and it works out for everyone they are voting themselves out of power for the next 12 years.
That is a consequence of a two party system. There is zero upside for Labour ensuring that the government of the day succeeds.0 -
Well what about having the upper hand and knowing you have it as well? What reason is there to compromise at all then?
The comment on the article yesterday seems to have the UK having all of the benefits of the EU without paying for it. If the EU agreed to that then it would be a major coup for the UK. I don't believe that will happen though.
On Labour voting against the government, yes they would to get into power. The government has had more than enough time to set out a position on Brexit and negotiate it with the EU already. The fact that they haven't even been able to do that yet means that Labour is under no obligation to allow them to continue. In any case if Labour would vote for a Theresa May deal and it works out for everyone they are voting themselves out of power for the next 12 years.
That is a consequence of a two party system. There is zero upside for Labour ensuring that the government of the day succeeds.
I'm not sure that your reading of the FTPA is correct. Corbyn could not - on his own - bring about a vote of no confidence and there is no reason on the face of it that the ERG would join him to secure one. As far as I am aware Tory rebels can vote down legislation without it becoming a confidence issue.
And whilst that might be unprecedented - and uncomfortable - for May with Brexit looming she would have every justification in remaining in office to supervise no deal, or try for a last minute improvement, or whatever....0 -
I'm not sure that your reading of the FTPA is correct. Corbyn could not - on his own - bring about a vote of no confidence and there is no reason on the face of it that the ERG would join him to secure one. As far as I am aware Tory rebels can vote down legislation without it becoming a confidence issue.
And whilst that might be unprecedented - and uncomfortable - for May with Brexit looming she would have every justification in remaining in office to supervise no deal, or try for a last minute improvement, or whatever....
Roadmap to chaos: How a general election could happen by accidentThe second route is more complex and therefore more open to the law of unintended consequences. If the government loses the crucial vote on its Brexit deal, it is likely to face a vote of confidence in the House of Commons. Given the government's working majority of seven, it would take just over a handful of aggrieved Tory MPs (or all the DUP's MPs) to push May's government over the edge.
Either side of the Brexit debate could harness this mechanism. If May offered a softer version of Brexit, it is very possible eurosceptic Tory MPs could use it. If she set out a clear path to no-deal, it would be Remain Tory MPs' clearest next step in asserting what they see as an overwhelming parliamentary majority for a soft Brexit.
The rules demand that there would then be a two-week period in which MPs would have the opportunity to decide among themselves whether a new government could be formed. If, by the end of that period, no new government can be pieced together, we would traipse to the polls soon after.
The article then goes on to explain that a vote like this may not mean a general election but a mere flexing of muscles, but the arithmetic of the HoC at the moment means that even with a new government you are still in the same position. Labour will vote against the deal. If it is too hard then Tory rebels will vote against it. If it is too soft then the ERG and DUP votes against it.
That is why Labour will not support the government in a Brexit vote.0 -
Advertisement
-
Roadmap to chaos: How a general election could happen by accident
The article then goes on to explain that a vote like this may not mean a general election but a mere flexing of muscles, but the arithmetic of the HoC at the moment means that even with a new government you are still in the same position. Labour will vote against the deal. If it is too hard then Tory rebels will vote against it. If it is too soft then the ERG and DUP votes against it.
That is why Labour will not support the government in a Brexit vote.
None of that lays out an inevitable path to an election.
Surely the ERG tactic would be to vote down a deal (with Labour's help) and simply allow a hard Brexit to take place by default?. Supporting Labour and triggering a general election is hardly going to get them where they want to go?
What's more, the timing of legislation to support a Brexit deal is presumably somewhat within the control of the government.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement