So this vote that Mrs May lost, I'm assuming it is some irrelevance

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

that she was expected to lose?

When is the Monty was confidently calling yesterday? The one which will tells us if he is indeed an astute observer of the political zeitgeist who can sense the complex machinations at the heart of the bodies politic, or just another babbling quarter-wit :-)

[Burney]

that she was expected to lose?

When is the Monty was confidently calling yesterday? The one which will tells us if he is indeed an astute observer of the political zeitgeist who can sense the complex machinations at the heart of the bodies politic, or just another babbling quarter-wit :-)

The vote was never really supposed to take place. The Soubry amendment was supposed to be passed, meaning the vote would be postponed. However, the Government (which really does combine arrogance and incompetence to a quite spectacular degree) gave way on the Soubry amendment and tried to force its motion through anyway in the belief that the ERG would acquiesce (a naive belief dear old Monty clearly shared). The Government miscalculated appallingly, the ERG abstained and the motion was defeated, leaving May unable to claim she has any Parliamentary majority for her deal.

[Monty92]

The vote was never really supposed to take place. The Soubry amendment was supposed to be passed, meaning the vote would be postponed. However, the Government (which really does combine arrogance and incompetence to a quite spectacular degree) gave way on the Soubry amendment and tried to force its motion through anyway in the belief that the ERG would acquiesce (a naive belief dear old Monty clearly shared). The Government miscalculated appallingly, the ERG abstained and the motion was defeated, leaving May unable to claim she has any Parliamentary majority for her deal.

That last bit is fundamentally untrue. The ERG were quite clear that the reason they abstained was not because they'd changed their mind on the Brady amendment (which they previously supported and which endorses May's deal) but because supporting yesterday's specific motion would have also taken No Deal off the table.

In fact, after the vote Steve Baker of the ERG made a notable slip of the tongue, admitting he would vote for a deal that had "changes" to the backstop, before panicking and correcting himself that he meant "removing" the backstop.

So my original (and derided by you) prediction that the ERG will vote for a deal that still had the backstop (and probably had no meaningful changes to it) still holds firm.

[Burney]

That last bit is fundamentally untrue. The ERG were quite clear that the reason they abstained was not because they'd changed their mind on the Brady amendment (which they previously supported and which endorses May's deal) but because supporting yesterday's specific motion would have also taken No Deal off the table.

In fact, after the vote Steve Baker of the ERG made a notable slip of the tongue, admitting he would vote for a deal that had "changes" to the backstop, before panicking and correcting himself that he meant "removing" the backstop.

So my original (and derided by you) thesis that the ERG will vote for a deal with no meaningful changes to the backstop still holds firm.

But what you seem quite unable to get through your head, m, is that what you define as 'not significant' may in fact be really quite significant as far as we and Brussels are concerned. All sides know that the desired end-game is an amendment to the language on the backstop that offers the UK an escape route. That would be extremely 'significant'.

[Monty92]

I understand that. And my prediction is that the EU will grant a last-minute, face-saving, but not legally binding change (i.e. not a direct change to the withdrawal agreement) that the ERG will reluctantly support.

Because the choice will be either that or no Brexit (given that, if it came to the crunch, labour will vote through a deal rather than allow no deal)


But what you seem quite unable to get through your head, m, is that what you define as 'not significant' may in fact be really quite significant as far as we and Brussels are concerned. All sides know that the desired end-game is an amendment to the language on the backstop that offers the UK an escape route. That would be extremely 'significant'.

[Pokster]

that she was expected to lose?

When is the Monty was confidently calling yesterday? The one which will tells us if he is indeed an astute observer of the political zeitgeist who can sense the complex machinations at the heart of the bodies politic, or just another babbling quarter-wit :-)

Ahh but it gives some on here the right to spout crap and act as if they know something about politic,s when it is plain to everyone else that they know as much on that subject as Rich does on football

[Burney]

I understand that. And my prediction is that the EU will grant a last-minute, face-saving, but not legally binding change (i.e. not a direct change to the withdrawal agreement) that the ERG will reluctantly support.

Because the choice will be either that or no Brexit (given that, if it came to the crunch, labour will vote through a deal rather than allow no deal)

No. Y'see that's one idea you need to abandon. No Brexit simply isn't an option for anyone anymore. Neither major party could electorally survive not leaving the EU and - frankly - the last thing the EU wants is us still in as a deeply resentful, disruptive and destructive force. One way or another, we're leaving.
Now you could certainly argue that whatever deal is done is not true Brexit or BRINO or whatever, but the fact is that No Brexit (and a second vote) are actually the things that are now definitively off the table.

[Monty92]

Ok, so it’s it’s March 28th and there’s one final
chance for parliament to vote through her deal (via a short extension) or face no deal.

How many non-ERG members vote down her deal, in your estimate?


No. Y'see that's one idea you need to abandon. No Brexit simply isn't an option for anyone anymore. Neither major party could electorally survive not leaving the EU and - frankly - the last thing the EU wants is us still in as a deeply resentful, disruptive and destructive force. One way or another, we're leaving.
Now you could certainly argue that whatever deal is done is not true Brexit or BRINO or whatever, but the fact is that No Brexit (and a second vote) are actually the things that are now definitively off the table.

[Burney]

Ok, so it’s it’s March 28th and there’s one final
chance for parliament to vote through her deal (via a short extension) or face no deal.

How many non-ERG members vote down her deal, in your estimate?

I've no idea what the political arithmetic would look like at that point (or what Labour might do).

But her deal would still be Brexit. :shrug: It's not a Brexit I'd particularly favour, but it is Brexit. We would leave the EU.

Like I say, there is no option of 'No Brexit'.

[Monty92]

You have every idea. You know fulll well that no more than 3-4 labour MPs would vote down her deal in that scenario.

As for No Brexit, the enduring spectre of No Brexit via a long extension of article 50 (which *is* still very much on the table) would amount to much the same thing in the ERG’s eyes.



I've no idea what the political arithmetic would look like at that point (or what Labour might do).

But her deal would still be Brexit. :shrug: It's not a Brexit I'd particularly favour, but it is Brexit. We would leave the EU.

Like I say, there is no option of 'No Brexit'.

[Burney]

You have every idea. You know that no more than 3-4 labour MPs would vote down her deal in that scenario.

As for no Brexit, the enduring spectre of no Brexit vis a long extension of article 50 (which *is* still very much on the table) would amount to much the same thing in the ERG’s eyes.

A long extension to Article 50 is a nice threat to wave at the ERG, but everyone knows it's not politically sustainable because a/ The EU cannot have us half-in, half-out indefinitely and b/ At some point a government will have to fight an election (sooner rather than later given that it will be impossible to command a majority in the event of such an outcome), which will be impossible to do successfully in such circumstances.

[Monty92]

Well that will be tested shortly with the cooper boles amendment which labour has said they will whip hard to support.


A long extension to Article 50 is a nice threat to wave at the ERG, but everyone knows it's not politically sustainable because a/ The EU cannot have us half-in, half-out indefinitely and b/ At some point a government will have to fight an election (sooner rather than later given that it will be impossible to command a majority in the event of such an outcome), which will be impossible to do successfully in such circumstances.

[WES]

Well that will be tested shortly with the cooper boles amendment which labour has said they will whip hard to support.

My view is that at the last minute the EU will offer us something short of no backstop but that will be enough for May to get her deal through as the only other option will be no deal. And I think it will be Labour votes not ERG votes that swing it her way.

Is that contrary to anything I have posted in the past? :sherlock:

[WES]

My view is that at the last minute the EU will offer us something short of no backstop but that will be enough for May to get her deal through as the only other option will be no deal. And I think it will be Labour votes not ERG votes that swing it her way.

Is that contrary to anything I have posted in the past? :sherlock:

Oh, and when that happens those that have used some pretty strong hyperbole when describing her deal and her performance and herself will look awfully stupid.

I'm pretty certain I have posted nothing contrary to that view. I've always said she was making a pretty good fist of an incredibly difficult position.

[Burney]

My view is that at the last minute the EU will offer us something short of no backstop but that will be enough for May to get her deal through as the only other option will be no deal. And I think it will be Labour votes not ERG votes that swing it her way.

Is that contrary to anything I have posted in the past? :sherlock:

I think pretty much everyone believes this is what the EU will do. However, it is a high-risk manoeuvre that still allows plenty of scope for failure.
If (as seems likely) May needs Labour votes to get her deal, she will be widely seen as having betrayed her party, membership and a large proportion of her voters and her position will be largely untenable. She would almost certainly then have to stand down (the knives will be out as soon as Brexit - in whatever form - is delivered. The tory party will probably never recover from such an outcome (but it's arguable that that was always likely to have been the case given its fundamental splits on this issue - which will by that stage have destroyed every Tory PM since Heath).
Now, you may say she's 'made a good fist' of an impossible situation and from a purely dispassionate view that may be the case. However, politics is not a dispassionate business and the fact is that she may well go down in history as the Prime Minister who broke the Tory party and let Jeremy Corbyn into Downing St. Given which, I would question how well she would be viewed by posterity.

[WES]

I think pretty much everyone believes this is what the EU will do. However, it is a high-risk manoeuvre that still allows plenty of scope for failure.
If (as seems likely) May needs Labour votes to get her deal, she will be widely seen as having betrayed her party, membership and a large proportion of her voters and her position will be largely untenable. She would almost certainly then have to stand down (the knives will be out as soon as Brexit - in whatever form - is delivered. The tory party will probably never recover from such an outcome (but it's arguable that that was always likely to have been the case given its fundamental splits on this issue - which will by that stage have destroyed every Tory PM since Heath).
Now, you may say she's 'made a good fist' of an impossible situation and from a purely dispassionate view that may be the case. However, politics is not a dispassionate business and the fact is that she may well go down in history as the Prime Minister who broke the Tory party and let Jeremy Corbyn into Downing St. Given which, I would question how well she would be viewed by posterity.

I thought there had been an agreement that she tries to deliver Brexit and then steps down? I would have thought that delivering her deal and then stepping aside for someone electable would put the Tories in a very strong position, no?

Certainly given how badly Labour has performed on the Brexit front and who their leader is I would have thought the Tories would be looking at a majority.

[Burney]

I thought there had been an agreement that she tries to deliver Brexit and then steps down? I would have thought that delivering her deal and then stepping aside for someone electable would put the Tories in a very strong position, no?

Certainly given how badly Labour has performed on the Brexit front and who their leader is I would have thought the Tories would be looking at a majority.

No. She's supposed to have said she won't fight the next election. That's not quite the same thing. And besides, nobody in her party believes a single thing that comes out of her mouth any more.

And regardless of who steps up, they have the same problem. A remainer and you have a continuation of the same issue people have with her. A Brexiteer (which is certainly what the membership would vote for) and that person is at odds with their parliamentary party. Add to that the very real anger among many, many Tory voters over their handling of Brexit and the possibility of a Brexit party of protest and I'm just not sure the Tory party is in any position to fight an election right now.

And actually, Corbyn's lot have played Brexit pretty well. They've played both ends against the middle such that they can claim to be both the voice of reason and consensus in delivering a soft Brexit (thus keeping all but their most rabid remain voters onboard) while not being seen to betray the wishes of their Leave-voting heartlands. Everything else they say and believe is a reason not to vote for them, but on Brexit they look likely to escape with a certain amount of credit and (more crucially) none of the blame.

[Monty92]

If may’s deal goes through it will be seen by the overwhelming majority of labour mps and members as a bad Brexit, not a soft Brexit. And Corbyn will be seen by them as having facilitated it. Not sure how he can survive that either, although a new leader could emerge who has managed to keep their nose clean with the members on the prospect of a 2nd referendum - the obvious candidate there being Starmer.




No. She's supposed to have said she won't fight the next election. That's not quite the same thing. And besides, nobody in her party believes a single thing that comes out of her mouth any more.

And regardless of who steps up, they have the same problem. A remainer and you have a continuation of the same issue people have with her. A Brexiteer (which is certainly what the membership would vote for) and that person is at odds with their parliamentary party. Add to that the very real anger among many, many Tory voters over their handling of Brexit and the possibility of a Brexit party of protest and I'm just not sure the Tory party is in any position to fight an election right now.

And actually, Corbyn's lot have played Brexit pretty well. They've played both ends against the middle such that they can claim to be both the voice of reason and consensus in delivering a soft Brexit (thus keeping all but their most rabid remain voters onboard) while not being seen to betray the wishes of their Leave-voting heartlands. Everything else they say and believe is a reason not to vote for them, but on Brexit they look likely to escape with a certain amount of credit and (more crucially) none of the blame.

[Burney]

If may’s deal goes through it will be seen by the overwhelming majority of labour mps and members as a bad Brexit, not a soft Brexit. And Corbyn will be seen by them as having facilitated it. Not sure how he can survive that either, although a new leader could emerge who has managed to keep their nose clean with the members on the prospect of a 2nd referendum - the obvious candidate there being Starmer.

Well since your argument for it going through is that most of those MPs will have voted for it, they can hardly complain afterwards, can they? And if for any reason it doesn't go through, they get to blame the tories for no deal.

And Labour members increasingly don't give a toss about Brexit. They're more interested in smashing capitalism and gassing your lot. To the core leave voters in the heartlands (which is what really counts), Brexit will be seen to have been delivered and Jezza to have got it over the line. They will all then continue to vote Labour and have their kids raped by taxi drivers and kebab shop workers.
The only real anger over it will be in London and they'll all still vote Labour anyway.