What is the most likely worse case scenario?

I’m assuming no deal is pretty much dead.

I’m assuming no deal is pretty much dead.

I thought it was still the default come 12th April?

In the same way that the default for you is that you can’t travel abroad once your passport hits its expiry date… only happens if you decide not to renew it.

In the same way that the default for you is that you can’t travel abroad once your passport hits its expiry date… only happens if you decide not to renew it.

If only it were that simple. Renewing a passport is a well established procedure. To make the analogy accurate, I would have to be trying to create a passport office and invent procedures that would work for millions of people, all with a couple of weeks. All the while a bunch of people are insting the old passports work just fine so why bother renewing, while another bunch of pepople would be insisting that we didn’t really need passports any way.

The most likely outcome is the passport doesn’t get renewed.

I’m assuming no deal is pretty much dead.

One of the Maybots endlessly repeated statements is actually true and actually means something: “nothing has changed”

For all this shenanigans going on, the default position is that if this chaos isn’t sorted within the next 2 weeks, we crash out with no deal.

Newsnight was interesting last night. It said that at the emergency cabinet meeting yesterday, the future of the country wasn’t really discussed, everything was couched in reference to the survival of the Tory party. Thats the only priority. Everything else is incidental to May.

And as the ERG know only too well, and had confirmed to them on Sunday at Chequers, that means keeping them sweet. So if she has to deliver the No Deal they yearn for, to keep them onside, don’t delude yourself for a second that she won’t deliver it.

Every single thing they’ve demanded for over two years now, has been delivered to them, gift-wrapped by Theresa May.

I can’t see anything else other than No Deal. May just moved the date back a few weeks, but the maths never changed. The country is still being held hostage by a tiny bunch of noisy lunatics who will never ever be placated.

This was exactly the reason Richard Harrington (a rare sane Tory) gave for resigning yesterday. Because a tiny minority of the truly unhinged are conducting (in his words) an ‘economic experiment’ with the countries future, and being indulged in doing so by a powerless and craven PM

If only it were that simple.

The procedure for stopping a no deal Brexit on the 12th April is set out… either ask for another extension, or unilaterally recind A50 notification. Legislation then needs changing to reflect the new date (or the pause/stop). Our membership of the EU only expires with “No Deal” if we don’t take the steps required. A choice not to ‘renew’ is a choice.

The most likely outcome is the passport doesn’t get renewed.

Maybe, but that would be the choice of our parliamentarians. No wriggling off the hook for them if that’s where we go next… it’s on them.

It is total confusion, while the headlines are that parliament has taken control, I just don’t see it that way, all parliament can do is vote down Government proposals. Anything else is just window dressing, Government still has to adopt any alternative proposals voted on in order to make it policy, and they are showing absolutely no willingness to do so, in fact the government central cabal is just digging trenches to try and force through their already rejected policy.

I have seen nothing that suggests parliament can force alternatives onto a government who are willfully ignoring any and every other option.

technically I think you are right…..everything parliament can do is advisory (I’m sure I’ve seen that word used somewhere else) and can be ignored if the Government so desire.

But to ignore parliament at this stage, and with this much at stake and with such a swell of parliamentary and public opinion growing against it, to do so – I might be naive but I can’t see it. This bus careering towards the cliff edge with a manic May at the wheel – someone has their hand on the brake even at this late stage.

I can’t see anything else other than No Deal.

Agree with binners.

<goes to lie down for a bit>

In agreement with Binners as well, we’re simply living through the death rattle of the current sitting parliament. They know the ship is sinking and with it many of their jobs and they don’t know what to do about it.

This bus careering towards the cliff edge with a manic May at the wheel – someone has their hand on the brake even at this late stage.

What I’ve found quite eye-opening is the absence of any brakes. There are effectively no restrictions on the executive if they don’t wan there to be. At this stage it looks like she can do what the hell she likes

People are talking about parliament ‘taking back control’, but its done nothing of the sort. They can have all the votes and table all the amendments in the world, and May can simply ignore each and every one of them. I see nothing in recent history, given her ludicrously dictatorial, authoritarian, tin-eared attitude to suggest she gives a monkeys what anyone thinks other than the usual headbangers

I can’t be the only one now realising I didn’t really have a clue about the manifest problems with what I’d always been told was a democracy. What is going on at the moment looks more like some tin-pot dictatorship to me

I agree too (must…not… let… faint glimmer of hope… start.. to… surface…)

@binners – within the normal running of parliament I’d agree with you but May could only do that for so long then there’s a distinct possibility that there are enough dissatisfied backbench Tories that Corbyn would table a vote of no confidence and bring down the government.

The POTUS is often called “the most powerful man in the world” but the US constitution places deliberate checks and balances on his power, ironically because of autocratic British power, whereas the UK prime minister has much more say in how the country is governed.

One thing this shitshow has demonstrated more than anything is our need for a proper written constitution. It seems like everyones just making this up as they go along based on what somebody once did a few hundred years ago.

I’ve been genuinely shocked at how little can be done to stop an intransigent and autocratic PM just doing what the hell they like

A bit too late to edit my last post. This is copied from the BBC “live” page:

Former director of legislative affairs at Downing Street, Nikki da Costa, says there are two ways a general election could happen.

Firstly, two thirds of MPs would have to vote for a general election. She suggests that because Labour and the SNP would be likely to support this, a fresh election would be approved.

Alternatively, she explains, the government could lose a vote of no confidence.

“There would then be fourteen days in which the government could try to regain the confidence of the House.

“If that doesn’t work and no one else can command a majority, then you would head towards a general election.”

Every bloody time I get my hopes up STW reality kicks them down.

May saying no deal actively having to be voted for could foolishly be misinterpreted as no deal having to be actively voted for.

One thing this shitshow has demonstrated more than anything is our need for a proper written constitution. It seems like everyones just making this up as they go along based on what somebody once did a few hundred years ago.

I’ve been genuinely shocked at how little can be done to stop an intransigent and autocratic PM just doing what the hell they

Isn’t this just the by product of Parliament being split / tiny majority.

If May had the courage just to go with one side, there would’ve been less of a Parliamentary crisis. Plenty of hate and problems for sure but at least we would have not walked the line for the last two years.

In fact, in lots of ways it’s less to do with being autocratic and more to do with trying to please everyone.

She is not trying to please everyone. If she was it would have been cross party from the start and the softest of soft brexits.

Mays aims are ( in order of priority)
1) stop the tory party splitting
2) Keep the tory party in power
3) Stay on as PM.

Thats it. that is all she is interested in.

What on earth do you mean @rone?

Which “side” could she have got behind that more than half of MPs would be backing at this point?

All I can say is thank god for Gina Miller!! Imagine if Maybot could just drive through whatever she wanted without parliamentary approval….

Did the cabinet ‘rebels’ Rudd, Gauke, Clark etc calculate they wouldn’t have to break cover against the letwin amendment given the number of backbench rebels or they just turning out to be spineless? Hmmm

My reading of mays ‘no deal wont happen unless parliment vote for it’ was ‘no deal won’t happen if parliment vote for my deal.’

Interestingly, my wife had to pop into her old work last week whcih she left shortly after the referendum. At the time most of her colleauges voted leave (despite being educated and working in a company dependant on EU supply chains), most of them have now changed their minds as they assumed at the referendum we would leave but stay in the single market and custom union. Just another illustration of how far the leave goalposts ahve shifted.

I wonder whether brexiteers would accept a second referendum where remain wasn’t on the ballot but jsut a suite of the most commonly talked about (and acheivable without unicorns) leave options? I guess probably not as their desired hard brexit probably wouldnt win.

https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1110443949775298562

It’s a limited poll, so I take this with a huge pinch of salt.

What is particularly noteworthy is the change of reported voting in the first ref. 43% to 34% in 2.5 years now report that they voted Leave.

Thats it. that is all she is interested in.

Actually, I think her main motive is egotistical. She wants to be seen as a strong leader, a titan who pushed ahead in the face of adversity. She probably admires Thatcher. She wants to leave an enduring legacy.

So I think her intransigence is just an ego-trip, it’s not pragmatic towards any tangible end like party unity or whatever. Those things are incidental.

What is particularly noteworthy is the change of reported voting in the first ref. 43% to 34% in 2 years now report that they voted Leave.

Trouble is, people often deny the thing they go ahead and vote for anyhow. eg The Tories.

The privacy of the ballot booth is different from the shame of actually having to admit your leanings to a real person. All that poll finding really does is show that leave voters recognise that the issue is divisive and that they have faced criticism for their choices.

I still have no faith that the great British (sorry, English) public would resist the temptation to use a 2nd ref as a giant dirty protest.

I have seen nothing that suggests parliament can force alternatives onto a government who are willfully ignoring any and every other option.

Yes, they can. Now they have control of parliamentary business, the order of things which are considered by parliament is no longer set by the government. This means that anything can be tabled with the majority of the house. In the context of the current discussion, a simple majority would be required on an, ahem, meaningful vote on the last two options after indicative votes on the various brexit avenues, and if it passed it would head to the Lords. Assuming it also passes there, it heads for royal ascent and becomes law.

The last bit has not really changed, just in normal times the government also has a majority, so law it doesn’t support never passes. However, clearly on anything brexit they do not have a majority, and thus chaos. All the “Parliament seizing control” has done is allow parliament to discuss items of its majority’s choosing – normally matters to be discussed in the house are chosen by the government (which is usually an outright majority, and thus this never came up)

I still have no faith that the great British (sorry, English) public would resist the temptation to use a 2nd ref as a giant dirty protest.

I think that technically us Welsh are also to blame 🙁

All the “Parliament seizing control” has done is allow parliament to discuss items of its majority’s choosing

Well indeed (but this contradicts your first point) – they can discuss what they want, but May can ignore them. They can’t force legislation through, which is what is required.

Yes, they can. Now they have control of parliamentary business, the order of things which are considered by parliament is no longer set by the government. This means that anything can be tabled with the majority of the house. In the context of the current discussion, a simple majority would be required on an, ahem, meaningful vote on the last two options after indicative votes on the various brexit avenues, and if it passed it would head to the Lords. Assuming it also passes there, it heads for royal ascent and becomes law.

pretty sure this is wrong – indicative votes don’t force the government to do anything. They aren’t voting on actual legislation

Indicative votes are advisory, not binding

She’s already made it abundantly clear only yesterday that she has absolutely no intention of enacting anything, no matter what parliament ‘recommends’.

So in reality it actually suits her agenda perfectly, as it runs down the clock still further on something that is a complete and utter waste of everyones time. It will have no impact on her pig-headed, dictatorial intransigence and what she’ll end up doing in what is now a wilful defiance of everybody, save the ERG.

I understand the desperation from MP’s but the bottom line is that we’ve an executive doing the bidding of a minority of nutters and literally doesn’t give a toss what anyone else thinks

Her behaviour at the moment is bordering on psychopathic

Wonder if it’ll end up as a 650 way fist fight like you see in the far east parliaments. That would at least be amusing.

That would at least be amusing.

Apparently they still have hangers for swords in the cloakroom. Perhaps someone needs to pop by and hang a few up to encourage some duelling.

That mace looks rather tasty as well.

The moggster has said he believes it is either mays deal or a lot softer brexit now.

Indicative votes are advisory, not binding

Yes, but presumably it wouldn’t take much more of a tweak to make one meaningfulbinding? And if there’s a majority for such an amendment, presumably it would then pass?

I appreciate it’s not of the same gravitas, but may’s approach to brexit draws parallels with Hitler’s Nero Decree at the end of the second world war. Basically if he couldn’t win he was going to take the German people down with him…

May appears to think it’s acceptable that it’s either her way or everyone goes down in flames with her..

@binners

yes, in theory they could use the same process to start passing legislation.

MPs now have proof of concept: they are prepared to remove government control over the timetable. First they will see if they can support a given option. Then, if they find they can, there is another option available to them. They can remove government control over the timetable again, but this time with the intention of passing legislation, rather than just holding votes. And this really would force the government to do what it was told.

from https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/03/26/mps-take-control-of-brexit-what-the-hell-happens-now

I’m really pleased the indicative votes, vote passed.

Firstly, it seems a genuine way forward, it gives MPs from all parties an opportunity to form a consensus without May’s utterly stubborn and mindless red lines, and Corbyn’s gamesmanship. I think they just might be able to come up with a tolerable solution for most.

Equally, it’s a chip out of the 2 party system that’s caused so many problems and made people like JRM disproportionately powerful, a terrifying prospect. Hopefully they’ll remember this post-brexit instead of just playing for their team all the time.

We’re definitely moving towards a damage limitation exercise.

The realisation is dawning that a minority fringe economists with a radical theory have been sponsored by vast sums of money to lobby politicians. It’s no surprise that the snake-oil salesmen have sold a bullshit project to career bullshitters, who’ve been more focused on their prize than the detail as to how to get there. At every stage, ingrained incompetence has scuppered the project, it required populism to sell meaningless arguments that do not stand up to close scrutiny.

There’s also an excellent chance that there will be a formal investigation, probably a public inquiry into the referendum and the strength of public resistance to project Brexit, I believe that Keir Starmer is quietly gathering evidence for such an eventuality. The wording of the calls for another Chilcot is intentional – remember that no-one was actually sanctioned as a result, the purpose was catharsis without throwing anyone under a bus.

I also think that many politicians were genuinely surprised by the intractability of Remainers who are still making their feelings known nearly three years after the referendum. The fact that the number of signatories of the Revoke petition exceeds the size of Boris’s constituency majority has not been lost, a post Brexit election would likely eviscerate formerly staunch Tory strongholds if enough of the core voter base suffer the fallout from a no deal Brexit.

Rumours TM will address the 1922 committee. Will it be the big announcement, or just another bollocking?