Poll coming.
I predict Theresa May loses the Brexit vote on 15 January and calls a snap general election.
There was a report today that she’s claiming no Brexit is more likely than hard Brexit. That suggests she’ll withdraw the application entirely, and let the next government deal with it, either by a vote of Parliament or by starting over with a new referendum.
Absolutely the best-case scenario for all involved, make no mistake.
I think May’s warning about No Brexit being the consequence is a ploy to try and get Brexiter rebels on board. But she’s dealing with cultist purists, by and large, so it won’t work.
I have absolutely no idea what she’ll do next. I can’t decide if she’s extraordinarily poker-faced, or has no idea what she should do. Her attitude to everything these past two years is to get past a problem, not to solve a problem.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sorry, further thoughts:
I think nearly everyone now in Parliament is largely thinking about how to present themselves after Brexit is past-tense, whether it happens or not.
Assuming Brexit is stopped, May and the Dealers can say ‘well, we had a deal to leave, but the others stopped us, don’t blame us’
The hardliners can say ‘we could have left without a deal, but the others stopped us, don’t blame us’
The Remainers can say ‘the whole thing was a pointless waste of time, because the hardliners were deluded and May was inept, don’t blame us’
And Corbyn can say ‘well, I wanted Brexit to be a success, but I wasn’t in government, and respected Will O the People, so don’t blame me’
Problem is anyone in a leadership position now who says outright they support cancelling/having a second vote will be immediately accused of undermining Brexit. But doing their utmost to deliver it, and being seen to reluctantly back a second vote, avoids this accusation.
Not that I think anyone in government or Corbyn genuinely hasn’t sought to execute Brexit. But they’re not suicidal or unhinged enough to think a No deal Brexit is remotely desirable or something they’ll be rewarded for.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Beth Rigby, deputy political editor for Sky News, has just interviewed Gareth Johnson, who resigned as whip today and says the government expects to lose the vote.
The government is definitely going to the lose the vote.
I don’t see May calling an election; her pig-headed sense of duty to deliver Brexit won’t let her quit.
Corbyn will call a no-confidence vote “soon” after the vote is lost, apparently - I suspect he’ll want to have some indications of support from the rebels he needs to pick off to actually win it before he calls it. He will be very reluctant to call it if he doesn’t have at least a shot of getting it through.
But remember that the process now is that if (when) Parliament votes down the deal, there will be a debate within 3 days on how to proceed. This is an opportunity for a plan to emerge. Given that there is a clear anti-No Deal majority, that should be possible. The problem is there needs to be a majority behind a specific plan, because only a specific plan can stop No Deal. There isn’t an obvious majority for any of the following options
Rescind A50
EEA membership
EFTA membership
Stay in the Customs Union
(Something else)
As a practical matter, there might be a shot at extending A50 (i.e. postponing Brexit day by a couple of months to sort something out. This is the easiest thing to agree on and follows the government’s strategy so far of kicking the can down the road at every opportunity (as Malden Capell says). In theory, that extension should be followed by an election so that a government with a mandate can get in. But we tried that in 2017 and it didn’t work, so I’m guessing there won’t be enough Tory MPs wanting to roll the dice.
So my answer is “something else” and that something else is: Parliament mandates the government to ask for an A50 extension, but if we get it we’ll waste the time we claw back.
I think they’ll have to resort to process of elimination; but I expect there’ll be politicking with the order in which options are eliminated.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
WA vote is lost, vote of no confidence is survived. What happens after that, I have absolutely no idea. My political instincts have been wildly off since around about the time David Bowie died.
If the vote happens, the Government will lose heavily, but what happens after that is anyone’s guess. I’d say winning a no confidence vote is most likely, followed by losing one, followed by May resigning and the Tories choosing a new PM, and least likely a snap general election.
I could also see the vote being postponed again, followed by a successful vote of no confidence. But, really, with May and Corbyn as party leaders, there’s no chance of a sensible government that will stop Brexit coming into power. May has shown she’s powerless, but no-one else wants the job, and Corbyn is also at odds with most of his party, is in favour of leaving the EU, and quite frankly has insane policies in general.
About the only thing that I can say I think will happen with any sort of probability is that we won’t leave the EU on March 29th. I don’t believe we will leave at all, but that may well be wishful thinking.
Is there *anyone *in Westminster with an actual strategy, or are they all just timorously muddling along?
I’m fairly sure the SNP want an election, want to get into a coalition with Labour, force them to reverse Brexit, and force another Scottish independence referendum. Apart from that, no.
Agreed. Her warning about ‘no Brexit’ is an attempt to get Tory rebels on side. I don’t think it tells us anything about the likelihood, or not, of Brexit.
However, does her warning over ‘no Brexit’ give her less room for manoeuvre after the vote? If so, it could imply she’s for the off if she loses this vote. I am maybe reading too much into it, but how hard can one fight for Brexit if you have just suggested it’s less likely to go ahead?
Implied odds on Betfair to 1st meaningful vote: Yes=5.1%, No=96.1%. Reducing for overround gets to 5% yes, 95% no.
In early trading in anticipation of the vote, British Pound futures are trading just slightly up.
An extension may (or may not) be the easiest thing to agree within the UK, but it can only happen if it also agreed with each of the other 27 EU member states. And the EU has no interest in granting even a short extension so that the UK can continue dithering, refusing to engage with the situation, failing to make a decision. I doubt the EU would agree to an extension unless (a) it is to acheive a partiocular purpose which the UK has decided upon and to which it is committed, and (b) acheiving that purpose offers at least a realistic prospect of improving the situation from the EU’s point of view. So an extension to facilitate an election or a second referendum or some other decision-making process, yes. But an extension because nobody has a clue what to do, or to better prepare for a no-deal Brexit, no.
Good point. So I guess one question would be: are MPs ready to pass a “extend and new election/ref” motion as one package, or would we have to go through the rigmarole of agreeing to extend, approaching EU, being told we need an election or referendum and then have MPs find that if they vote for such they are accused of being puppets of the EU? At which point how many will chicken out?
Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk
If May was a states…errrr…woman, she would lose the vote and rescind Article 50 about 30 seconds later.
The entire development of this process is so … staggering in the incompetence it is hard to understand.
But then my News feed has the NYT article discussing that some large percentage of the English voters for Leave do no think No Deal will be damaging.
Given what was seen in the grotesquely badly informed GQ thread on this here, it is not surprising but it is very dangerous.
EDIT: whoops, accidentally posted this the wrong place