At the height of their majorities either Thatcher or Blair would have got the deal they wanted through parliament, in Thatcher’s case by bullying/yelling NO and in Blair’s by schmoozing/lying. Since, in my opinion, almost any deal would be better than No Deal I should vote for one of them. If May’s deal becomes No Deal, as well it might, then the ERG will be as pleased as punch and they would have been best advised to vote for her, or for Gordon Brown who would have screwed up at least as badly. ‘Better’ depends on what outcome you want.
Just noticed that the Lib Dumbs have declared that they will no longer support Corbyn’s NC motions unless Labour back a People’s Vote. Mince Cable said:
Since he appears to be determined to play party political games rather than acting on the wishes of his own members and MPs, he will no longer be able to rely on our support for further no-confidence motions.
I believe other parties are taking the same view. It’s time Mr Corbyn got off the fence and made his position plain.
Under Article 50 of The Treaty on European Union and the Withdrawal Act 2018, we will leave the EU without a deal on 29 March unless Parliament either agrees a deal with the EU or the UK revokes article 50 and chooses to stay in the EU permanently.
I’m afraid, like it or not, she is mathematically correct on this*. When Jeremy Corbyn demands that she rule out a No Deal he is demanding that she choose one or other of these two options. I wonder which it is ?
VB
*Strictly speaking she could seek an extension to article 50, which changes the date but nothing else and so, from a choice point of view, makes no difference.
That wouldn’t stop her seeking it. It might stop them granting it. The point I was making was that in addition to the two main options (Deal or Remain) there was a third (Extend) but it wasn’t really a different option. You’re saying it might not even be possible. So we can both agree to forget it.
I would have thought that a major change to her red lines might get an extension - so if she was suddenly amenable to a customs union, say, then that would lead to a very different outcome. Not that she would be, though.
Yes, but not about the same things. The EU-Turkey CU mostly covers ‘industrial goods’. So Turkey can sell industrial goods into the EU without tariffs or other restrictions. But it can’t strike trade deals with the rest of the world involving industrial goods. That CU doesn’t cover agricultural products, coal and steel, public procurement. So the Turks can cut whatever deal they like, with whoever they like for steel. But if they sell steel to the EU they’re subject to the same tariffs as everyone else outside the EU.
So the UK would have to decide which sectors it wanted to be inside a full EU CU (presumably machinery, cars and trucks, aerospace stuff, agricultural products including fish and livestock, pharmaceuticals and other healthcare products, petrochemicals including oil, gems and precious metals, Scotch whisky etc) and which sectors it would prefer to trade freely with the rest of the world, thereby making the country as fabulously rich as David Davis has promised (shortbread, garden gnomes, top hats, fridge magnets of Anne Hathaway’s cottage and Stonehenge etc).
