Ian Dunt
Right. Iâm on thin ice if itâs Dunt, but heâs just wrong
The PD is non-binding and doesnât in the least bit âcreates circumstance in which it would inevitably come into force.â We could rip it up on day one and start afresh, it is LITERALLY worthless
It only comes into force if nothing else is agreed, a situation which nobody whatseoever wants (Jihadis aside), and so itâs the express aim of both sides to ensure that it deosnât. Inevitable it most certainly isnât
Lots of talk about the possibility of a General Election this morning.
I get the feeling that there is growing dissatisfaction with both Conservative and Labour parties.
If there is a GE I predict one of two outcomes
-
A very low turnout as people who are disconnected with politics give up and donât bother, while those who are pissed off with the main contenders look elsewhere, bringing more seats for Lib Dems and Change UK (TIG) another hung parliament.
-
The main parties being forced to make Brexit itâs main manifesto pledge and to align themselves with leave or remain and the GE becoming a rerun of the referendum. Although the more I think about this the less likely either will be able to get behind a straight leave or remain manifesto so will move to option 3
3, Main manifesto a pledge for a new referendum
I appreciate that my two options became three as I was typing.
Maybe Brexit has so broken traditional party politics that a ânormalâ GE will not happen.
wot he rote
The problem with Mayâs plan is the unicorn ingredient. The future relationship includes a âspectrum of different outcomesâ but it is clearly aimed at Canada-style FTA.
So the withdrawal agreement creates the backstop, which is a fucking horror show for the UK. Then the future relationship document creates circumstances in which it would inevitably come into force.
Steve Baker this morning!
Watched it at lunchtime. And Fraser Nelson doing the old âThe gov spent a lot of moneyâ, as justification for Vote Leaveâs law breaking.
They sit there with straight faces. Unbelievable.
Yeah, Iâve caught up with his tweets nowâŚexcept, didnât you read the last one?
Iâd happily buy that man a gallon of ale, but heâs being a right old Cassandra without good reason: the PDâs non-binding, end of. It doesnât matter if it suggest death camps come 2021, it can and will be changed because legally itâs worthless and poltically, at least on this side of the water, nobody sees it as anything other than an agenda for day 1 post-A50, item 2 being âfuck item 1â
I think this, and cannot imagine how on earth the two main parties survive a GE without gouging their own eyes out. What platform can the Tories & Labour possibly stand upon ?? Party politics (well, two of them) is clearly incapable of dealing with this issue.
Theyâre straight faced, I assume, cos they know theyâll be getting tomorrows 10 past 8 Today gig with Humphreys whoâll just say âthis breaking the rules business, itâs a load of old rubbish isnât it?â
1 Like
Labour now whipping for CM2.0 and being supported by the SNP.
Very interesting.
This is the speech JRM was praising. One of the problems with it is the person who was making it & what the party she represents stands for. We really do not want them & their ilk (ably supported by Bannon & his acolytes) getting any more of a foothold in Europe.
1 Like
V. interesting esp. cos it means Grandad agreeing to free movement (brace brace: you just know thereâs a âbutâ coning) but itâs a daft discussion - having the PD reflect a desire for Comon market 2.0 is no more nor less binding than the current âCanada-ishâ draft
I donât get it
I did not know that. Bannon is really bad news.
1 Like
No itâs not something thatâs binding, but it is deliverable which is pretty key.
I agree, but itâs totally superflous
It isnât though. As Julian Smith and David Gauke have both said, itâs almost inconceivable that with Parliament ruling out no deal, if Parliament got behind one of these that the PM would refuse to take it to Brussels.
âTaking it to Brusselsâ doesnât change the A50 process though: the only options are and always have been 1) revoke 2) no deal, 3) Mays-Deal
You can put whatever you want about Norway / Canada in the PD, it doesnât change the fact that it is at best indicative, and but the starting point for the real negotiations, which may (will, surely?) over time morph into something slightly different than the starting point
But yeah: it rallies a consensus in Parliament. Itâs shameful that we need this smoke and mirros nonesense to get something through