[Fiend]

Is anyone actually governing?

Aren't they too busy trying to sort out sodding Brexit??

[tomtom]

TT - they aren't 'her' red lines they are the red lines that approximately represent what most leave voters, including me, recognise as being roughly in accordance with the sort of post-brexit arrangement we'd like to see. You don't seem to understand that. maybe because you didn't vote to leave. I recognise compromises were inevitable and I was ok with her deal. It's silly to expect perfection as the ERG seem to be doing.
Saying we should go for a customs union ignores what leave voters voted for. I don't want a customs union and there's no way I would have voted to leave and join a customs union - that would be a ridiculous fudge and the worse of all worlds. I'd rather remain in the EU (I actually am not deeply emotionally tied to either remain or leave, believe it or not after all this thread) than end up in a Norway style customs union without any say either in or out of the EU.

Pete, I'm surprised by your response, as you're are assuming/conflating what you voted for was what other leave voters voted for. Your idea of perfection is not every leave voters...

Thats clearly the case from all the interviews/commments I've heard from leavers. Some leave voters wanted to retain ETA including freedom of movement (for example)... Some wanted full on hard leave... 

This is one of the problems with the referendum. One side (remain) was a clear outcome (retain status quo) - the other side (leave) contained no plan and a range of options (depending who was speaking) from ETA/Customs union etc... to full on hard brexit (and all the shades of grey in between). Really - the referendum should have been between two plans or two clear options.   

So - leave voters have voted "to leave the EU" - not for any plan or deal or compromise - or for Mays red lines (unless you were psychic as they didnt exist then!!). A leave vote endorsed a direction - a desire to leave the EU rather than an actual plan.

This isnt because I voted to remain - its logic! Is anything I've said in this post incorrect?

[petejh]

I took issue with your declaration that May's red lines 'exist to try to keep the tory party together'. That to me's a massive misrepresentation. I don't feel that way about her tactics. I think she genuinely was trying to walk a very difficult line between getting something that satisfies most leave voters while, yes, trying to appease some of the more hard-line in the tory party. But it wasn't one or the other. And I honestly can't imagine how any other leader could have done anything much different. given the splits within Labour.

Sure, the party issue is part of it. But the Labour party would be in exactly the same quandary. At heart this isn't a party issue it's a cross party issue and it galls me to see people treating it as tory or labour party issue, because that way leads to a dead end as we now see.

[joel182]

'red lines'

[Oldmanmatt]

Is anyone actually governing?

Aren't they too busy trying to sort out sodding Brexit??

Yes.

That is exactly what they are doing to Brexit, the Nation and each other.

Must be a shortage of pig’s heads in Tory HQ.

[A Jooser]

Meanwhile... https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2019/03/12/eu-court-defends-the-ecbs-right-to-cover-up-its-illegal-closure-of-greeces-banks/

[Oldmanmatt]

[Will Hunt]

One for the Leavers on the thread.

It looks to me that leaving the customs union and/or single market AND retaining a borderless Ireland/Irish Sea are mutually exclusive.

Is this something that you disagree with? If so, can you explain by what mechanism both of those conditions might be satisfied?

If you agree that that isn't possible, does that feature in your thinking on the issue? Is leaving the EU more important than honouring the Good Friday Agreement?

[TobyD]

I honestly can't imagine how any other leader could have done anything much different. given the splits within Labour.
Sure, the party issue is part of it. But the Labour party would be in exactly the same quandary. At heart this isn't a party issue it's a cross party issue and it galls me to see people treating it as tory or labour party issue, because that way leads to a dead end as we now see.

I completely agree. There are MPs on both sides who are discussing sensible compromise, but the front line of both major parties are both being completely indecisive, caught between trying to pander to their voters, the various factions of their parties and their own personal prejudices or ideologies.

I find myself as incensed about the ERG's repeated insistence on the Malthouse compromise and their mythical technological solution to the Irish border, as the member the the Labour shadow cabinet, who insisted this morning on the Today program that "all options are still on the table".

If you're not going to make your minds up now, then when? It's increasingly obvious that party boundaries have become almost irrelevant and "tory" or "labour" tribalism merely avoids the issue, which should be finding a manageable solution, which isn't an economic, geopolitical and social disaster for the UK.

[tommytwotone]

It's been doing the rounds on Twitter etc but I think Emily Maitlis summed up the mood of the nation with her thinly disguised contempt for everyone in front of her here.





The eye roll she drops on Barry Gardiner is just stone cold.

[Will Hunt]

I was walking through the Environment Agency's Leeds office today and passed a meeting room. There was an A4 sheet of paper blue tacked to the door with
"EU EXIT
NO DEAL PLANNING TEAM"
printed on it.

The room had been soundproofed and, peering through the window, I could see a lone Agency employee, his fingernails tearing at his face, his mouth agape in a silent scream.

That last bit might not be true.

[mrjonathanr]

https://youtu.be/VPNV-xGAFRY?t=528

[tommytwotone]

[cough] read a few posts up [cough]

[mrjonathanr]

It's the moment she asks Gardiner about the manifesto. Saves listening to Zahawi extol the merits of no deal for 6 minutes.

[Oldmanmatt]

I just got in from work and trying to make head or tail of what’s going on tonight, or what it might mean (especially the threatened Tory revolt, for a “standstill” until December 2021), but apparently I’m not the most confused:

[TobyD]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/as-the-losses-take-their-toll-may-is-now-a-leader-in-name-only

"Then Hammond went rogue. Who cared if Lino was sitting next to him? She didn’t count anyway. It was time to level with the country. The statement was a waste of time. He couldn’t say what was going to happen in the next two weeks, let alone make a stab at what might happen in six months’ time.

If we left the EU with a deal then we’d all be a bit more broke than we otherwise would have been. But if we left with no deal then we were totally screwed. Might as well give up and kill ourselves. So Lino could shove her deal. Now was the time for the government to work with the opposition on what might get through parliament. His door was open. With her one remaining functioning eye, Lino gave her former colleague a death stare – an effort that caused her circuit board to crash entirely."

Outstanding.

[tomtom]

Chortle. From Sky’s feed...

Gove silent, but neighbour vents frustration

The Environment Secretary said nothing to journalists as he left his home this morning, but a neighbour did call over to reporters: "Give him hell, he's a total w*****."

[Will Hunt]

I just got in from work and trying to make head or tail of what’s going on tonight, or what it might mean (especially the threatened Tory revolt, for a “standstill” until December 2021), but apparently I’m not the most confused:

In the interest of fact, to say that May voted against her own motion is disingenuous because by the time Amendment A had been passed, the motion had been very significantly changed from this:
"That this House declines to approve leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework on the Future Relationship on 29 March 2019; and notes that leaving without a deal remains the default in UK and EU law unless this House and the EU ratify an agreement."

To this:
"That this House declines to approve leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework on the Future Relationship on 29 March 2019; and notes that leaving without a deal remains the default in UK and EU law unless this House and the EU ratify an agreement. rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship.".

[Oldmanmatt]

I just got in from work and trying to make head or tail of what’s going on tonight, or what it might mean (especially the threatened Tory revolt, for a “standstill” until December 2021), but apparently I’m not the most confused:

In the interest of fact, to say that May voted against her own motion is disingenuous because by the time Amendment A had been passed, the motion had been very significantly changed from this:
"That this House declines to approve leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework on the Future Relationship on 29 March 2019; and notes that leaving without a deal remains the default in UK and EU law unless this House and the EU ratify an agreement."

To this:
"That this House declines to approve leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework on the Future Relationship on 29 March 2019; and notes that leaving without a deal remains the default in UK and EU law unless this House and the EU ratify an agreement. rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship.".

On’t t’other hand...

The tale of of the change in text, is just as shambolic.

[Oldmanmatt]

Sorry, forgot the quote.
The BBC reported:

“The amendment (a) from Labour MP Jack Dromey and Conservative Dame Caroline Spelman changes the wording of the government motion to "this House rejects the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a Withdrawal Agreement and a Framework for the Future Relationship".
Dame Caroline told MPs she wanted to withdraw the amendment, because Theresa May's government motion would do the same job.
But she was told by Commons Speaker John Bercow that she could not withdraw it because other signatories could "persist with it"”

So, Dame Wa’s’er’face, is probably off to the Headmistress’s study for a short sharp “lecture” on party unity, with a long pointy stick.

[teestub]

People’s Vote extension amendment selected for today’s vote, be interesting to see if it gets the required support, I can’t see it happening unfortunately.

[Will Hunt]

Every time a second referendum gets mentioned in the chamber a small crowd of people cheer, which is then followed by an almighty roar of disapproval. I'm still sceptical about what the result of a second referendum might be, but I'm surprised it doesn't have more traction in the house as a way of settling the direction of travel.

Bit of a fucker this. With 4 possible options, the one-by-one two-optioned voting approach isn't doing too well!

[kelvin]

Bit of a fucker this. With 4 possible options, the one-by-one two-optioned voting approach isn't doing too well!

This. Parliament just doesn't seem setup to organise something like Brexit, certainly when the government has lost it's ability to govern

[Oldmanmatt]

Bit of a fucker this. With 4 possible options, the one-by-one two-optioned voting approach isn't doing too well!

This. Parliament just doesn't seem setup to organise Anything more complicated than chimp’s tea party, without the tea or the party or even the chimps, certainly when the government has lost it's ability to govern

You *spelt* that wrong.

[tomtom]

Because we have outright winners rather than co-alitions we are used to being ruled by executive (pm via whips) rather than consensus (which may happen with a more diverse parliament that PR would provide).