Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
The 22nd of October and things are not looking good for the beleaguered PM, indeed, her time spent keeping the seat warm for a more intelligent, intellectually-equipped PM could be coming to an end.
There are meetings scheduled for this week which might signal a formal challenge to her……I hesitate to use the word in her case but it's normally referred to as 'leadership'.
This article from a left-of-centre blogger describes the current situation:
Theresa May last night faced a Cabinet revolt after attempting to shore up support for her Brexit plans during an hour-and-a-half long conference call with her ministers.
Esther McVey, the Work and Pensions Secretary, is said to have told the Prime Minister that she was "devastated" by plans to extend the Brexit transition period in a bid to strike a deal with the EU.
Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, warned the Prime Minister that there must be a time limit on her customs backstop amid concerns that it could leave Britain indefinitely tied to Brussels.
He is said to have directly asked the Prime Minister if she had "explicitly threatened the EU with no deal" amid mounting concerns that Mrs May is making too many concessions to secure a breakthrough.
It comes as the Prime Minister faces one of the most pivotal weeks of her Premiership amid suggestions that Tory MPs are poised to trigger a confidence vote.
Today she will attempt to reassure MPs during an address in the Commons. Tomorrow she will hold Cabinet, while on Wednesday she faces the prospect of a Eurosceptic revolt in the Commons and a "showdown" with Tory MPs, before holding a meeting of her Brexit inner cabinet on Thursday.
More than a dozen ministers were involved in yesterday's conference call, some of whom were given less than 15 minutes notice before it took place.
A smaller group of ministers held a similar conference call with the Prime Minister on Saturday, during which several were left unconvinced by the Prime Minister's explanation of her plans.
"It raised more questions than answers," one source said. Geoffrey Cox, the Attorney General who was hailed as the hero of the Conservative Party conference after introducing Mrs May, is understood to have raised significant concerns during that call about both the backstop and extending the transition.
The mounting opposition from Eurosceptic Cabinet ministers is likely to increase concerns that further resignations over the Prime Minister's Brexit plan are imminent. Rebel MPs believe they are just two letters away from the 48 needed to trigger the vote, which could lead to a leadership contest.
Downing Street is declining to say whether she will attend a "showdown" meeting of the 1922 committee of Tory MPs on Wednesday after rebels suggested she should "bring her own noose".
It comes after a series of furious briefings against the Prime Minister over the weekend, with one Tory MP saying that the moment is coming when "the knife gets heated, stuck in her front and twisted".
The language was widely condemned by MPs on all sides of the Brexit divide. Theresa Villiers, an outspoken critic of the Prime Minister's Chequers plan, said it was "disturbing".
Mrs May is also facing the threat of a Commons rebellion on Wednesday as Eurosceptic MPs attempt to force her hand over Northern Ireland.
Steve Baker, a former Brexit minister, has tabled a series of amendments to the Northern Ireland bill that would kill the EU's plans for a customs backstop in the event that a deal cannot be reached by the time the transition period ends.
The EU's plans would see Northern Ireland in a customs union with the EU. Mr Baker's amendments, which have the support of at least 40 Eurosceptic Tory MPs and DUP MPs, would effectively make the EU's backstop illegal.
It would also damage the Prime Minister's Chequers Brexit plan by blocking a separate regulatory regime in Ireland.
Mrs May is said to be considering regulatory checks in the Irish Sea in a bid to secure a breakthrough in Brexit negotiations.
It came as Dominic Raab, the Brexit Secretary, said that negotiations must be tied up by the end of next month to allow new laws to be put in place in time for exit day.
The Brexit Secretary urged restive Tory MPs circling around Theresa May to "play for the team" and called on them to wait for the deal to be struck before taking action.
Mr Raab suggested the extension could run for three months but said the move would have to "solve" the Irish backstop issue. There must also be a route out of it so it did not run indefinitely, he said. "It could be time-limited, there could be another mechanism," he told BBC One's The Andrew Marr show.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/theresa-may-faces-cabinet-r…/…
It sounds a bit like the plot which saw the end of JC……the Roman one, that is!
Tom
There are meetings scheduled for this week which might signal a formal challenge to her……I hesitate to use the word in her case but it's normally referred to as 'leadership'.
This article from a left-of-centre blogger describes the current situation:
Theresa May last night faced a Cabinet revolt after attempting to shore up support for her Brexit plans during an hour-and-a-half long conference call with her ministers.
Esther McVey, the Work and Pensions Secretary, is said to have told the Prime Minister that she was "devastated" by plans to extend the Brexit transition period in a bid to strike a deal with the EU.
Sajid Javid, the Home Secretary, warned the Prime Minister that there must be a time limit on her customs backstop amid concerns that it could leave Britain indefinitely tied to Brussels.
He is said to have directly asked the Prime Minister if she had "explicitly threatened the EU with no deal" amid mounting concerns that Mrs May is making too many concessions to secure a breakthrough.
It comes as the Prime Minister faces one of the most pivotal weeks of her Premiership amid suggestions that Tory MPs are poised to trigger a confidence vote.
Today she will attempt to reassure MPs during an address in the Commons. Tomorrow she will hold Cabinet, while on Wednesday she faces the prospect of a Eurosceptic revolt in the Commons and a "showdown" with Tory MPs, before holding a meeting of her Brexit inner cabinet on Thursday.
More than a dozen ministers were involved in yesterday's conference call, some of whom were given less than 15 minutes notice before it took place.
A smaller group of ministers held a similar conference call with the Prime Minister on Saturday, during which several were left unconvinced by the Prime Minister's explanation of her plans.
"It raised more questions than answers," one source said. Geoffrey Cox, the Attorney General who was hailed as the hero of the Conservative Party conference after introducing Mrs May, is understood to have raised significant concerns during that call about both the backstop and extending the transition.
The mounting opposition from Eurosceptic Cabinet ministers is likely to increase concerns that further resignations over the Prime Minister's Brexit plan are imminent. Rebel MPs believe they are just two letters away from the 48 needed to trigger the vote, which could lead to a leadership contest.
Downing Street is declining to say whether she will attend a "showdown" meeting of the 1922 committee of Tory MPs on Wednesday after rebels suggested she should "bring her own noose".
It comes after a series of furious briefings against the Prime Minister over the weekend, with one Tory MP saying that the moment is coming when "the knife gets heated, stuck in her front and twisted".
The language was widely condemned by MPs on all sides of the Brexit divide. Theresa Villiers, an outspoken critic of the Prime Minister's Chequers plan, said it was "disturbing".
Mrs May is also facing the threat of a Commons rebellion on Wednesday as Eurosceptic MPs attempt to force her hand over Northern Ireland.
Steve Baker, a former Brexit minister, has tabled a series of amendments to the Northern Ireland bill that would kill the EU's plans for a customs backstop in the event that a deal cannot be reached by the time the transition period ends.
The EU's plans would see Northern Ireland in a customs union with the EU. Mr Baker's amendments, which have the support of at least 40 Eurosceptic Tory MPs and DUP MPs, would effectively make the EU's backstop illegal.
It would also damage the Prime Minister's Chequers Brexit plan by blocking a separate regulatory regime in Ireland.
Mrs May is said to be considering regulatory checks in the Irish Sea in a bid to secure a breakthrough in Brexit negotiations.
It came as Dominic Raab, the Brexit Secretary, said that negotiations must be tied up by the end of next month to allow new laws to be put in place in time for exit day.
The Brexit Secretary urged restive Tory MPs circling around Theresa May to "play for the team" and called on them to wait for the deal to be struck before taking action.
Mr Raab suggested the extension could run for three months but said the move would have to "solve" the Irish backstop issue. There must also be a route out of it so it did not run indefinitely, he said. "It could be time-limited, there could be another mechanism," he told BBC One's The Andrew Marr show.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/theresa-may-faces-cabinet-r…/…
It sounds a bit like the plot which saw the end of JC……the Roman one, that is!
Tom
The 'Daily Excess' very kindly provides details of a 'secret' plan by the tories to conduct another referendum. Does that count as a U-turn, I wonder?
There is much more in this article:
brexit-news-second-referendum-eu-peoples-march-whitehall-plans-theresa-may-latest
Tom
There is much more in this article:
brexit-news-second-referendum-eu-peoples-march-whitehall-plans-theresa-may-latest
Tom
That it does.
I wonder if TM has found a wheatfield to enjoy in her copious free time?
(Mind, think I might write the most complete memoir from a UK PM in history. Detailing each and every slimeball's words and actions.)
The atttiude of many on the leave side, that their word matters and the views of remainers don't, is ever so slightly hypocritical.
One of the problems we face is the power of lobby groups and financial supporters of political parties, for instance Conservative funds rely heavily on vested interest groups
This from the Canary
"
But the largest amount donated to the Conservatives from an individual linked to the property industry came from elsewhere. David Brownlow, made five separate donations over £10,000, totalling £327,000. Four of the donations were to the Central Party and one donation of £20,000 was to the Maidenhead branch of the party. Brownlow founded the Havisham Group, which, among other things, is engaged in “property development in the south of England and Scotland”.
The ten individuals donating the most money to the Conservative Party with links to property companies in 2018 are:
Company donations
Donations in 2018 weren’t just limited to individuals. Some donations came directly from property companies themselves. 19 property companies made donations to the Conservative Party of at least £10,000. Seven companies made individual donations of £50,000. Among these were Clerewell Limited, Thakeham Homes Limited and Sir Richard Sutton Estates Limited. One company, CC Property Company Ltd, donated £60,000 with two separate donations of £30,000.
According to the parameters of The Canary’s analysis, the ten property companies donating the most money to the Conservative Party in 2018 were:
And they don't give this sort of money out of charity do they?
Bought and sold for Property Developers Gold
How can they be trusted to act in the interests of the people who voted for them when they are bought and paid for?
The murky world of party funding
This isn’t the first time party donations have come under scrutiny.
Adam Ramsay and Peter Geoghegan have shown the way in which money funding the Leave campaign in the 2016 EU referendum was channelled through the DUP. Ramsay alleges:
there is no donor transparency in Northern Ireland. Someone is using them [the DUP] as a front to funnel secret money into the referendum campaign.
The Canary approached the Conservative Party for comment but had not received a reply at the time of publication.
Property sector in the spotlight
The Conservative Party receiving so much funding from the property sector is controversial – housing is one of the most pressing political issues of the day.
Rough sleeping has risen for seven consecutive years. Analysis from 2017 found that people in the UK spend a quarter of their income on rent. In London, this rises to half of people’s income, and poorer households across the country spend up 47.4% of their income on housing. Meanwhile, studies on gentrification have highlighted that less wealthy people are being driven out of their communities due to a lack of affordable housing.
The property industry plays an important part in all of these problems. Estate agents and property developers have faced allegations that they take intentional steps to drive up property prices in an area. Developers have also been found to be using legal loopholes to avoid building affordable homes. And the system of buy-to-rent
This from the Canary
"
But the largest amount donated to the Conservatives from an individual linked to the property industry came from elsewhere. David Brownlow, made five separate donations over £10,000, totalling £327,000. Four of the donations were to the Central Party and one donation of £20,000 was to the Maidenhead branch of the party. Brownlow founded the Havisham Group, which, among other things, is engaged in “property development in the south of England and Scotland”.
The ten individuals donating the most money to the Conservative Party with links to property companies in 2018 are:
Company donations
Donations in 2018 weren’t just limited to individuals. Some donations came directly from property companies themselves. 19 property companies made donations to the Conservative Party of at least £10,000. Seven companies made individual donations of £50,000. Among these were Clerewell Limited, Thakeham Homes Limited and Sir Richard Sutton Estates Limited. One company, CC Property Company Ltd, donated £60,000 with two separate donations of £30,000.
According to the parameters of The Canary’s analysis, the ten property companies donating the most money to the Conservative Party in 2018 were:
And they don't give this sort of money out of charity do they?
Bought and sold for Property Developers Gold
How can they be trusted to act in the interests of the people who voted for them when they are bought and paid for?
The murky world of party funding
This isn’t the first time party donations have come under scrutiny.
Adam Ramsay and Peter Geoghegan have shown the way in which money funding the Leave campaign in the 2016 EU referendum was channelled through the DUP. Ramsay alleges:
there is no donor transparency in Northern Ireland. Someone is using them [the DUP] as a front to funnel secret money into the referendum campaign.
The Canary approached the Conservative Party for comment but had not received a reply at the time of publication.
Property sector in the spotlight
The Conservative Party receiving so much funding from the property sector is controversial – housing is one of the most pressing political issues of the day.
Rough sleeping has risen for seven consecutive years. Analysis from 2017 found that people in the UK spend a quarter of their income on rent. In London, this rises to half of people’s income, and poorer households across the country spend up 47.4% of their income on housing. Meanwhile, studies on gentrification have highlighted that less wealthy people are being driven out of their communities due to a lack of affordable housing.
The property industry plays an important part in all of these problems. Estate agents and property developers have faced allegations that they take intentional steps to drive up property prices in an area. Developers have also been found to be using legal loopholes to avoid building affordable homes. And the system of buy-to-rent
Last edited:
The comments on that Daily Express article about a further referendum on FB are something to behold! They make the 'Rivers of blood' speech seem like a children's fairy-tale, calling for bloody revolution and violence on an industrial scale.
There are all sorts of threats including a mob to dwarf the numbers recorded last Saturday in central London with trucks and tractors blocking the whole of that area.
I'm not surprised really as this all reflects the behaviour of fascists who misuse the word 'democracy', believing it means the same as plutocracy, oligarchy or even autocracy - just getting their own way through violence or the threat of violence has nothing whatsoever to do with democracy!
This is what 'Brexit' has produced in the UK; division and threats of violence from the fascists rather than the entirely peaceful demonstrations by those who support our membership of the EU.
Tom
There are all sorts of threats including a mob to dwarf the numbers recorded last Saturday in central London with trucks and tractors blocking the whole of that area.
I'm not surprised really as this all reflects the behaviour of fascists who misuse the word 'democracy', believing it means the same as plutocracy, oligarchy or even autocracy - just getting their own way through violence or the threat of violence has nothing whatsoever to do with democracy!
This is what 'Brexit' has produced in the UK; division and threats of violence from the fascists rather than the entirely peaceful demonstrations by those who support our membership of the EU.
Tom
I would put it this way.
They are making a very dangerous mistake if they don't make very determined efforts as follows
- Find a way to get the remain voters on side
- Make Bexit a success
I'll rephrase that "inevitable failure in both will bring trouble. "
Last edited:
Listening to a speech by a Tory Brexit minister on the subject "Britain will thrive" after leaving the EU,detail on how this will be achieved is thin on the ground.
She made a statement "For the First time in 41years we will be able to make our own trade deals.
The Elephant in the room is the fact that the Brexit side never reveal just how long that process is likely to take, and what we will do in the meantime
Here is an extract from the Guardian
"
a hard Brexit followed by reliance on existing World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules – could take years to achieve. The first, and more surmountable, problem is that Britain is a signatory to WTO deals through its membership of the EU.
Assuming other WTO members agree to overlook this and transfer existing rights to Britain without seeking to unpick unpopular elements, there is an even bigger problem. This relates to the import and export quotas shared among EU member states. In the case of lamb, for example, the WTO schedule permits 283,825 tonnes of sheep and goat meat to be imported duty-free into the EU from 14 countries, ranging down to just 100 tonnes from Greenland.
Are trade deals really that complicated to negotiate?
Trade deals are monumentally complex. When Greenland, a country with a population smaller than that of Uxbridge and an economy based essentially on a single industry (fishing), withdrew from the EU in 1985, it took three years to negotiate its future relationship with the bloc.
Ceta, the EU-Canada deal, took seven years to negotiate and was about 22 years in the making. But this was a relatively simple trade agreement that does not include the services provisions and deals on non-tariff barriers that a big exporter of professional services such as Britain will almost certainly require.
Deals between larger economies such as the US/EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the US/Asia deal known as the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) proved so complicated and controversial that they have collapsed under their own political weight.
British farmers would need to fight to secure their share of this existing schedule to export into EU and non-EU markets, a fiendishly complicated prospect just in one small agricultural category.
What would a transitional deal contribute?
British business leaders as well as the chancellor, Philip Hammond, have argued that a transitional deal will be essential to smooth over the Brexit bump, ease uncertainty, and prevent the UK economy plunging off a cliff edge should Britain exit the EU at the end of the article 50 process with no future deal in sight.
Several EU politicians, including the Luxembourg prime minister, Xavier Bettel, have expressed reluctance, saying the union is not prepared to create a new status of “‘a little bit member’, ‘pending divorce’, ‘nearly divorced’.”
For the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, an interim deal would have “some point and usefulness” only once Britain has explained exactly what it wants from its future relationship with the EU, and the bloc had established what it could accept. At present, it was “difficult to implement"
We need to make at least 50 separate Trade Deals to duplicate what we have now and they are many years away at the most optimistic estimate.
In the meantime we risk everything on what is noting more than a bet on an outside chance of merely surviving, the proposition "Britain will thrive"
Is a Lie, the biggest and most dangerous yet from the leave saboteurs.
She made a statement "For the First time in 41years we will be able to make our own trade deals.
The Elephant in the room is the fact that the Brexit side never reveal just how long that process is likely to take, and what we will do in the meantime
Here is an extract from the Guardian
"
a hard Brexit followed by reliance on existing World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules – could take years to achieve. The first, and more surmountable, problem is that Britain is a signatory to WTO deals through its membership of the EU.
Assuming other WTO members agree to overlook this and transfer existing rights to Britain without seeking to unpick unpopular elements, there is an even bigger problem. This relates to the import and export quotas shared among EU member states. In the case of lamb, for example, the WTO schedule permits 283,825 tonnes of sheep and goat meat to be imported duty-free into the EU from 14 countries, ranging down to just 100 tonnes from Greenland.
Are trade deals really that complicated to negotiate?
Trade deals are monumentally complex. When Greenland, a country with a population smaller than that of Uxbridge and an economy based essentially on a single industry (fishing), withdrew from the EU in 1985, it took three years to negotiate its future relationship with the bloc.
Ceta, the EU-Canada deal, took seven years to negotiate and was about 22 years in the making. But this was a relatively simple trade agreement that does not include the services provisions and deals on non-tariff barriers that a big exporter of professional services such as Britain will almost certainly require.
Deals between larger economies such as the US/EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the US/Asia deal known as the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) proved so complicated and controversial that they have collapsed under their own political weight.
British farmers would need to fight to secure their share of this existing schedule to export into EU and non-EU markets, a fiendishly complicated prospect just in one small agricultural category.
What would a transitional deal contribute?
British business leaders as well as the chancellor, Philip Hammond, have argued that a transitional deal will be essential to smooth over the Brexit bump, ease uncertainty, and prevent the UK economy plunging off a cliff edge should Britain exit the EU at the end of the article 50 process with no future deal in sight.
Several EU politicians, including the Luxembourg prime minister, Xavier Bettel, have expressed reluctance, saying the union is not prepared to create a new status of “‘a little bit member’, ‘pending divorce’, ‘nearly divorced’.”
For the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, an interim deal would have “some point and usefulness” only once Britain has explained exactly what it wants from its future relationship with the EU, and the bloc had established what it could accept. At present, it was “difficult to implement"
We need to make at least 50 separate Trade Deals to duplicate what we have now and they are many years away at the most optimistic estimate.
In the meantime we risk everything on what is noting more than a bet on an outside chance of merely surviving, the proposition "Britain will thrive"
Is a Lie, the biggest and most dangerous yet from the leave saboteurs.
That would take too long. Just do a biography of May's successes both as Foreign Secretary and as Prime Minister. If you start now, you could have it done and dusted in time for a swift pint down the pub at lunchtime.
'Tillson' could do a great preview for a book like that.
Tom
we told the EU all along: we want some features of the single market like free circulation of goods and services and none of the rest.
At the top of our list: no payment (because the EU sells already more to us than us them so we do them a favour), no freedom of movement, we want foreign workers to pay taxes and not claim in work benefits for 4 years (they are the ones who need a job), no ECJ. If someone fails to guess Barnier's reply then that person needs their head examined.
What is wrong with Barnier? It's simple; the UK wants everything it has now and considers a benefit but it wants it for free. Apart from that, it doesn't want the EU court and it doesn't want their laws, rules and regulations. Furthermore, it doesn't want an open border policy as the UK is anti-immigration, hating all foreigners, although some more than others!
Perhaps Barnier dozed off when Davis was explaining the UK position?
Tom
A second referendum with a Remain option would be Theresa May's best escape plan now. Remain would undoubtedly win by a much larger margin than the last referendum produced, it would be the "Will of the People", the rug would be pulled from under the ERG and Theresa could start chanting "Remain means Remain".
The party would depose her no doubt, but why would she care? She would have solved the problem, gone into the records as being a UK Prime Minister and be receiving a PM's handsome pension for the rest of her life. She could step completely out of politics and laugh all the way to the bank.
.
Last edited:
It's called "pulling the belt in".
Look on the bright side, we'd have solved the obesity crisis.
.
Which side of a second class stamp do you want to use for the Manuscript?That would take too long. Just do a biography of May's successes both as Foreign Secretary and as Prime Minister. If you start now, you could have it done and dusted in time for a swift pint down the pub at lunchtime.
'Tillson' could do a great preview for a book like that.
Tom
I grapple with, and fail to understand, how anyone can trust the Conservatives, incompetent to the extent that they can't even make a success of cutting a deal with an EU essentially keen to accommodate them in a hurry, so far as to entertain even the remotest of hopes that they will cut over a hundred separate trade deals with countries who know we are desperate for a quick "fix" and from whom we will of necessity have to BEG for any terms and conditions they care to impose.It's called "pulling the belt in".
Look on the bright side, we'd have solved the obesity crisis.
.
And furthermore be quick enough to avoid the economy crashing in ruin in the many years this process will require to be competed.
And yet, this Elephant in the room is obviously too hot for any politician of any stripe to mention publicly.
The Public surely have a right to know what is involved, how long it will take and the consequences of either success or failure, i.e. whether for bad , worse or catastrophic.
I think you are being overly pessimistic - every one knows that multi-billion dollar trade deals are penned out on a paper napkin at the local McJunkfood outlet. What's that you say? You want to pay in pounds sterling? Good luck with that!
Weren't those the last words of the Mayor of Gomorrah?It's called "pulling the belt in".
Look on the bright side, we'd have solved the obesity crisis.
.
We probably all know the mess that the elephant in the room caused on Blue Peter.
I predict even more of a stinking pile...
As for the Mayor of Gomorrah - sounds quite Irish, don't you think? (Not in any way suggesting any similarity in behaviour. It just seems to dance off the tongue to an Irish lilt. Could have been a ballad...)