Reply to: The big day is here

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

yes

I admire your optimism.

[jamesbrown]

Now lets get back to reality.

If you start the journey now, you may get there before scooty's bitcoins hit $100k.

[Lance]

Do you really think that?

For the last few months I've felt like the chances of us leaving without a deal are around 80%. I remain unchanged in that view.

AFAIK it's only within the power of the government to put forward legislation to revoke A50 (and cancel out related legislation). Do you think they will turn around at the last minute and do that if it looks like we're heading for a no deal exit?

yes

[BlasterBates]

On the contrary, it needed a moderate majority (present before 2017) and a leader committed to the possibility (notionally true). There hasn't been, and will never be, more than a tiny handful of headbangers in the Tory party that are willing to vote down their gov't in order to avoid it. Right now, it may be a sufficient handful. What's changed in the last week is that they won't need to do that and can instead change the SOs of the HC with the support of the Speaker. That leads to a much bigger handful. If May were committed to no deal, she could probably circumvent that too, but it turns out she probably isn't.

That sounds a bit "unicorny" i,e. all you needed is a majority of non-notjubs who believe in "no deal".

Sure if only. Now lets get back to reality.

[jamesbrown]

It was never the case that no deal was likely. It was clear from day one or even many years ago that leaving the EU would result in Brino.

There are enough Tory MPs who would have resigned the whip and voted the government down to prevent that happening. Parliamentary procedure just changed the time frame and the way it might happen.

For real Brexit to occur it always was and remains the case you need a "far right" party full of nut jobs to win a majority. Such a party can never rise above 30% in the polls.

On the contrary, it needed a moderate majority (present before 2017) and a leader committed to the possibility (notionally true). There hasn't been, and will never be, more than a tiny handful of headbangers in the Tory party that are willing to vote down their gov't in order to avoid it. Right now, it may be a sufficient handful. What's changed in the last week is that they won't need to do that and can instead change the SOs of the HC with the support of the Speaker. That leads to a much bigger handful. If May were committed to no deal, she could probably circumvent that too, but it turns out she probably isn't.

[BlasterBates]

That appeared to be the case until Letwin et al. proposed to change the Standing Orders of the House, which would allow them to preferentially table and vote on legislation from the backbenches, completely upending the normal relationship between the executive and legislature.

So, yes, if the HoC wants to legislate against no deal, aided by the Speaker, it's perfectly possible - likely even - that they could do it. Obviously, the long-term consequences of that are another matter, but it can only happen because the gov't doesn't have a majority.

It was never the case that no deal was likely. It was clear from day one or even many years ago that leaving the EU would result in Brino.

There are enough Tory MPs who would have resigned the whip and voted the government down to prevent that happening. Parliamentary procedure just changed the time frame and the way it might happen.

For real Brexit to occur it always was and remains the case you need a "far right" party full of nut jobs to win a majority. Such a party can never rise above 30% in the polls.

[jamesbrown]

Do you really think that?

For the last few months I've felt like the chances of us leaving without a deal are around 80%. I remain unchanged in that view.

AFAIK it's only within the power of the government to put forward legislation to revoke A50 (and cancel out related legislation). Do you think they will turn around at the last minute and do that if it looks like we're heading for a no deal exit?

That appeared to be the case until Letwin et al. proposed to change the Standing Orders of the House, which would allow them to preferentially table and vote on legislation from the backbenches, completely upending the normal relationship between the executive and legislature.

So, yes, if the HoC wants to legislate against no deal, aided by the Speaker, it's perfectly possible - likely even - that they could do it. Obviously, the long-term consequences of that are another matter, but it can only happen because the gov't doesn't have a majority.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

It does, but that ain't gonna happen.
We're more likely to remain than leave with no deal now.

Do you really think that?

For the last few months I've felt like the chances of us leaving without a deal are around 80%. I remain unchanged in that view.

AFAIK it's only within the power of the government to put forward legislation to revoke A50 (and cancel out related legislation). Do you think they will turn around at the last minute and do that if it looks like we're heading for a no deal exit?

[jamesbrown]

this is why I think no deal will not happen now. May would lose most of her cabinet if it looked like the clocking was ticking. Only the ERG want it and they struggled to get 48 letters.
I think you're right in that all bets are off if no deal looms, but for that reason I don't think it will come to that. It would destroy the Tory party even more.
I'd be less surprised if May just revoked A50 without discussion and then resigned (known as doing a Cameron).

The Tories are done IMHO, and it's a matter of detail in terms of which tribe departs and how many that includes.

Everything she's done to date, and everyone that has ever known her, suggests that she's incredibly obstinate and, once decided, will not sway. At the point that all remaining options involve swaying, I think she will do what she believes to be in the national interest, which means two things to her, 1) respecting the vote to leave (in her personal interpretation); and 2) not causing economic chaos. The guesswork stems from whether those two things are compatible in extremis, but I do think that no deal is quite unlikely now. Ultimately, among a collection of unlikely outcomes, there is one outcome, and I think that she will pursue a path that delivers a minimal brexit at the cost of a GE, one way or another (mainly because Corbyn wants that too).

[Lance]

Oh, and don't rule out the following either.

Labour offer to progress the WA (subject to something that looks and smells like a permanent CU, but with a fig leaf of some kind) in exchange for sufficient votes for a GE to decide who negotiates further.

That solves a lot of problems for both front benches.

However, May has previously shown herself to be too obstinate to make this sort of maneuver the base case. But when it's that or no deal?

this is why I think no deal will not happen now. May would lose most of her cabinet if it looked like the clocking was ticking. Only the ERG want it and they struggled to get 48 letters.
I think you're right in that all bets are off if no deal looms, but for that reason I don't think it will come to that. It would destroy the Tory party even more.
I'd be less surprised if May just revoked A50 without discussion and then resigned (known as doing a Cameron).

[jamesbrown]

Oh, and don't rule out the following either.

Labour offer to progress the WA (subject to something that looks and smells like a permanent CU, but with a fig leaf of some kind) in exchange for sufficient votes for a GE to decide who negotiates further.

That solves a lot of problems for both front benches.

However, May has previously shown herself to be too obstinate to make this sort of maneuver the base case. But when it's that or no deal?

[jamesbrown]

fixed term parliament act.......

To get a GE one of teh following is needed :
- a confidence vote that she loses (not a hope in hell while Jeremy 'friend of Sinn Fein' Corbyn leads Labour)
- repeal the FTP act
- May decides she wants one and gets a 2/3 majority in parliament (she'll struggle to get the Tories to risk their seats, and the DUP are still no chance, so what she did in 2017 isn't going to happen so easily now)
- it's 2022

You've omitted important aspects of the first hurdle above, but I broadly agree.

The FTPA does indeed impose a particular set of hurdles on the dissolution of Parliament, but these hurdles are surmountable in several ways that will become increasingly likely.

If sufficient of her backbench MPs refuse to allow any legislation to pass, no gov't can sustain that position for more than a short period. It might even be as soon as the remaining brexit legislation that follows the WA passing (i.e. you cannot trust Corbyn to sustain any agreement when he sees a tunnel for a GE). That is political reality, regardless of the FTPA.

I think there's a significantly higher hurdle for any backbench MPs to vote against their gov't in a properly worded FTPA confidence motion, but that is also a possibility. Indeed, to borrow the phrase from Marina Hyde, several Tory members of the provisional wing of the People's Vote campaign have explicitly said they would vote with the opposition in a confidence motion to prevent a no deal exit. It's hardly a great leap to imagine that a small minority of hardcore brexiteers might be similarly minded. A tiny number would be sufficient. Remember, also, that some backbench MPs are willing to change the Standing Orders of the House to achieve their ends. It's guerrilla warfare.

Still, I think attrition is the more likely route to a GE. The FTPA was carefully crafted to sustain the coalition in 2010, nothing more than that. It is completely flawed legislation and in no way foresaw the current circumstances or will prevent a GE, in any meaningful way, when sufficient backbenchers (or, indeed, back and front benchers) decide to the contrary.

[Lance]

At roughly 19:05 today, she’ll start a process that leads to her caving on a CU, which will precipitate a historic split in the Tories, at which point a GE is inevitable (perhaps not immediately, but when she cannot get anything else through Parliament). Maybe.

fixed term parliament act.......

To get a GE one of teh following is needed :
- a confidence vote that she loses (not a hope in hell while Jeremy 'friend of Sinn Fein' Corbyn leads Labour)
- repeal the FTP act
- May decides she wants one and gets a 2/3 majority in parliament (she'll struggle to get the Tories to risk their seats, and the DUP are still no chance, so what she did in 2017 isn't going to happen so easily now)
- it's 2022

[jamesbrown]

At roughly 19:05 today, she’ll start a process that leads to her caving on a CU, which will precipitate a historic split in the Tories, at which point a GE is inevitable (perhaps not immediately, but when she cannot get anything else through Parliament). Maybe.

[Lance]

Given that we are leaving and given that your post says "We're more likely to remain than leave with no deal now." does that not infer that there would have to be a new deal?

Hence my question, what is the new deal likely to contain?

I don't know. It depends on what Theresa May does next. It's likely to be a softer Brexit if she wants to get it agreed, but I'm not sure she does any more. I have no idea what she wants.

If parliament take over I reckon there'll be another referendum with remain or May's deal. But I'm not totally sure that's just the most likely.

If there's a GE, and Corbyn wins, then his deal will likely be a Norway/Swiss style.


At least I know when I don't know.