Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[95thrifleman]

Which is what he rest of the country democratically voted for. Control of our laws, trade, and borders. This deal delivers none of that.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ry-reports-say


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...nd-the-meaning




So we’ll follow the same rules, with even less of a say in how they’re made than before.

And we can’t make our own regulations, because the EU doesn’t want any semblance of competition.

‘What’s good for Britain is bad for the Union, comrade’



We won’t even get our own ing courts back, again following EU law and decree, with no say how they’re made. This is sheer madness by May.

The whole thing is a poisoned chalice.

Corbyn and the SNP will vote against everything just to try and force another election, the house of lords will reject anything just to stay in the eu and the eu will reject any proposal knowing they can turn this "transition" period into an indefinite state of vassalage till a pro-eu government is elected an goes back begging for -re-entry nd we'll lose all our ol opt outs an get forced to sign up to shengen and the euro.

[Greyblades]

I disagree, corbyn for all his faults is a eurosceptic of the tony benn tradition and will not likely block a vote to leave, the SNP are irrelevantly small, the house of lords do not have the authority to do more than stall for a year, assuming they actually do objedct and are not overpowered, and we do not know whather the EU will reject any proposal because we have yet to see their stance when no deal has not been admitted as a possibility by the UK government.

As for the rest, we shall have to see, but I think the chances of a pro EU government returning to power are slim especially with the atrocious precident of May's now termanal tenure has been.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I rather think there was only going to be two options from the UK position due to the power imbalance, either take an 'off-the shelf' model, particularly as the Switzerland model that suddenly everyone has realized exists over the past few weeks, is one the EU has actively been trying to undermine and eradicate for the past decade or so- thus removing it and the possibility of a custom deal mostly from the equation, and that's not pending the Governments current complete incompetence on brexit...but also seemingly everything, the domestic front being pretty dire- or it would be a 'hard-brexit'. Both technically have a major potential to destroy the Conservative party electorally- thus rock and hard place. They also arguably would do the exact same to Labour, who were potentially just as split, though the growing trend seems to be a swap in the traditional 'heartlands' of both parties, with Labour making historic inroads into the South-East, while the Conservatives are swapping steadily to the North-West- though at a far slower pace than Labour, hence the 1922 Committees' fears following the last GE and their so-far rather badly planned offensive to charm the under 45s. This is for a variety of reasons though, most not linked to brexit, but it is a factor.

But bearing this in mind, again we come back to the fact that brexit, while being a Conservative baby to unify the party, should never have been kept (especially as secretly and underhandedly as it has been) within the remit of just the Conservative party. The weighting of committee's, the active avoidance of scrutiny and honestly their general incompetence meant that a cross-party solution, that would have spread the risks across the whole political system (and thus secured social stability for the outcome) was a not on the cards. Even though this is essentially how things were always going to go, beyond the EU experiencing its own inner turmoil.... which brexit was supposed to cause, but has thus far not really materialized. Even immigration which had split the EU seems on course thus far to be resolved, and the bigger issue is that all the major EU states are unified still... partly because they all stand individually (if not the EU) to benefit from brexit- the FT article this morning on Macron's charm effective working well in the city being a key example.

The fact too though that May for whatever idiotic reason (Peer pressure, need to legitimize her position without going straight to a GE et al) pushed the article 50 button before any planning and internal discussions had taken place (Again there was a blueprint for leaving the EU that was plausible for the UK- it did have a time-span of 15 years prior to actually pushing article 50 though) was the death-knell for the British position, which was always going to be an uphill struggle.

It'll at least be interesting now to see what happens. The Conservative party's historic civil war is in the open once more, and it'll be seen particularly for the brexiteers what's more important- brexit or their party. Its recognized toppling May will lead to a GE before the end of 2019 (Most commentators are saying far sooner due to the dire need to shore up legitimacy and support for any incumbent PM and their position on brexit moving forward). Also the risk for them is that while they have the numbers for a leadership challenge- if all take the plunge, there is no guarantee that if their are two candidates, that a brexiteer will win. The brexiteers whole power-base has been effectively that they have higher representation in Cabinet than they do among the party MP's overall. If their consigned outside the Cabinet, or indeed if their candidate fails, their influence will be finished (A fact some say May should have grasped from the beginning if she truly wanted to shore up her position- but then again she has proved to not exactly be politically astute), pending a party split- which honestly might be likely to happen anyway in the longer term.

One small example of this has been the whole 'US Free trade deal' issue- The Brexiteers are mostly keen on it, but British business is against as their members wrote through the CBI (Mentioned in a BBC or Preston interview- alas i forgot who a few days ago) that they are dead against such a thing as beyond 'high quality' products, the US will out-source, under-cut, out-produce and thus destroy British companies in all areas as their is simply no way they can compete on scale- job losses being a key issue. Furthermore Trumps stance on US trade, and also the proposals they've outlined would mean the UK would have to bow to their pressure in lowering our standards for agricultural and industrial goods, flying in the face of Conservative promises- so essentially here the Conservative Party are split into two very distinct entities- that easily are separate parties, with separate groups of support and interests. Its essentially 'Free trade' vs 'Britain First'- Brexiteers vs Traditional Conservatives.

An issue to bear in mind to add to the Conservative divide, is that while a key core of their electoral base want out, the majority of their business and market interests want in as much as possible. This is perhaps where Labour under Corbyn have an advantage if they were take the reigns of brexit, as in terms of party support they are mostly funded by party members and their donations, businesses having removed their influence. Though of course Labour have the Trade Unions exerting a fair bit, who are pro-EU on working protections- thus perhaps a bit easier to allay. But again the big two will both have i think equal difficulties in negotiating brexit- Labour perhaps would be able to salvage a bit more electorally from what 95th Rifleman has correctly called a 'poisoned Chalice' as they could simply mirror Cameron's very successful political tactic of blaming the previous Government for the mess, and noting they can only do their best, which may dampen the consequences.

EDIT: Interestingly May has today called Labour MP's to Chequers for the first time to brief them on a brexit deal- it would appear the Conservative hard-brexiteers may have overplayed their hand and lost influence as Davis's resignation pushes her to shore up support for a 'soft brexit' not merely from her own party, but for the first time across the house (Something that should have been done from the very beginning- though its too late now to mitigate the electoral issue), which has potentially cross-party support. Which Labour MP's this is, and what they demand will be key to if this is workable or not. But it could sideline the brexiteers, and either they'll back down for power, or will force a leadership challenge- that is pending that she manages to get Labour on board of course. The Labour MP's are probably not from Corbyn's camp (though they might be)- which effectively means that even if they vote for the government, it won't really be an issue for Labour as Corbyn (as he's done in the past) can wash his hands with them being 'Blairites' and thus not take any potential hit among Labours brexit supporters.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...b0cb7e6f6c3734

EDIT EDIT: Dominic Raab- Davis's replacement for brexit secretary- is seemingly a snub to Gove, but also while being a Leaver proponent is seen as less of an ideologue to brexit, and more pragmatic- he's even gone on record as saying that the Brexit transition period should be extended as they need more time to sort things out and negotiate. A far cry from the 'hard line' 'No deal' wanted by some brexiteers. He's told them essentially that brexit needs a bridge- which that would provide.

[Katsumoto]

It'll at least be interesting now to see what happens. The Conservative party's historic civil war is in the open once more, and it'll be seen particularly for the brexiteers what's more important- brexit or their party. Its recognized toppling May will lead to a GE before the end of 2019 (Most commentators are saying far sooner due to the dire need to shore up legitimacy and support for any incumbent PM and their position on brexit moving forward). Also the risk for them is that while they have the numbers for a leadership challenge- if all take the plunge, there is no guarantee that if their are two candidates, that a brexiteer will win. The brexiteers whole power-base has been effectively that they have higher representation in Cabinet than they do among the party MP's overall. If their consigned outside the Cabinet, or indeed if their candidate fails, their influence will be finished (A fact some say May should have grasped from the beginning if she truly wanted to shore up her position- but then again she has proved to not exactly be politically astute), pending a party split- which honestly might be likely to happen anyway in the longer term.

I think the ideologues will ramp up the pressure, and while it may seem hard to believe May will be able to weather their storm, she does have a knack for survival. Especially if her position is softening ("Brexit means Brexit, kind of") and she's working with Labour MPs. I'm not sure Johnson, Gove or Mogg will have the balls to pull anything serious anyway. The question now seems to be whether the EU will accept her cherry picking, though.

This is where problems may arise. Mrs May thinks her softening of Brexit is as far as she can go politically. But EU leaders will want a lot more, including continuing payments into the EU budget. Trickiest of all, they are likely to demand an acceptance of the principle of free movement of EU citizens, which they see as one of the four indivisible freedoms of the single market. Mrs May was firm this week that free movement will end, though she is offering a “mobility framework” in its place. Unless this is sufficiently generous, however, the EU will still probably say no.

Some Brexiteers hope that, in that event, they can resurrect the idea of walking out with no deal at all. In a sop to them, the cabinet has agreed to step up preparations for such an outcome. But in practice, it is too late. A no-deal Brexit next March would have catastrophic consequences for the economy. Some form of Mrs May’s softer Brexit is likely to prevail. Brexiteers have only themselves to blame. In over two years since they won the referendum, they have failed to come up with a convincing and workable alternative.

https://www.economist.com/britain/20...exit-secretary

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I think the ideologues will ramp up the pressure, and while it may seem hard to believe May will be able to weather their storm, she does have a knack for survival. Especially if her position is softening ("Brexit means Brexit, kind of") and she's working with Labour MPs. I'm not sure Johnson, Gove or Mogg will have the balls to pull anything serious anyway. The question now seems to be whether the EU will accept her cherry picking, though.



https://www.economist.com/britain/20...exit-secretary

I think your right that she'll get through this indeed. It depends of course on what happens with the talk to Labour MP's, but i suspect that the brexiteers, particularly with Raab signing up to May's concept as far as we know will have little influence going forward, even a no confidence vote isn't really in their favour due to the lack of numbers. I think indeed soft brexit may be the outcome after all- regardless of whether you call that a 'real' brexit it or not.

Aye, i think the EU while seemingly heartened by the change in attitude, will probably in the end give us a Norway style 'off the shelf' deal with some limited changes perhaps as concessions to domestic support. I agree that a no-deal just isn't something that can be pursued anymore due to the complete lack of preparation for it. It will though in this case, or indeed if somehow a no-deal is pursued, an electoral nightmare for the Conservatives- who have put all their effort into brexit, to just get this, while making a hash of things domestically due to their attention being on said brexit.

What's really interesting is this:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...y-live-updates

Firstly- There are leaks suggesting that the Brexit department is going to be cannibalized, and that Raab has agreed to this. The Civil Service are 'taking back control' through Olly Robinson and thus negotiating will go to him, with the brexit department still existing, but in the capacity for providing legal advice on brexit, not front-line negotiations- This is only leaked though. We've yet to see it confirmed.

The other thing is that Boris Johnson has disappeared- he missed his meeting earlier, and their are conflicting reports if he's at the Cabinets Cobra meeting. The Chief Whip though apparently has 'no idea' where he is. So i suspect Boris is playing his usual 'hide and see' game to see which way would be best to swing- join May or go the way of Davis. The fact though that apparently to keep David Davis May actually offered him Bori's job, and then Leadsomes indicates perhaps that his worth and day's are numbered in Cabinet anyway and she's looking for an opportunity to finally ditch him, and feels she's getting closer to being in a position to do so- particularly if the influence of the Tory backbench brexiteers is now disappearing, and thus the trouble he can cause is far lessened.

[Katsumoto]

The fact that Johnson has survived this long, despite being a constant thorn in May's side, just demonstrates how precarious this government has been. Yeah, it will probably be electorally damaging, but I think Labour's muddled position on Brexit, as well as some people's general dislike of Corybn, may mitigate the damage. At least the Lib Dems straight up said they were against it.

Apparently Boris is hunkering down, speculation that he will resign:

"Friends of @BorisJohnson think he is quitting. Not definite. But he is ensconced in his official residence with his advisers, which sends a powerful signal. As one said, "very hard for him not to quit now that Davis has, given that everyone knows they both hate May's Brexit plan""

YouGov also reporting a drop in support for May by Leave-voting Conservatives. Turning into a real mess for them, this.

[Kraut]

Considering how close the Brexit vote was (I remember 52:48 percent), the currently looming "semi Brexit" or "half baked Brexit" or "one leg in, one out Brexit" looks like the perfectly adequate solution.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

The fact that Johnson has survived this long, despite being a constant thorn in May's side, just demonstrates how precarious this government has been. Yeah, it will probably be electorally damaging, but I think Labour's muddled position on Brexit, as well as some people's general dislike of Corybn, may mitigate the damage. At least the Lib Dems straight up said they were against it.

More news- looks likely Johnson is quitting- Peston has apparently heard from his mates that Boris is 'ensconced' at home with his advisors- his friends can't see him not quitting as if he remains while Davis goes, he loses his credit among the brexiteers. I'm not sure what it might achieve though- Makes a VoNC more likely? Perhaps- as also remain MP's don't feel the position is 'soft' enough, and so perhaps could vote against her to replace with a more open remain candidate- Though that's a stretch i think.

Corbyn and Labours position- as a voter i'm frustrated by the lack of clarity, as a politico (For want of a better word ) i downright admire it, as its a very successful strategy while in opposition for keeping their electoral core united- As part of this, the constant (and fair) reference to the domestic situation acts as both a further unifying tool, but also is intended to 'drown out' any serious thought of brexit. Its a strategy though that if in government would have the opposite effect, but its a good one i think for their circumstances thus far- it also allows a lot of lee-way for if they do need to finally come down on what, when and where. Corbyn is an interesting one- his policies are well liked among the British public, but he doesn't fare so well. At the same time though he's a different politician when on the campaign trail- after the last GE, he was riding far higher than the Tories (And polls currently are once more beginning to place them 4 points ahead according to survations latest- but again that's with their current manipulating of both sides of the brexit referendum) in terms of personal ratings. The Conservatives also overplayed their hand with Corbyn with silliness like the Czech spy incident- they had a winning strategy to discredit him personally when it was used sparingly and was also direct- but it was telling the lack of political turmoil for Corbyn the last Commie spy thing did, it actually hindered discrediting him, so in that respect the Tories may have reached 'peak anti-Corbyn'.

Of course the real danger for the Conservatives is technically is that Corbyn steps down if a GE isnt' called soon (He's made mention of not wanting to be in politics for the long haul), and then its likely his successor (due to the changes to membership rules) will be equally left-wing, with Corbyn's policies which are popular, but without the stigma attached. I know some government leaks in the wake of the last GE feared that would happen.

Lib-dems, i think they made the mistake labour avoided by coming clearly out against brexit when Labour dominated the domestic space of opposition (as part of their unity push). It may pay dividends now though with a potential resurgence of remainers off the back of May being weaker.

Ooo and Boris has just gone Interesting times indeed.

[Katsumoto]

Does Boris going affect the chances of another general election, you reckon?

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Does Boris going affect the chances of another general election, you reckon?

At the moment i would say no (Though that may change pending her impending speech and parliamentary questions later today ). Boris with the Iran issue, the Heathrow issue and not resigning soon apparently is deemed by some brexiteers as 'damaged goods'- so as a figure-head he's no longer ideal. Gove did his work in that regard by essentially toppling Boris into Foreign Sec and showing the world just how bad he is at doing a real job. However, Boris i think is just popular enough among the party membership at large to push through a VoNC (though this is still very iffy if he'll succeed). But as has been pointed out by the Conservative parties former head of party, such a struggle and a leadership contest would take 3 months...the exact amount of time we have left to negotiate with the EU- so essentially the criticism of the Conservative party is made manifest- choose party or country .

Of course, even an unsuccessful VoNC could equally knock here (no leadership challenge needed to actually work)- so she might feel the need to 'solve it once and for all' by going to the country... Again though i think there's not enough time left beyond the EU extending things for us (Possibly could, not sure though). Also the last time didn't exactly go well for her- so unless she genuinely feels the Tories would be best served being 'out' for the count, regrouping and letting Labour have a pop (and some of the blame no doubt)- it would be very risky.

What are your thoughts on it?

[Katsumoto]

I mean I think it's a bit ridiculous May's still in power just on the virtue of having bought the DUP, so a general election would be the 'right' thing to do to settle it in a way, but that's obviously not how this works. Don't really have an opinion on this specifically, just wanted to hear your take on it - I've been too busy following Trump's blunders to keep up with the comparatively dull Brexit negotiations.

[95thrifleman]

Boris quit, looks like the Brexiteers are moving in for a leadership challenge.

I mean I think it's a bit ridiculous May's still in power just on the virtue of having bought the DUP, so a general election would be the 'right' thing to do to settle it in a way, but that's obviously not how this works. Don't really have an opinion on this specifically, just wanted to hear your take on it - I've been too busy following Trump's blunders to keep up with the comparatively dull Brexit negotiations.

Sometims I think the only reason DUP support May is they are scared she'll just hand NI over to the republic to save herself the border headache if they don't.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I mean I think it's a bit ridiculous May's still in power just on the virtue of having bought the DUP, so a general election would be the 'right' thing to do to settle it in a way, but that's obviously not how this works. Don't really have an opinion on this specifically, just wanted to hear your take on it - I've been too busy following Trump's blunders to keep up with the comparatively dull Brexit negotiations.

I think that's something nearly everyone feels on all sides- the DUP deal was such a fudge, and complicated the issue so much (in terms of them forcing May away from a hard brexit early on after she'd negotiated it). And hey i don't blame you in the slightest haha Whatever you say about Trump, it has meant that US politics is anything but dull.

Boris quit, looks like the Brexiteers are moving in for a leadership challenge.



Sometims I think the only reason DUP support May is they are scared she'll just hand NI over to the republic to save herself the border headache if they don't.

Possibly- i'm not sure yet if the brexiteers are willing to lose the diminished influence they now have by following such a risky route that could essentially end up legitimizing May's (or a remainers/ soft brexit) position. It has indeed just been said on BBC news that apparently, Boris's resignation letter wasn't actually finished when it was accepted by Downing Street- essentially they got wind of it and 'pushed' his hand- hence his inaction as it threw a spanner in the works. We'll see what happens later tonight though, the 1922 Committee will be interesting.

Also agreed on the DUP- i think essentially their in a rock and a hard place, as Moggs and co are on record as essentially saying the N.Irish border and its issues aren't worth messing up brexit for (Downplaying too the potential for violence), and no doubt May would drop them if she could, so they've got to hope she clings on as i doubt anyone else is alas too concerned over the issue.

EDIT: So May managed to pull a blinder on the 1922 committee, either through luck, or as yet untapped political skills, she managed to get enough support among them to not have to face a VoNC, and the brexiteers are too divided in their criticism of her thus far to present a solid challenge- their not sure what they want or why.

But the European Research Group is now meeting- apparently 80 members in attendance, unusually large- whether this is the font of opposition forming to her (Still a very small number comparatively, but more than enough to write to the 1922 committee anew to cause a VoNC), or if its just Tories are especially interested in what's happening there (And indeed if May has sent some people to keep an eye).

All of this though i suspect speaks of an opposition among brexiteers forming against her, but they overall lack the parliamentary arithmetic to really wield much influence over a PM who has woken up to the fact she doesn't need them- her response to Boris Johnson's resignation letter is actually (For British politics) quite scathing compared to her response to David Davis. Also the fact today that essentially the SNP, Labour back benchers, and the Lib-dems are all talking about single market membership, despite May's protests, show that actually far from weakening May's position for the brexiteers, its actually weakened her position potentially for the remainers to influence- particularly as just now it seems like Jeremy Hunt will be the new foreign sec- which replaces a breixteer with a remainer (though a self interested one admittedly) who will toe her line.

[Cyclops]

Informative posts thx guys.

I have a very poor grasp of the situation, especially the poison chalice part. I get the feeling the majority of politicians still don't want Brexit (whether its a bad idea or they and their rich mates will lose out from it doesn't matter, they are mostly against it) and the British PM who is in power at the moment of Brexit will get the blame for the short term pain it brings (not saying there will or won't be long term pain as well, but I am pretty sure the EU will punish Britain hard for leaving if they do). Likely the party in power will be severely damaged as well, although voters are pretty stupid so the damage might be short term.

Is the Pm position a poison chalice whatever happens? I mean if a PM betrays Brexit, either by reversal or a fake soft Brexit, that would destroy a PM and possibly their party as well? Not because Brexiteers are a committed majority (I think the Brexit result was just electoral IBS because people are sick of lying politicians) and not because people are smart, but just because anything that goes wrong could be blamed on the betrayal "England lost the World Cup, because May dragged her feet on Brexit" etc etc. I think Cameron resigned leaving a huge turd in 10 Downing Street to smear whoever goes in there for the next decade. Does that even remotely make sense?

The other point that occurs to me is that Boris' move could be incredibly petty spin doctoring. With England in the final 4 in the World Cup he might be trying for a spill before the final, so if England wins he can ride on the bus with them. Not really serious about this, but then again politicians are extraordinarily petty and egotistical.

[NorseThing]

I found this interesting from a CNN article (yes I am in the USA):

"As we developed our policy on Brexit, I have allowed Cabinet colleagues considerable latitude to express their views," she said in her letter of response to him. "But the agreement we reached on Friday marks the point where that is no longer the case, and if you are not able to provide the support we need to secure this deal in the interests of the United Kingdom, it is right that you should step down."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/09/uk/th...ntl/index.html

So were these real resignations or were they pushed out by May? I beginning to think they were 'asked' to resign by May. It may be we as readers and listeners of the media may need to wait a bit to know the full story.

[Exarch]

LOL Britons got royally screwed; now the French and Germans will get to have their way with britain and there aint nothin they can do bout it neither!

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Informative posts thx guys.

I have a very poor grasp of the situation, especially the poison chalice part. I get the feeling the majority of politicians still don't want Brexit (whether its a bad idea or they and their rich mates will lose out from it doesn't matter, they are mostly against it) and the British PM who is in power at the moment of Brexit will get the blame for the short term pain it brings (not saying there will or won't be long term pain as well, but I am pretty sure the EU will punish Britain hard for leaving if they do). Likely the party in power will be severely damaged as well, although voters are pretty stupid so the damage might be short term.

Is the Pm position a poison chalice whatever happens? I mean if a PM betrays Brexit, either by reversal or a fake soft Brexit, that would destroy a PM and possibly their party as well? Not because Brexiteers are a committed majority (I think the Brexit result was just electoral IBS because people are sick of lying politicians) and not because people are smart, but just because anything that goes wrong could be blamed on the betrayal "England lost the World Cup, because May dragged her feet on Brexit" etc etc. I think Cameron resigned leaving a huge turd in 10 Downing Street to smear whoever goes in there for the next decade. Does that even remotely make sense?

The other point that occurs to me is that Boris' move could be incredibly petty spin doctoring. With England in the final 4 in the World Cup he might be trying for a spill before the final, so if England wins he can ride on the bus with them. Not really serious about this, but then again politicians are extraordinarily petty and egotistical.

It's alright mate, i think its turned so chaotic that none of us have a firm grasp of just what's going on .

The poison chalice part- your essentially right. Cameron left a mess when he legged it. The referendum was essentially extremely close between the two sides. Add to this the big two are to a large extent split among both their membership, but also their electoral bases, and on top of this the conception of what 'brexit' actually is never being formally spelt out- one brexiter will have a different vision of what it means than another (I.e. my parents both voted for brexit, but still wish to continue single market access, while my college who voted it wants a new radical 'free trading' Britain on WTO terms). This all creates the issue that essentially no matter what the government would do, be it May, Boris et al or indeed Labour- it was always going to be a nightmare- there was no clear mandate that definitively decided things, there was no clear sole vision- there was also no plans for brexit from either Remain or Leave. Literally none offered a 'what we will do and how' as the SNP actually did in the Scottish Referendum. So things are very open, and one persons idea is anothers betrayal.

At the same time, domestic issues surrounding austerity, failing privatization of public goods and services and the cost of living crisis and growing inequality are big issues- which again arguably any government having to do brexit, while deal with a rather bleak internal scenario is going to struggle- The current excuse is essentially brexit is occupying all the governments main focus (and would do if it was Labour or Tory), but the negotiations from a UK perspective have been so bad, and Tory divisions have exacerbated what was already an uphill struggle- The Tories in this respect are slightly more divided than Labour due to how their party structure works, with an organized....ish group of traditional euro-skeptic backbenchers who have successively caused Conservative pm's no small amount of headaches prior to the referendum- indeed Cameron only offered it to shut them up- it backfired of course and also out of fear of the then UKIP taking up their voting base, Which they did manage to not just fend off, but annihilate.

So the way things worked out with the referendum and all that context essentially means there is no positive political capital to be made for either of the big two parties from brexit- its a case of trying to 'lose the least' in terms of their electoral support bases. Labour have thus been purposefully rather ambiguous on exactly what they'd do with brexit- Corbyn has been a known brexiteer for his whole career, and was very quiet on his support for remain during the referendum. Meanwhile though most of his party are for Remain, some fanatically so in the style of lib-dems, and thus either through lack of control, or indeed through allowing them sometimes- Labour through different MP's give a lot of mixed messages about what they want- they call it 'open discourse'- which works because it fits with Corbyn's own style (I.e. the perpetual backbench rebel). So while its frustrating, it has allowed Labour to stave off while in opposition at least the electoral consequences of coming down on one side of brexit or the other. Meanwhile the Conservatives, partly again due to their different structures, but also due to being in government are for many commentators on the very of splitting- the threat of being out of power to Corbyn if a new GE is called is the one thing stopping that thus far. A Conservative PM though was indeed always going to be a hell of a position. Hence partly May's survivability thus far, as quite frankly no one has wanted it- its a career killer, and one with a guaranteed legacy. A remainer will have the ire of the leave voters, while a brexiteer will draw the ire of remainers- both of them roughly half the country, though the Tories have far more remain/Soft brexit MP's than they have leave. The course taken by May has been one of trying to find a unifying ground- which she never has, thus the wasting of two years essentially just to sort out the internal position- she's finally given up, gone for a middle-road soft brexitish position (which will probably be negotiated down to a Norway-esque style deal i suspect) and said 'fight me' to the brexiteers- making peace with the fact her position was a poisoned chalice and she'll be blamed by a significant part of the country no matter what she does- its also too late now to call a leadership contest to secure her legitimacy (that she never developed after coming off worse in the last GE than the predicted far better) and a GE is far too risky for them.

In terms of a brexit majority- indeed i think the very fact that their also is not one key position of what is wanted for brexit further compounds the issue 'leavers and remainers' are far too simple in terms of peoples actual position- so i think there's actually not much support for Mogg's 'hard brexit' (as you can indeed be outside the EU, but still part of the ECJ or in a customs union with it etc)- May's vision- while i think no doubt the EU will negotiate us down (power imbalance, our ineptness and also the dangers such cherry picking present to their own stability make this certain) is seemingly an attempted middle-path....that neither brexiteers or most opposition (And some of her own party) remainers are happy about- but it in this current context, makes the most sense. There is of course a committed parliamentary majority for a so called EEA+ deal- which in essence is staying in the single market et al- despite the Labour front bench not liking this, but so far May is still trying to at least present the brexiteers a bone. It'll be interesting if they do attempt to topple her, if they'll lose out on their influence (again they are a very small group in terms of arithmetic, and are now a diminished presence in cabinet- all the replacements actually being remainers, or those who are likely to toe May's line) as she'll stop doing this- so its a difficult game for all sides.

So yep you make perfect sense mate, and have summarized it pretty damn well i'd say. I think we're now in the crunch time- The Brexiteers even if they toppled May, are unlikely to get one of their own in as leader, most likely at best for them it would be another 'unifying candidate' who would pursue a similar line to May, or even a full blown soft-brexiteer. So i can't see anymore how a 'hard brexit' could be achieved in reality- any action now is more likely one to try and punish May as opposed to actually getting the deal they wanted. So that option has effectively been killed. A 'no-deal' is also dead potentially, due to the Irish back-stop, and further the deal the Conservatives have made with the DUP that suspiciously could mean that in the case of a no-deal the UK ends up following the EU rules and regulations unofficially anyway, as the DUP has demanded that their be 'regulatory alignment' between the rUK and N.Ireland (To show their one state), and of course the deal has signed up N.Ireland to continue using the single markets rules and regs- so no-deal seems to my understanding at least, in essence a 'voluntary' vassal status. Thus we're now with different shades of remain , and the probable collapse of the party post-brexit.

I found this interesting from a CNN article (yes I am in the USA):

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/09/uk/th...ntl/index.html

So were these real resignations or were they pushed out by May? I beginning to think they were 'asked' to resign by May. It may be we as readers and listeners of the media may need to wait a bit to know the full story.

This is a very interesting point indeed- there was a rumour earlier on the BBC that the reason Boris was so all over the place (Getting ready to leave 3 times and then not going out the house) was because May announced and accepted his resignation before he'd actually fully finished and fleshed out his letter of resignation. It did take far longer to appear publicly than the others in the public domain- so in effect i don't know if that was 'pushing' technically, particularly as she was quite cutting about him going back on his word at Chequers, but it certainly took the immediate sting out of the impact if true (or Boris was just being a mess).

The other point of course being that Boris didn't want to resign at all, but Davis accidentally forced him to- Brexiteer front-man Boris according to his friends, could not have been seen to just 'remain' in the cabinet and sign up to a soft brexit he'd consistently briefed against, if other lead brexiteers were jumping ship- it would ruin his credibility and further damage him politically (After the dodging the Heathrow vote and botching his chance to resign before)- brexiteers indeed threatened him with becoming a non-entity to them if he didn't resign. So while Davis was principle, Boris's resignation (as always with him) was about his ambitions for a prospective leadership bid...which his stint as Foreign Sec has effectively killed.

I think also May was expecting this, apparently they'd drawn up a list of replacements and 'war gamed' all kinds of scenarios- So Davis leaving while perhaps not welcomed, was not really a shock- and he was very cordial in his letter (and her in her reply), Boris on the other hand attempted to fire some shots and was met with quite a scathing dress-down. But i can't say the extent they might have been 'softly' forced into this position- the Chequers meeting itself was something of a political triumph for May- a lot of bullying tactics employed like taxi numbers being left out as if anyone disagreed they'd lose their ministerial cars on the spot, and threats to 'consigning dissenters to history' if they went against the collective agreement of cabinet at the time, or later.

LOL Britons got royally screwed; now the French and Germans will get to have their way with britain and there aint nothin they can do bout it neither!

Just to explore this The big issue indeed is services (particularly financial)- Which May currently with her position is, depending upon how you read it either- sacrificing British manufacturing and agriculture, to get through a special agreement benefiting the UK in the financial services sector, or she's putting the financial service sector at risk, by not clearly stating the position she wants form them (Unlike with agriculture and manufacturing which essentially will continue to abide by EU rules). Either way its amusing that at the same time, The FT reported that Macrons 'charm offensive' against London's financial sector is going darn well for the French. So we're in a bit of a bind here. Though again its all better in terms of the economy than a 'no-deal', but at the same time that can be fairly argued by some to be of lesser importance than sovereignty, or their view of what that means. Hence why again we find brexit is a poison chalice for whoever is trying to do it.

[Aexodus]

This deal doesn’t give us control of our laws, we would still have to follow EU law like before. And while the single market is attractive to many, I don’t see the EU giving us that without forcing free movement, or worse schengen on us. How can we get greater border control while remaining in the single market?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The EU has essentially reached the point where it is powerful enough to hold the European economy to ransom to force free movement and political control.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

This deal doesn’t give us control of our laws, we would still have to follow EU law like before. And while the single market is attractive to many, I don’t see the EU giving us that without forcing free movement, or worse schengen on us. How can we get greater border control while remaining in the single market?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The EU has essentially reached the point where it is powerful enough to hold the European economy to ransom to force free movement and political control.

Interestingly though from this IpsosMORI poll the majority don't want an end to freedom of movement, just greater controls over it between EU countries- something that has already started happening around the EU off the back of the migrant crisis with reforms being debated (and some countries just out-right doing), so its one area where i think potentially their could be greater scope than previously thought for the UK- the issue time, which due to incompetence has never been on our side... because 'will of the people' became a nice political tool for a while to shore up a shakey government.

But the key point is this highlights the issues among brexiteers- Leave voters are a diverse bunch, this poll alone shows most not wanting an end to freedom of movement- indeed that's a very small minority here- and yet some brexiteers have been pushing that instead of looking at the EU's current context, watching reforms (Or in hindsight, actually staying within the EU and capitalizing on this crisis as we've done successfully in the past to push for our vision of reforms) and meeting a half-way compromise. The big issue is that no-deal is now not technically no-deal and regardless even if it was, we now have nowhere near enough time to be able to mitigate the damage of it. Its political suicide electorally, and doesn't hold majority public support. Thus now a deal is necessary, but again the time constraints and power imbalances in the first place, mean the UK was always going to end up with what some brexiteers would see as a 'bad deal'- but others would be fine with. The fact the Conservatives have been negotiating with themselves for the past two years- really screws things up sure, but even without that the UK would always have to do some half measure that never satisfied anyone. Again due to the brexit vote simply being such a large camp of varying views, and that's even before we get to the remain camp, which was not merely just 'status quo', but also types of reforms and 'how deep' from federalists, to two-tier supporters, to an EU that is fundamentally different.

So aye, i don't think single market access would be possible without freedom of movement et al, but i think when it comes to it, depending upon how the EU reforms, freedom of movement with 'greater controls' is a possibility, and one that could be successfully sold to most leave voters. Again though i suspect given the governments incompetence, no matter if May is toppled or not, we're going to end up with a Norway style deal with some concessions to make it sellable, or less likely (given the geopolitical context) a Canada style arrangement. Both are bad compared to what the UK had before- particullary with the questions raised over services- our key economic sector.

But in terms of the EU reaching that point, yes and no- the EU is a rather robust institution sure, but now as in the past, its very easy for large members to exert their influence to reform it to their designs- Britain for instance was integral to its expansion into eastern europe, supporting those states accession against protests of other members, it was also key to developing the market reforms. A modern example of course is the smaller states forcing talks and debates about the extent of freedom of movement and the response to the migration crisis. The EU isn't yet a state unto itself. Britain's issue is historically we've also been incredibly bad at being efficient long-term geopolitical players. Arguably this was true even during the Empire, but since then particulary, some argue due to loss of confidence on the world stage (Suez syndrome), others talk about being overstretched or not yet fully understanding or indeed trying to create a new place in the world for ourselves- we've been really crap administrators, making us our own worst enemy. The EU relationship has been a prime example, a key hand in shaping it, then uncertainty at what we'd done, then successfully forging and championing the two-tier system, then throwing that away. Its not that the EU is necessarily a big bad evil entity, but just the UK has in the long-term (not short) been really rubbish at having a vision and following through. Arguably this is why its a good thing we're leaving as at least it'll stop us squandering that. But in a multipolar world where we've tied our flag to the EU to counterbalance US influence (Lieutenant strategy) we were never going to be able to be truly sovereign (Just look recently at the US bullying other countries over milk into changing their laws and regulations)- in this context, using our sovereignty to effectively choose to follow (The cheeky political way of putting it) EU rules and regulations in return for our lack of planning not biting us on the arse completely, is probably quite a good sell.

What will be interesting is if May falls to the hard brexiteers, we're probably get a softer-version still due to the arithmetic, and as exposed yesterday the cross house support for single market access and all that entails. Some might argue this betrays the referendum, but personally i think it more betrays a section of the leave vote sure, but you could never keep everyone happy as we've said before Brexit is a poison chalice electorally- made worse when the last GE gave Labour a great basis of support and the Conservative government even less. Compromises like this were rather set in stone from that point on.

[caratacus]

A Prime Minister who voted to remain, without a public mandate to be PM, doing her best to undermine something that has received one from the Country. A truly sickening example of political shenanigans.

Will Labour support May in pushing this traversity through or force an election? It seems likely to be the former given the grip of this EU monster on our political representitives and Labour MPs divergence of opinion from its own suporters who voted to Leave in their droves. I see May has actually sent her Chief of Staff Gavin Barwell to brief opposition MPs, which indicates an intention push these plans through parliament in what is termed "the right thing to do for the country". Disgraceful! May should resign now and an election be called, but that would be too democratic for this lot of hoodwinkers.

The problem is for those who wish to leave without a deal, is that the Tories have wasted the two years leading up to this point, which would now maximise the damage to the UK economy. A purposeful action in order to force through what is termed "Soft Brexit". There is either leave or not, the ideal of a satisfactory middle way is a fallacy.

Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at King's College London, sums up the UK's choice as: "Either we diverge completely from the European Union, in which case we don't get frictionless trade, or we align ourselves with the European Union, in which case you may ask what is the point of Brexit."

He says that under Theresa May's plan to negotiate a free trade area for goods, the UK would only retain parliamentary sovereignty "in a technical sense". MPs could change any "common rulebook" alignment with Brussels but only if they were willing to lose the frictionless trade that came with it, he says.

"So we have in a way the shadow of Parliamentary sovereignty but we have lost the actual substance of being able to do what we like, and we also have no role outside the EU in making the rules by which we will be bound."