However, if we cannot agree on the single unified approach then we would instead agree a number of options for the future relationship that we could put to the House in a series of votes to determine which course to pursue.
Crucially, the government stands ready to abide by the decision of the House, but to make this process work, the opposition would need to agree to this too.
I actually find this all pretty positive.
I don’t quite understand the bit about how Corbyn has to first agree to the WA before she will negotiate with him, and I do think that part of what she’s doing is angling for a no deal Brexit she can blame Labor for. But that said, it is encouraging that she’s trying something else at last.
draxen
4229
Does anyone else have a hot take on what happened today?
I’ve been trying to work out what the hell May is playing at but I’m struggling (and I don’t think I’m the only one). Most Remainers think it’s some kind of Tory trap. “Beware the trap!” says the SNP. Most Leavers also seem to think it’s some kind of Tory trap. I think that’s why the Brexiteer outrage has been somewhat muted.
Is this just May trying to control the narrative and further run down the clock or is she sincere and really trying to get the WA through by any means possible?
Those two aren’t mutually exclusive.
The title of this thread just keeps getting more and more appropriate. Kudos @Woolen_Horde !
May said some things. Some people think she meant one thing, some thing another. Mostly it bought her another few days while everyone tries to work it out.
Just another May speech really.
Rest assured Corbyn will let us know the moment he steps out of the meeting.
He would love it wouldn’t he? “The Prime Minister is playing games with the future of working class families all over this country!” oh he would definitely have himself a slice of that free pie.
I don’t think she’s running down the clock. If she wanted a No Deal Brexit she could have easily ensured that by doing nothing.
I’d say that this is a response to the Conservative hard brexiteers who’ve been pushing her into a corner for the last two years and more. If I was May, that’s the group I’d be most pissed off at, and if I had given up on achieving my own agenda, the group I’d mostly likely want to screw over in revenge.
Tactically, she’s trying to build a new majority in the Commons by going outside her own party. Customs Union got 276 votes and confirmatory referendum got 280 votes on Monday, with the government “payroll vote” abstaining on everything. If May whips the government vote on behalf of one of those two options for example, we could expect some hard brexiteer resignations, and the remaining 40 - 50 on the payroll would get either of those two options to or beyond an overall majority. That’s the part I liked most about the statement; an explicit commitment by the government to support and implement whatever deal the Commons can agree.
WRT the withdrawal agreement, May is only saying what the EU are telling us. That whatever Britain decides about the future relationship, the WA is fixed and has to be signed off on. And she’s also trying to retain a claim on some political credit by positioning the WA as her agreement.
The explicit appeal to Corbyn is an obvious political maneuver, but at least it’s a constructive one. He gets the chance to either share the political credit for finally making a deal happen, or have his bluff called.
If you’re looking for a No Deal exit this is probably bad news. I’ve still no idea why you’d see no deal as a positive good though.
draxen
4235
That sounds very likely. I guess I’m just shocked that she would go against such a large majority of her party. They will want her head on a stick. Still, WA + customs union is not a bad compromise. Perhaps this will break the impasse.
EDIT:
I see the first resignation just came in. If the WA passes I expect that the DUP will end their confidence and supply agreement. May might get her deal through with Labour support but I expect it will be swiftly followed by a GE.
But they’ve already got that. They’ve pushed her into a position where she has nothing left to lose.
She has no future in the party anyway. She’s had to promise to resign to get as much support for the WA as she has, and the only way she’ll have any legacy other than the Windrush scandal and fucking up Brexit will be to pass the WA, with or with the Tory party.
She’s running down the clock to pass the WA.
As I understand it, any future deal would be brand new so to speak, and would be like the EU making a deal with South Africa or Australia.
And neither of those require freedom of movement etc.
It depends. If the UK wants a regular trade deal, then yes, but if they want a tighter agreement the EU is already on record saying they will use the WA as a template.
Aceris
4241
Yes, but the EU is refusing to negotiate anything without a permanent transfer of power over tariffs and goods/service regulation in Northern Ireland to the EU.
Aceris
4242
No, the EU have said they will not negotiate a trade deal until their demands are satisfied.
That’s not true, we are talking about the WA, not the final deal. The EU is rejecting the UK to be able to step away during the implementation period.
The deal negotiated once the WA is in place could be a regular trade deal with a physical border, and without the access to the EU market the WA provides.
But the EU is requiring that the implementation period under the WA is on their terms, yes. Otherwise it’s no deal and negotiating from scratch, without temporary arrangements during the negotiations.
Aceris
4244
But they have said they will not even negotiate a trade deal in the no deal scenario until their demands are satisfied:
- Fair treatment of EU27-1(*) citizens who moved to live or work in he UK in good faith (while not reciprocating to the same extent for British citizens who moved to work or live in the EU27-1 in good faith).
- The payment of a large sum with questionable basis in international law.
- A completely open NI border, guaranteed by EU controlling NI tariffs and regulations, with only very limited options to force the EU to relinquish these.
(*: Excluding Ireland, due to the CTA)
Number 3 is a UK demand too. Until you get a government in that is willing to take a more, er, relaxed view of the Good Friday Agreement, that won’t change.
The quotes I’ve read are that they won’t enter a negotiation with temporary arrangements without those demands being satisfied, not that they won’t enter a negotiation at all. The idea is that under no deal you can get a regular trade agreement (and nothing else) negotiated.
Maybe I’m wrong, but you’ll need a quote.
