May in fight to retain grip on Brexit as parliament seeks control

[webfact]

May in fight to retain grip on Brexit as parliament seeks control

By Guy Faulconbridge and Paul Sandle

 

Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May arrives at church, near High Wycombe, Britain March 24, 2019. REUTERS/Henry Nicholls

 

LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Theresa May was holding crisis talks with colleagues on Sunday in an effort to breathe life into her twice-defeated Brexit deal after reports that her cabinet was plotting to topple her.

 

The United Kingdom's exit from the European Union was already slipping from May's weakened grasp as she struggled to increase support for her deal and parliament prepared to grab control of Brexit in the coming days.

 

At one of the most important junctures for the country since World War Two, British politics was at fever pitch. Yet, nearly three years since the 2016 referendum, it remains unclear how, when or if Brexit will ever take place.

 

With May humiliated and weakened, ministers publicly downplayed any immediate threat to her leadership, insisting that she is still in control and the best option is for parliament to ratify her Brexit divorce deal.

 

After hundreds of thousands of people marched across central London on Saturday to demand another Brexit referendum, May was the subject of what The Sunday Times said was a "coup" by senior ministers seeking to oust her.

 

The newspaper cited 11 unidentified senior ministers and said they had agreed that the prime minister should stand down, warning that she has become a toxic and erratic figure whose judgment has "gone haywire".

 

But two of the leading candidates as caretaker leaders - May's de facto deputy David Lidington and Environment Secretary Michael Gove - backed May on Sunday.

 

"I don't think that I have any wish to take over from the PM; I think (she) is doing a fantastic job," Lidington told reporters outside his house.

 

"One thing that working closely with the prime minister does is cure you completely of any lingering shred of ambition to want to do that task," he quipped.

 

Gove also downplayed the possibility of a coup.

 

"I think it is not the time to change the captain of the ship. I think what we need to do is to chart the right course, and the prime minister has charted that right course by making sure that we have a deal that honours the referendum mandate," he said.

 

SECOND REFERENDUM

Finance Minister Philip Hammond said that a change of prime minister at this stage would not help to break the Brexit impasse.

 

"To be talking about changing the players on the board, frankly, is self-indulgent at this time," he told Sky News.

 

May was meeting senior colleagues, including strong Brexiteers, on Sunday at her Chequers country residence.

 

Hammond said the best way forward would be for parliament to back May's deal, and if lawmakers did not, they should then try to find a way to end the deadlock.

 

"I'm realistic that we may not be able to get a majority for the prime minister's (Brexit) deal and if that is the case then parliament will have to decide not just what it's against but what it is for," he said.

 

Brexit had been due to happen on March 29 before May secured a delay in talks with the EU on Thursday.

 

Now a departure date of May 22 will apply if parliament rallies behind the prime minister and she is able to pass her deal. If she fails, Britain will have until April 12 to offer a new plan or decide to leave the EU without a treaty.

 

Some lawmakers have asked May to name her departure date as the price for supporting her deal, though it was unclear when a third vote might take place.

 

If May's deal is dead, then parliament will try to find a different option. That opens an array of possibilities including a much softer divorce than May had intended, a second referendum, a revocation of the Article 50 divorce papers or even an election.

 

When shown a list of scenarios by Sky News, Hammond ruled out no-deal and cancelling Brexit completely by revoking Article 50, leaving a second referendum as a possibility.

 

"I'm not sure there's a majority in parliament in support of a second referendum," he said.

 

"Many people will be strongly opposed to it, but it's a coherent proposition and it deserves to be considered along with the other proposals."

 

Lawmakers are due on Monday to debate a government motion saying parliament has considered a statement made by May on March 15 setting out the government's next steps on Brexit, including the plan to seek a delay.

 

They are likely to propose changes, or amendments, to this motion setting out alternative ways forward on Brexit. These are expected to include a proposal to approve May's deal only if it is put to a public vote.

 

While amendments are not legally binding, instead simply exerting political pressure on May to change course, lawmakers could use one to seek change in parliamentary rules to wrest control of the Brexit process from the government.

 

Brexit Secretary Steve Barclay, however, said that an election could be the result if lawmakers back proposals contrary to the pledges on which the government was elected.

 

"At it's logical conclusion the risk of a general election increases because you potentially have a situation where parliament is instructing the executive to do something that is counter to what it was elected to do," he told the BBC's Andrew Marr.

 

(Writing by Guy Faulconbridge; Editing by Keith Weir and David Goodman)

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-03-25

[malagateddy]

Hopefully a Brexiteer PM....VERY SOON!!!!!

She's done.

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Lungstib]

Retain? Since when has she ever had a grip?

[Basil B]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

After hundreds of thousands of people marched across central London on Saturday to demand another Brexit referendum, May was the subject of what The Sunday Times said was a "coup" by senior ministers seeking to oust her.

 

The newspaper cited 11 unidentified senior ministers and said they had agreed that the prime minister should stand down, warning that she has become a toxic and erratic figure whose judgment has "gone haywire".

 

But two of the leading candidates as caretaker leaders - May's de facto deputy David Lidington and Environment Secretary Michael Gove - backed May on Sunday.

And they said it could not get any worse...

[Loiner]

Of course she needs to go. Even if she resigned, could we end up with a real Leave PM? The Tory party faithful would support that but not enough of the Tory MPs.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[OneMoreFarang]

Statistics show only about 10% of the UK population like her deal. Does it have to sink to 1% before she realizes that she did a horrible job? She should resign and try to find a proper job. Maybe she should try to be a dance instructor - she can't be much worse than trying that PM job.

 

I wish the UK all the best - but looking at their politicians I don't have much hope that will happen anytime soon.

[OneMoreFarang]

11 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Of course she needs to go. Even if she resigned, could we end up with a real Leave PM? The Tory party faithful would support that but not enough of the Tory MPs.

Maybe they realized that leaving is a stupid idea...

[Loiner]

She’s tabling a motion at 2:30 pm today. If it’s her third meaningless vote, she must have some help from Bercow.
One more humiliation and she’s down and out.



Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[welovesundaysatspace]

4 minutes ago, Loiner said:

She’s tabling a motion at 2:30 pm today. If it’s her third meaningless vote, she must have some help from Bercow.
One more humiliation and she’s down and out.



Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Could it be indicative votes maybe? Would be a first step in the right direction, something she should have done long ago rather than humiliating herself by flogging a dead deal and alienating everyone where she should be seeking majorities. 

[stephenterry]

21 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Could it be indicative votes maybe? Would be a first step in the right direction, something she should have done long ago rather than humiliating herself by flogging a dead deal and alienating everyone where she should be seeking majorities. 

Yes, I agree. And now parliament will take over the process, with indicative votes on how to proceed. I expect a no-confidence in the government will be tabled by Corbyn later in the week, which could lead to a GE if passed.

 

We live in interesting times.

[melvinmelvin]

just wish parliament had sought control a couple of years ago, reasons were plentiful already then

 

[stephenterry]

Philip Hammond states that there is little parliament appetite for revoking Article 50 - expected - or for crashing out with a No deal, because that would be a disaster for the economy. Other solutions including a referendum and a softer Brexit, which could break the impasse.

 

Whether we like it or not, some compromise has to be achieved - a compromise that actually benefits the UK from day one, not several years down the line, if at all.

 

 

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Statistics show only about 10% of the UK population like her deal. Does it have to sink to 1% before she realizes that she did a horrible job? She should resign and try to find a proper job. Maybe she should try to be a dance instructor - she can't be much worse than trying that PM job.

None of the big boys want the PM job with Brexit hanging over them.

If May goes, you'll just get another fool taking the job who just wants the 65k PM pension, and 150k for life allowance.

[melvinmelvin]

a few days ago the EU 28 agreed a 2 variant A50 extension

both variants linked to the vote on the deal, this week?

 

day after EU concluded I read in BBC news that not sure the vote will be this week

 

if so, didn't take May many hours to deviate from what was agreed,

I am sure the EU brass is impressed by that

 

[stephenterry]

59 minutes ago, Loiner said:

She’s tabling a motion at 2:30 pm today. If it’s her third meaningless vote, she must have some help from Bercow.
One more humiliation and she’s down and out.



Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

I believe she's tabling a statutory bill to legalise the extension of Article 50. 

[melvinmelvin]

An issue which has puzzled me for a year at least, don't have any good answers though:

 

Now UK and EU have been in talks for 2 years or so re the w-deal,

guess one could say the outcome is close to disaster, spelt with DIS, very few accept it

those who are meant to enjoy it hates it.

Talks derailed fairly early in the process. (there are reasons for that, but doesn't matter now)

 

Now, over the past few months, TM, cabinet, sizeable portion of MPs (not majority in any way)

want that deal approved and ratified.

Fair enough, their taste.

But:

 

Jumping on this deal probably means years of new talks with the EU,

many more and much more complicated issues of vital importance for the future of the UK.

 

Is there any reason at all to think that these talks (if deal is approved) will in any way go better

than the disaster we have behind us?

 

have no answer, but this puzzles me

 

[vogie]

13 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

An issue which has puzzled me for a year at least, don't have any good answers though:

 

Now UK and EU have been in talks for 2 years or so re the w-deal,

guess one could say the outcome is close to disaster, spelt with DIS, very few accept it

those who are meant to enjoy it hates it.

Talks derailed fairly early in the process. (there are reasons for that, but doesn't matter now)

 

Now, over the past few months, TM, cabinet, sizeable portion of MPs (not majority in any way)

want that deal approved and ratified.

Fair enough, their taste.

But:

 

Jumping on this deal probably means years of new talks with the EU,

many more and much more complicated issues of vital importance for the future of the UK.

 

Is there any reason at all to think that these talks (if deal is approved) will in any way go better

than the disaster we have behind us?

 

have no answer, but this puzzles me

 

You have nailed it Melvin, it's just like being put in jail for a murder you did not commit, then new evidence emerges that indeed you did not commit the murder. The judge says you must be released, but the gaoler won't open the cell door.

[welovesundaysatspace]

 

Quote

Now UK and EU have been in talks for 2 years or so re the w-deal,

guess one could say the outcome is close to disaster, spelt with DIS, very few accept it

those who are meant to enjoy it hates it.

The actual scandal here is that people make such fuss about this deal. Let’s realize for a moment what this deal is: it’s just a temporary agreement to bridge the gap between leaving the EU and concluding future relationships. It’s the second step in a three-step process: Leave, transition, future. A transition period. And having such transition period is a sensible thing to do.

 

I mentioned it before, look at what companies do when they buy businesses that have to be separated from the selling parent company for the sale. They always sign transition service agreements to bridge the gap between the acquired business leaving its selling parent and being integrated into the buyer. Transition services that lets them use the existing IT systems, agreements and licenses, and other resources, until the buying company is able to build those themselves. I have yet to meet a CEO who says “nah, fxxx it, we are so great we do without.” Mostly is the other side that doesn’t want to be attached to what it sold anymore. Same as the EU doesn’t like this situation much. 

 

Making such a fuss about this transition period shows how much this process is driven by ideology and emotions rather than knowledge and clear thinking. Rather than using this offer to put themselves in a position where they can negotiate future relationships in a stable environment that doesn’t disrupt economic and society further, they blow the whole thing up before it has happened. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BritManToo]

8 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Making such a fuss about this transition period shows how much this process is driven by ideology and emotions rather than knowledge and clear thinking. Rather than using this offer to put themselves in a position where they can negotiate future relationships in a stable environment that doesn’t disrupt economic and society further, they blow the whole thing up before it has happened. 

Nobody involved in the leaving process actually wants to leave.

It's nothing like a business deal.

[welovesundaysatspace]

14 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Nobody involved in the leaving process actually wants to leave.

It's nothing like a business deal.

Then stay. Not that I want it but at least it would end this circus and we could work on more important issues. 

[superal]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

None of the big boys want the PM job with Brexit hanging over them.

If May goes, you'll just get another fool taking the job who just wants the 65k PM pension, and 150k for life allowance.

It really is crying out for someone to take the bull by the horns in an assertive and proactive way . All this pussy footing around is unbelievable . Cometh the hour cometh the man , where is he and who do you think it should be ?  has to be a Brexiteer without conflicts of interest plus knowledge of the EU workings .  He would have done a better job than May and her cronies .

Interested in the 65k and 150k , please enlighten me .

[JonnyF]

35 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

 

The actual scandal here is that people make such fuss about this deal. Let’s realize for a moment what this deal is: it’s just a temporary agreement to bridge the gap between leaving the EU and concluding future relationships. It’s the second step in a three-step process: Leave, transition, future. A transition period. And having such transition period is a sensible thing to do.

 

I mentioned it before, look at what companies do when they buy businesses that have to be separated from the selling parent company for the sale. They always sign transition service agreements to bridge the gap between the acquired business leaving its selling parent and being integrated into the buyer. Transition services that lets them use the existing IT systems, agreements and licenses, and other resources, until the buying company is able to build those themselves. I have yet to meet a CEO who says “nah, fxxx it, we are so great we do without.” Mostly is the other side that doesn’t want to be attached to what it sold anymore. Same as the EU doesn’t like this situation much. 

 

Making such a fuss about this transition period shows how much this process is driven by ideology and emotions rather than knowledge and clear thinking. Rather than using this offer to put themselves in a position where they can negotiate future relationships in a stable environment that doesn’t disrupt economic and society further, they blow the whole thing up before it has happened. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Britain wants a transition period (withdrawal agreement) and is even prepared to pay a ridiculous sum of money for it, even though most of it favours the EU more than it does the UK.

 

The problem is that there is no time limit. We can be locked into the backstop indefinitely and have no option to leave it unilaterally. Which means the EU can keep us in it unless we sign a ridiculously one sided trade deal, which is of course the reason they refuse to make it time limited or allow the UK to leave it unilaterally. Macron even said as much when he said it could be used to blackmail us on the fisheries policy. 

 

The EU will not agree to anything unless it is completely one sided in their favour, there is no good will whatsoever. Which is why we should leave with no deal, keep the 39 Billion to cover any disruptions that occur and proceed to trade with them on WTO terms until they agree to a trade deal. Which, seeing as we buy much more from them than we sell to them, "should" be relatively straightforward (and I say "should" because the EU wants to punish us for having the temerity to leave their club so they may decide to cut off their nose to spite their face). They are essentially a cartel, a mafia that kneecaps anyone who wishes to leave the 'gang'.

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, melvinmelvin said:

a few days ago the EU 28 agreed a 2 variant A50 extension

both variants linked to the vote on the deal, this week?

day after EU concluded I read in BBC news that not sure the vote will be this week

if so, didn't take May many hours to deviate from what was agreed,

I am sure the EU brass is impressed by that

Not quite. May 26 extension linked to the May motion being passed this week. April 12 extension linked to no motion being passed this week.

[usviphotography]

55 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

have no answer, but this puzzles me

 

There is nothing that puzzling about it. Brits voted for Independence in a Referendum, but the Globalists are still very much in control of the actual Government. And as the US demonstrates, even electing yourself a new government doesn't ensure that the Globalists aren't going to continue to wield power behind the scenes. Brexit will happen when the EU collapses, and not a day sooner. And that collapse will have nothing to do with the British people or their government. The UK is a vassal state will watch the sidelines as the real players battle things out. Everything that has been going on in the UK the past three years has been nothing but theater. 

[BritManToo]

11 minutes ago, superal said:

Interested in the 65k and 150k , please enlighten me .

PMs pension 65k/year, PMs allowances paid after serving as PM, paid for life 150k/year.

[stephenterry]

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Britain wants a transition period (withdrawal agreement) and is even prepared to pay a ridiculous sum of money for it, even though most of it favours the EU more than it does the UK.

 

The problem is that there is no time limit. We can be locked into the backstop indefinitely and have no option to leave it unilaterally. Which means the EU can keep us in it unless we sign a ridiculously one sided trade deal, which is of course the reason they refuse to make it time limited or allow the UK to leave it unilaterally. Macron even said as much when he said it could be used to blackmail us on the fisheries policy. 

 

The EU will not agree to anything unless it is completely one sided in their favour, there is no good will whatsoever. Which is why we should leave with no deal, keep the 39 Billion to cover any disruptions that occur and proceed to trade with them on WTO terms until they agree to a trade deal. Which, seeing as we buy much more from them than we sell to them, "should" be relatively straightforward (and I say "should" because the EU wants to punish us for having the temerity to leave their club so they may decide to cut off their nose to spite their face). They are essentially a cartel, a mafia that kneecaps anyone who wishes to leave the 'gang'.

If the UK wants to leave by virtue of a delivered referendum vote, this is the price they pay. No good screaming blue murder and blaming the EU - they are only protecting their interests as any country/bloc would.

 

As for leaving on WTO terms, even the Chancellor says that could be an economic disaster for the UK. Of course he could be wrong, not know his job, but I would bet on him knowing more than you (nothing personal) in this situation.

 

The real issue is that Brexiteers want their cake and eat it, and then cry foul if the terms of leaving doesn't suit their ideology.

 

 

 

[robertson468]

As I understand the situation, Government wanted to control the Brexit issue, however that was voted down and it then became an issue for the whole House of Commons to participate in.  Maybe I am being overly simple, but why did she not write to all MPs saying here are all the options.  Which one would you vote on and once she see there is a majority for one issue, she takes that forward for everyone in the House to vote on.  Her personal views and ideas at this stage really come in second.  Once the decision is made, lets get on with making trading agreements with USA, Africa, Asia, Americas and no doubt there are some EU Countries who would still like to deal with the UK.  As I say, perhaps I am a simpleton at the end of the day.

[JonnyF]

8 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

If the UK wants to leave by virtue of a delivered referendum vote, this is the price they pay. No good screaming blue murder and blaming the EU - they are only protecting their interests as any country/bloc would.

 

As for leaving on WTO terms, even the Chancellor says that could be an economic disaster for the UK. Of course he could be wrong, not know his job, but I would bet on him knowing more than you (nothing personal) in this situation.

 

The real issue is that Brexiteers want their cake and eat it, and then cry foul if the terms of leaving doesn't suit their ideology.

 

 

 

Of course they say it will be a disaster. Just as they predicted 500,000 jobs losses, emergency budget, recession etc. just on a VOTE to leave (not actually leaving). Look how that turned out, we're doing pretty well despite the doomsday predictions.

 

There will be no cliff edge, no car crash, this is just emotive language which if repeated often enough people start to believe. We'll trade on WTO terms as we do with most of the rest of the world until a trade deal is reached. There will be some minor delays at the main EU ports for a few months I'd imagine but essentials like vital medicine can be sourced from outside the EU if necessary. If essentials cost more to bring in by air from outside the EU, subsidize it from the 39 Billion we saved until things settle down. There are plenty of 'experts' predicting very little negative impact from No Deal and quite a few benefits, just as you have the peddlers of Project Fear predicting 30% house price falls, outbreaks of super gonorrhoea etc.

 

I keep hearing about the disaster of No Deal (crashing out, cliff edge etc.) but when it comes to specifics I don't hear too much. If there was good will on both sides it wouldn't be as much of an issue but unfortunately the EU is extremely bitter about our decision to leave and wants to punish the UK to deter another country leaving and prompting their house of cards to topple. Like I said, it's like a mafia kneecapping one of the gang when they inform the boss they intend to leave.

[Laughing Gravy]

46 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

If the UK wants to leave by virtue of a delivered referendum vote, this is the price they pay. No good screaming blue murder and blaming the EU - they are only protecting their interests as any country/bloc would.

This price they pay as you say is a figure clutched out of thin air. There is no legal obligation to pay it. If you can remember the 5 Bureaucratic presidents of the Council, were making up figures daily. The UK should have/still claim for all the money they have put in for the buildings and infrastructure, they contributed too. If its a divorce as you say, what about the 'bricks and mortars'. it is a one sided divorce and TM has been a been a fool, for not pushing for the interests of the UK people. Basically she has bent over and taken it without complaint.

[Laughing Gravy]

37 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

The real issue is that Brexiteers want their cake and eat it, and then cry foul if the terms of leaving doesn't suit their ideology. 

No the real issue is that brexiteers want what was promised before the referendum and after but like most remainers seem to forget what that was. What we want is a PM who actually believes in leaving and with a cabinet, who also want to leave. Not the shower we have in now.