Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Carl the Llama]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

If you are bound by collective responsibility I have some sympathy, none of this is really under the force of a party whip though.

I mean Diane Abbott's excuse when questioned on why she sent her children to private school was something along the lines of that "black mothers go to the wall for their children" - which is as ridiculous as something can get.

No that seems fair, it's well documented that mothers of other skin colour could take or leave their kids 

 

I loathe identity politics 

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

No that seems fair, it's well documented that mothers of other skin colour could take or leave their kids 

 

I loathe identity politics 

The interview is actually on Youtube Portillo looks uncomfortable. 

 

 

[Lionator]

I'd send my kids to private school if I had the money, it doesn't mean that I don't believe in left wing ideals for an education system which favours those at the bottom of society. 

[Guest Markyblue]

10 hours ago, Lionator said:

I'd send my kids to private school if I had the money, it doesn't mean that I don't believe in left wing ideals for an education system which favours those at the bottom of society. 

Everybody's equal but some are more equal than others .

[Guest Foxin_mad]

10 hours ago, Lionator said:

I'd send my kids to private school if I had the money, it doesn't mean that I don't believe in left wing ideals for an education system which favours those at the bottom of society. 

But isn't it an admission from them that the system is not fit for purpose not fit for their little socialist darlings?

 

I actually completely disagree anyway, there are many fantastic state schools, many fantastic teachers in state schools. I would no matter how rich I am ever send my children to private school. The majority of people educated at state schools and attending a Polytechnic Uni are far more decent, pragmatic, have more common sense then the out of touch twerps educated at most Private schools to be fair. 

 

The irony now is that it is the privileged elite that really get behind the twisted ideals of a far left extremist Corbyn government, that would actually destroy the lives of many of the working class/poor they claim to care so much about in pursuit of an ideology that has been proven time and time again to be completely unworkable. 

[fuchsntf]

15 hours ago, Lionator said:

I'd send my kids to private school if I had the money, it doesn't mean that I don't believe in left wing ideals for an education system which favours those at the bottom of society. 

• I'd send 2 kids to state and 2 to private...then let the other 2 play traunt,and to join the travelling Gypsies...

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, fuchsntf said:

• I'd send 2 kids to state and 2 to private...then let the other 2 play traunt,and to join the travelling Gypsies...

 

So, you now have 2 kids who are government ministers, 2 who serve them burgers when they visit McDonald's and 2 who steal their car while they're in collecting their burgers. 

[fuchsntf]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

So, you now have 2 kids who are government ministers, 2 who serve them burgers when they visit McDonald's and 2 who steal their car while they're in collecting their burgers. 

Yup,and the bast%rd who stole the car,went to private school..!! Mind you it was a Lamborghini he was the only..one who could spell,the other,

Hid it on his Yacht,the government ministers,allowed them to get away with it,the two silly burgers,became chauffeurs for the PM.I

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

Nobody debating the gay cake case, then? Maybe it was all debated out last time it hit the courts....

 

Anyway, the Supreme Court has overturned the appeal court verdict: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45789759

So, the Christian bakers in N. Ireland ARE legally entitled to refuse to bake a cake with the message "Support Gay Marriage".

 

Although I support gay marriage, I think this is the correct verdict. To me, it's a free speech issue. If they'd refused to serve the bloke because he's gay, that would have been quite different.

Those opposed to gay marriage (or any other cause) shouldn't be forced to promote it.

Likewise, a gay baker shouldn't be forced to bake a cake bearing the message "Oppose Gay Marriage" or "Homosexuality is a sin", if someone tries to order one....

[Milo]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Nobody debating the gay cake case, then? Maybe it was all debated out last time it hit the courts....

 

Anyway, the Supreme Court has overturned the appeal court verdict: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45789759

So, the Christian bakers in N. Ireland ARE legally entitled to refuse to bake a cake with the message "Support Gay Marriage".

 

Although I support gay marriage, I think this is the correct verdict. To me, it's a free speech issue. If they'd refused to serve the bloke because he's gay, that would have been quite different.

Those opposed to gay marriage (or any other cause) shouldn't be forced to promote it.

Likewise, a gay baker shouldn't be forced to bake a cake bearing the message "Oppose Gay Marriage" or "Homosexuality is a sin", if someone tries to order one....

Agree - but It's a bit of a minefield, innit.

 

 

(i just spent ten minutes writing a "what if.." reply...and only succeeded in arguing with myself..)

 

And, as you say, it's been much discussed.

 

 

Just seems a bit censorship-y

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, Milo said:

Agree - but It's a bit of a minefield, innit.

 

 

(i just spent ten minutes writing a "what if.." reply...and only succeeded in arguing with myself..)

 

And, as you say, it's been much discussed.

 

 

Just seems a bit censorship-y

 

 

Yes, probably not worth getting into a long debate again - my fault for even mentioning the case.

 

I don't see censorship in it, just control of self-expression. Nobody's stopping the bloke from campaigning for gay marriage. If he wants to use a cake, I'm sure plenty of other bakers would accept the order.

Plus, if he or other customers don't like the personal opinions of the bakers concerned, they're free to take their custom elsewhere and to encourage others to do likewise, if they feel strongly enough.

 

Different people would draw different lines, I suppose. Some who opposed gay marriage (or some other cause) would be happy to produce a cake promoting that cause. As a non-Tory translator, if someone asked me to translate a French article supporting Tory policy, I'm sure that I'd do it. But if they wanted me to translate a Far Right leaflet for distribution here, stirring up hostility against particular groups, I wouldn't want to be legally compelled to produce their message.

 

Peter Tatchell was on C4 News supporting the verdict. A bloke that a lot of people don't like, but I rather admire him. He seems to be a natural left-libertarian and is prepared to adopt stances that he knows will earn him unpopularity in some quarters (I'm sure some radical gay activists will have a go at him over this issue). Very brave in some of the people he takes on, too - Putin regime in Russia, attempted citizen's arrest on Mugabe etc.

[Milo]

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yes, probably not worth getting into a long debate again - my fault for even mentioning the case.

 

I don't see censorship in it, just control of self-expression. Nobody's stopping the bloke from campaigning for gay marriage. If he wants to use a cake, I'm sure plenty of other bakers would accept the order.

Plus, if he or other customers don't like the personal opinions of the bakers concerned, they're free to take their custom elsewhere and to encourage others to do likewise, if they feel strongly enough.

 

Different people would draw different lines, I suppose. Some who opposed gay marriage (or some other cause) would be happy to produce a cake promoting that cause. As a non-Tory translator, if someone asked me to translate a French article supporting Tory policy, I'm sure that I'd do it. But if they wanted me to translate a Far Right leaflet for distribution here, stirring up hostility against particular groups, I wouldn't want to be legally compelled to produce their message.

 

Peter Tatchell was on C4 News supporting the verdict. A bloke that a lot of people don't like, but I rather admire him. He seems to be a natural left-libertarian and is prepared to adopt stances that he knows will earn him unpopularity in some quarters (I'm sure some radical gay activists will have a go at him over this issue). Very brave in some of the people he takes on, too - Putin regime in Russia, attempted citizen's arrest on Mugabe etc.

I saw the Peter Tatchell thing - tbh, I've not really taken much notice of him since the 80's...when he appeared to come across as a bit of a publicity hungry anti-everything type (I could be wrong...it was a long time ago!)

 

He was saying that the cake message was a political one and the company shouldn't be forced by law to encourage political messages - I see the cake message as more of an anti-oppression statement, from a group of people that have been (and still are) oppressed. Your example above about not working for a group that wants to stir up hostility is kind of the opposite of what this is, imo.

 

I hate religion, I really do. 

 

Wonder if I can get that on a cake  

[Guest MattP]

14 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Nobody debating the gay cake case, then? Maybe it was all debated out last time it hit the courts....

 

Anyway, the Supreme Court has overturned the appeal court verdict: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45789759

So, the Christian bakers in N. Ireland ARE legally entitled to refuse to bake a cake with the message "Support Gay Marriage".

Certainly the correct decision reached, the idea you could force a business into making a message they didn't agree with is like something from a auhtoritarian state - imagine an Asian printer being forced to printing BNP leaflets, would be deplorable.

 

What still fascinated about the case was how few people had a strong opinion on it yet had clearly failed to read it, so many people I spoke to assumed they had refused to serve the couple because they are gay, which wasn't true. The cake buyers are shameless people, did all this for a political point and went to that bakers with the intent of making all this happen - according to one of the DUP MP's it cost the public 18million quid, what a waste.

 

11 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Peter Tatchell was on C4 News supporting the verdict. A bloke that a lot of people don't like, but I rather admire him. He seems to be a natural left-libertarian and is prepared to adopt stances that he knows will earn him unpopularity in some quarters (I'm sure some radical gay activists will have a go at him over this issue). Very brave in some of the people he takes on, too - Putin regime in Russia, attempted citizen's arrest on Mugabe etc.

He was very good on Politics Live last week, he went to a Mosque to leaflet about gay rights, a lot I disagree with him on but his commitment to freedom of speech and thought is absolute and is something everybody should be supporting.

I still can't get my head around that letter he wrote to the Guardian though trying explain how gay sex can give joy to young boys, very odd.

[Finnegan]

On 09/10/2018 at 16:20, MattP said:

If you are bound by collective responsibility I have some sympathy, none of this is really under the force of a party whip though.

I mean Diane Abbott's excuse when questioned on why she sent her children to private school was something along the lines of that "black mothers go to the wall for their children" - which is as ridiculous as something can get.

 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

Certainly the correct decision reached, the idea you could force a business into making a message they didn't agree with is like something from a auhtoritarian state - imagine an Asian printer being forced to printing BNP leaflets, would be deplorable.

 

What still fascinated about the case was how few people had a strong opinion on it yet had clearly failed to read it, so many people I spoke to assumed they had refused to serve the couple because they are gay, which wasn't true. The cake buyers are shameless people, did all this for a political point and went to that bakers with the intent of making all this happen - according to one of the DUP MP's it cost the public 18million quid, what a waste.

 

He was very good on Politics Live last week, he went to a Mosque to leaflet about gay rights, a lot I disagree with him on but his commitment to freedom of speech and thought is absolute and is something everybody should be supporting.

I still can't get my head around that letter he wrote to the Guardian though trying explain how gay sex can give joy to young boys, very odd.

 

I suppose the bloke who brought the case could argue that it was a valid campaigning tactic to promote an important cause (Northern Ireland is now the only part of the British Isles where gay marriage is illegal, I think).

It could also be argued that it is not public money wasted as it now stands as an important test case protecting freedom of expression for everyone, including Asian printers.

 

On the narrow issue of the campaign tactic used, though, I do think the bloke could have chosen tactics that didn't try to legally compel people to express opinions they fundamentally disagreed with. He had plenty of options for public campaigns against the politicians or religious leaders who oppose gay marriage - and if he really wanted to target the bakery (a strange choice), he could have accepted their right to hold an arguably bigoted view but could have campaigned for other customers to boycott the bakery in protest at their refusal to bake a cake bearing the slogan.

 

Tatchell followed the logic through and actively supported civil partnerships for straight people, too. I don't know anything about the context of the alleged "young boys" comment that you raise and don't want to get into that debate just now - another time, maybe. The debate on here about certain issues (Islam, paedophilia etc.) can just deteriorate into sordid or bitter exchanges that seriously bring my mood down, unless I'm in a particularly carefree mood. 

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I suppose the bloke who brought the case could argue that it was a valid campaigning tactic to promote an important cause (Northern Ireland is now the only part of the British Isles where gay marriage is illegal, I think).

It could also be argued that it is not public money wasted as it now stands as an important test case protecting freedom of expression for everyone, including Asian printers.

 

On the narrow issue of the campaign tactic used, though, I do think the bloke could have chosen tactics that didn't try to legally compel people to express opinions they fundamentally disagreed with. He had plenty of options for public campaigns against the politicians or religious leaders who oppose gay marriage - and if he really wanted to target the bakery (a strange choice), he could have accepted their right to hold an arguably bigoted view but could have campaigned for other customers to boycott the bakery in protest at their refusal to bake a cake bearing the slogan. 

 

Tatchell followed the logic through and actively supported civil partnerships for straight people, too. I don't know anything about the context of the alleged "young boys" comment that you raise and don't want to get into that debate just now - another time, maybe. The debate on here about certain issues (Islam, paedophilia etc.) can just deteriorate into sordid or bitter exchanges that seriously bring my mood down, unless I'm in a particularly carefree mood. 

Wasn't intending to debate it, just saying how odd I found it (You can see it with a quick google). I still don't know what they were actually trying to achieve with this, did they really want to force all businesses to be compelled towrote pro-gay propaganda even if they didn't want to do so? Why the desire to replace one tyranny with another?

The issue is so completely different to a thing like gay marriage, I'd love to be able to ask them what the outcome they desired was.

Back to Brexit - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/we-ll-topple-government-if-may-gives-in-to-brussels-says-dup-9wpqw75xb
 

Quote

 

Theresa May was warned by the DUP that it would be prepared to bring down her government if she signs up to a compromise with Brussels to solve the Irish border question next week.

In an explicit threat to the prime minister before a critical five days of negotiations in Brussels, the party threatened to withdraw support for the budget later this month unless it was happy with the final deal. Last night the DUP underlined its point by abstaining in a Commons vote in which it would normally have been expected to support the government.

The move, which involved a Labour amendment to the agriculture bill, was co-ordinated with Tory Brexiteers, The Times understands. It was designed to put maximum pressure on Mrs May from her own party not to compromise on the Irish backstop issue, which stops additional checks at the border whatever the Brexit outcome. Downing Street was given no warning of the DUP threat which, if followed through, could lead to the Conservatives losing their majority in Westminster.

 

I'm starting to wonder if anyone at all in number ten is now listening to anybody outside of it.

The DUP is explicitly clear and always has been that it won't accept this, either this is the most asinine government we have had in my lifetime or they already know they have the numbers from the Labour side to get this through the house and they are prepared to do that before collapsing straight afterwards.

[MC Prussian]

On 09/10/2018 at 17:28, MattP said:

The interview is actually on Youtube Portillo looks uncomfortable. 

 

 

Diane Abbott is a gift that keeps on giving - no clue how she managed to become a politician, because she has no clue:

Edited 11 October 2018 by MC Prussian

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Diane Abbott is a gift that keeps on giving - no clue how she managed to become a politician, because she has no clue:

She's amusing, but it won't be amusing if she actually becomes the Home Secretary.

Just last week the head of the Police Federation had to write to her over more inflammatory comments she made - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/diane-abbott-sparks-fierce-debate-after-claiming-officers-used-unreasonable-force-in-arrest-of-black-a3955526.html

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Back to Brexit - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/we-ll-topple-government-if-may-gives-in-to-brussels-says-dup-9wpqw75xb
 

I'm starting to wonder if anyone at all in number ten is now listening to anybody outside of it.

The DUP is explicitly clear and always has been that it won't accept this, either this is the most asinine government we have had in my lifetime or they already know they have the numbers from the Labour side to get this through the house and they are prepared to do that before collapsing straight afterwards.

 

In politics, lots of people make something "explicitly clear" - and then do the opposite, because they've been bribed or intimidated or have looked at the cold, hard realities of voting numbers, potential power/influence or loss of power/influence.

 

I've no idea how much flexibility, if any, the DUP will show when push comes to shove, but don't think we can just take what they say literally. They may be adopting a hard line now so as to avoid being pressed to make more concessions later, or might be open to bribery or intimidation, or might look again at what they have to lose if they were to help to collapse the govt....or they may be deadly serious, of course.

 

My starting-point a few weeks back was to assume that May had no chance of getting anything through parliament. I do now wonder if she intends to try to call the bluff of all her opponents - effectively offering them the choice between whatever deal she does and one or more of No Deal or an election/second referendum (visions of Theresa's face superimposed on Clint Eastwood's, asking 'Do you feel lucky, punk?' )

 

She might hope to attract the votes of Labour MPs who don't want to risk those alternatives to her deal or who don't want their voters to perceive them as either obstructing Brexit or causing No Deal chaos. She might also hope that the DUP can be persuaded into line, as mentioned - and that a fair chunk of her ERG wing will not want to risk the prospect of an election or referendum, potentially losing Brexit completely and/or ending up with a Corbyn Govt.

 

Whether she has a realistic chance of peeling enough votes off from the different groups to get a deal through, I've no idea. If she tries it without having good grounds for confidence, though, it will arguably be the biggest political gamble ever taken by any politician, as the alternatives if she loses all have massive implications. 

 

+1 for "asinine" (I'm ashamed to say that I had to look it up!)  

[urban.spaceman]

23 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Diane Abbott is a gift that keeps on giving - no clue how she managed to become a politician, because she has no clue:

 

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

She's amusing, but it won't be amusing if she actually becomes the Home Secretary.

Just last week the head of the Police Federation had to write to her over more inflammatory comments she made - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/diane-abbott-sparks-fierce-debate-after-claiming-officers-used-unreasonable-force-in-arrest-of-black-a3955526.html

She's a nightmare. I'm sure she does a good job for her constituency but I wouldn't want her in government. In the last election I posted on Facebook saying I couldn't vote for Labour because among other reasons she was incompetent (proven), clueless (proven) and a racist (proven x1000). For that I was called a racist bigot using my white male privilege. 

[Guest MattP]

21 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

In politics, lots of people make something "explicitly clear" - and then do the opposite, because they've been bribed or intimidated or have looked at the cold, hard realities of voting numbers, potential power/influence or loss of power/influence.

 

I've no idea how much flexibility, if any, the DUP will show when push comes to shove, but don't think we can just take what they say literally. They may be adopting a hard line now so as to avoid being pressed to make more concessions later, or might be open to bribery or intimidation, or might look again at what they have to lose if they were to help to collapse the govt....or they may be deadly serious, of course.

 

My starting-point a few weeks back was to assume that May had no chance of getting anything through parliament. I do now wonder if she intends to try to call the bluff of all her opponents - effectively offering them the choice between whatever deal she does and one or more of No Deal or an election/second referendum (visions of Theresa's face superimposed on Clint Eastwood's, asking 'Do you feel lucky, punk?' )

 

She might hope to attract the votes of Labour MPs who don't want to risk those alternatives to her deal or who don't want their voters to perceive them as either obstructing Brexit or causing No Deal chaos. She might also hope that the DUP can be persuaded into line, as mentioned - and that a fair chunk of her ERG wing will not want to risk the prospect of an election or referendum, potentially losing Brexit completely and/or ending up with a Corbyn Govt.

 

Whether she has a realistic chance of peeling enough votes off from the different groups to get a deal through, I've no idea. If she tries it without having good grounds for confidence, though, it will arguably be the biggest political gamble ever taken by any politician, as the alternatives if she loses all have massive implications. 

 

+1 for "asinine" (I'm ashamed to say that I had to look it up!)  

The DUP seem to be less likely to go back on these things, they have a history of some severe stubborness, even being prepared to help collapse Stormont rather than engage in a compromise.

I've just watched Peston from last night and Gloria De Piero said the most important thing about the vote was "respecting the democratic result of the referendum" - on that basis I'm presuming that she's going to vote with the government and given where she is in the Labour party it probably means they are probably 50 votes up for grabs from them, certainly among MP's who represent leave constituencies and anti-Corbyn MP's.

So the choices seem to be,
 

Norway - Possibly supported by Labour party, supported by pro-European Tory rebels, hated by most of Tory party - Impossible to go for given she's declared we will be outside Single Market even with a majority in parliament.

Canada - Supported by DUP and ERG - Could only pass through if pro-European Tory rebels vote for it, unlikely.

 

The deal based on Chequers (Appears to be somewhere in between and she's not calling it that anymore ) - probably 40-80 ERG Tories ready to vote down, seems to satisfy pro-EU Tories, need Labour support to get through, clearly a possible and still most likely option. It's interesting how the word "Chequers" has already become a blueprint for failure so she won't use it anymore.

Whatever happens one side of the party gets a cold hard stare, the ERG becomes powerless with substantial support from other sides of the house, I still think she might just pull this off, massive gamble yes, but I'm not sure she really has any other alternative. There would be something quite commendable about securing a deal with cross party votes and then ending your own career to achieve something.

 

12 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

She's a nightmare. I'm sure she does a good job for her constituency but I wouldn't want her in government. In the last election I posted on Facebook saying I couldn't vote for Labour because among other reasons she was incompetent (proven), clueless (proven) and a racist (proven x1000). For that I was called a racist bigot using my white male privilege. 

I'd ignore anyone who accuses you of having white privilege unless you are off to Eton or inheriting the Dorchester or something, for a start the worst performing children in schools now are the poorest white boys, we have huge problems with wealth privledge in the country, but very little is now based on race.

It's weird to be honest, the white privilege argument is now almost solely the groupthink of the middle classes to show how much more virtuous they are than (often, far poorer) white people, kind of like a weird 2018 PC version of White Power. Many see victimhood as a new way to exert power, don't fall for it.

[fuchsntf]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

She's amusing, but it won't be amusing if she actually becomes the Home Secretary.

Just last week the head of the Police Federation had to write to her over more inflammatory comments she made - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/diane-abbott-sparks-fierce-debate-after-claiming-officers-used-unreasonable-force-in-arrest-of-black-a3955526.html

She was a good young activist/politician when she was young, doing well in the communities she served....

Even now could be a top backbencher...supporting the socialist government...I

 

I would cring if she went higher into a cabinet or shadow cabinet position...when it gets serious...

 

 

 

[Guest MattP]

Just now, fuchsntf said:

She was a good young activist/politician when she was young, doing well in the communities she served....

Even now could be a top backbencher...supporting the socialist government...I

 

I would cring if she went higher into a cabinet or shadow cabinet position...when it gets serious...

She is the shadow Home Secretary.

[fuchsntf]

Just now, MattP said:

She is the shadow Home Secretary.

When it gets serious...!!!!! I said.

I hope for some reshuffling....

[Alf Bentley]

19 minutes ago, MattP said:

The DUP seem to be less likely to go back on these things, they have a history of some severe stubborness, even being prepared to help collapse Stormont rather than engage in a compromise.

I've just watched Peston from last night and Gloria De Piero said the most important thing about the vote was "respecting the democratic result of the referendum" - on that basis I'm presuming that she's going to vote with the government and given where she is in the Labour party it probably means they are probably 50 votes up for grabs from them, certainly among MP's who represent leave constituencies and anti-Corbyn MP's.

So the choices seem to be,
 

Norway - Possibly supported by Labour party, supported by pro-European Tory rebels, hated by most of Tory party - Impossible to go for given she's declared we will be outside Single Market even with a majority in parliament.

Canada - Supported by DUP and ERG - Could only pass through if pro-European Tory rebels vote for it, unlikely.

 

The deal based on Chequers (Appears to be somewhere in between and she's not calling it that anymore ) - probably 40-80 ERG Tories ready to vote down, seems to satisfy pro-EU Tories, need Labour support to get through, clearly a possible and still most likely option. It's interesting how the word "Chequers" has already become a blueprint for failure so she won't use it anymore.

Whatever happens one side of the party gets a cold hard stare, the ERG becomes powerless with substantial support from other sides of the house, I still think she might just pull this off, massive gamble yes, but I'm not sure she really has any other alternative. There would be something quite commendable about securing a deal with cross party votes and then ending your own career to achieve something.

 

 

 

It'll be interesting to see if there are any leaks or comments by ministers after this cabinet meeting later today. May clearly intends to inform them of developments, but no idea what those are.

 

I agree that both Norway and Canada seem unlikely due to voting numbers - unless there's an election and that tips the balance one way or the other. Precisely what sort of deal, if any, May will get is still unclear - and her ability to get it through parliament will surely depend on it being a deal that contains some goodies for every side, otherwise the numbers are likely to go against her. I may be wrong, but would be surprised if as many as 50 Labour MPs supported her against the party whip. If she only got, say 20 Labour votes, she couldn't afford to lose more than about 25 Tory or DUP votes....not much room for manoeuvre. Still a fair chance of parliament voting it down, generating a political crisis and forcing parliament to choose between No Deal and an election or referendum, I think.

 

Mind you, the fact that only the divorce deal is due to be finalised could work in May's favour. I'm fully expecting the provisional declaration on future EU-UK relations to be a fudge, as it doesn't need to be finalised any time soon. It probably cannot be too vague or the UK would be leaving itself in a vulnerable position, signing up to the divorce deal and risking getting shafted over the future relationship - a risk that various UK political factions might balk at. But if the declaration on future relations makes a few key issues clear, leaves others vague, and comes in tandem with a divorce deal that settles all urgent issues, including the Irish border, and confirms the transition period until December 2020, that might be hard for a lot of MPs to turn down. Pulling it off would certainly be an achievement of sorts for May, but it would also be a great outcome for the EU, frankly, if much of the future relationship remains up for negotiation. Would leave the EU with the whip hand.