The PM made her statement to the House yesterday afternoon, the one she was forced to make by MPs. If they genuinely expected something different they must have been sadly disappointed. It was another exercise in whitling away more of the 67 days left before March 29th. It was not a Plan B but a restatement of Plan A with the promise of more consultation to see how she could get parliament to accept it. There was no suggestion she would change course at all.
She also set out how she would conduct negotiations on the future trade deal and promised there would be more consultation and more involvement of parliament in the process. Cue hollow laughter. MPs are now free to amend the motion she put before the House and another vote is planned for next Tuesday - seven more precious days gone.
May emphatically ruled out delaying or revoking Article 50 or a second referendum or a hard border in Ireland or a customs union. One by one she dismissed every option except her deal, carefully explaining why they were quite impossible and totally ignoring the fact that her deal was rejected by a landslide last week.
Listening to her she once again sounded as if she was lecturing MPs in her usual schoolmarm fashion. Most people would have shown some contrition had they spent eighteen months working on a deal without finding out if it had majority support. Personally I would have immediately resigned and took a job managing a grocer's shop in Khazakstan where I would never have to face the press or MPs ever again. But this is not her style.
The PM chided Jeremy Corbyn for not attending the talks last week because she wouldn't rule out no deal. In other words he set a red line. This came from a woman who has set more red lines than anybody and has stubbornly refused to remove any of them. It was the obstinate accusing the obdurate of inflexibility. Pure pantomime.
It's easy to see why she's known as a 'bloody difficult woman' whenever she was asked to take no deal off the table the answer was the same: the only way to stop no deal was to vote for a deal. God knows how many times she repeated the same answer. It was as if she was pointing a gun at the nation's head and saying do as I say or the nation dies. In Maybot world, 'a' deal is her deal and nothing else. She is determined to try and force it through by sheer brinkmanship.
May is being told between 25-40 ministers are set to resign (HERE) unless they're allowed to vote for the amendment ruling out no deal. She is in a very precarious position trying to hold the two wings of the Tory party together at the expense of the whole United Kingdom.
On another matter, I posted about GATT Article 24 at the weekend (HERE) and lo and behold, Owen Paterson says we can carry on trading tariff free with the EU for ten years. He seemed to be clutching at his final straw. This is him in the House yesterday (Col 43 HERE), telling the PM:
"I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments on Northern Ireland. She knows that if we were to follow the route proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and did get to the point where we could trigger article 24 of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, we could continue for up to 10 years on zero tariffs and zero quotas. That would allay many of the fears of Opposition Members who are worried about high tariffs under so-called World Trade Organisation terms".
May explained :
"The question of GATT 24 is perhaps not quite as simple as some may have understood it to be. My right hon. Friend’s expectation that it is simply possible to leave with no deal and immediately go into that situation does not actually reflect accurately the situation that the United Kingdom would find ourselves in. I continue to believe that leaving with a deal is the best way forward for us in leaving the European Union, and that is what we will continue to work for".
In other words he was completely wrong. But will he forget GATT 24? No, probably not. But it's interesting he raised it. Is he beginning to see through his own fog? Is the outline and the scale of the disaster he has visited upon us becoming clear? Maybe it is.
And finally Rees-Mogg still claims if we leave on March 29th we save £39 billion. This is the Mogg (Col 47):
"I thank the Prime Minister for saying that she will go back to the EU to discuss the backstop in particular. When she goes, will she take with her a copy of the House of Lords report from March 2017 that says if we leave without a deal we do not owe it any money, because that may make it more willing to talk?"
The PM:
"My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General responded to the issue of the House of Lords report in last week’s debate. He was very clear that the House of Lords report had looked at a particular aspect of law but had itself recognised there might be obligations under other aspects of international law. The advice is clear that there would be obligations on us to pay in a no-deal situation, and I believe that we should be a country that respects its legal obligations".
Is Rees-Mogg getting to the point where he finally realises the EU are not going to make any concessions at all? The £39 billion - or a good part of it - will be paid whatever happens.
So little time, so few straws left to clutch.
"I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments on Northern Ireland. She knows that if we were to follow the route proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and did get to the point where we could trigger article 24 of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, we could continue for up to 10 years on zero tariffs and zero quotas. That would allay many of the fears of Opposition Members who are worried about high tariffs under so-called World Trade Organisation terms".
May explained :
"The question of GATT 24 is perhaps not quite as simple as some may have understood it to be. My right hon. Friend’s expectation that it is simply possible to leave with no deal and immediately go into that situation does not actually reflect accurately the situation that the United Kingdom would find ourselves in. I continue to believe that leaving with a deal is the best way forward for us in leaving the European Union, and that is what we will continue to work for".
In other words he was completely wrong. But will he forget GATT 24? No, probably not. But it's interesting he raised it. Is he beginning to see through his own fog? Is the outline and the scale of the disaster he has visited upon us becoming clear? Maybe it is.
And finally Rees-Mogg still claims if we leave on March 29th we save £39 billion. This is the Mogg (Col 47):
"I thank the Prime Minister for saying that she will go back to the EU to discuss the backstop in particular. When she goes, will she take with her a copy of the House of Lords report from March 2017 that says if we leave without a deal we do not owe it any money, because that may make it more willing to talk?"
The PM:
"My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General responded to the issue of the House of Lords report in last week’s debate. He was very clear that the House of Lords report had looked at a particular aspect of law but had itself recognised there might be obligations under other aspects of international law. The advice is clear that there would be obligations on us to pay in a no-deal situation, and I believe that we should be a country that respects its legal obligations".
Is Rees-Mogg getting to the point where he finally realises the EU are not going to make any concessions at all? The £39 billion - or a good part of it - will be paid whatever happens.
So little time, so few straws left to clutch.
