Brexit crisis: Commons leader quits, piling pressure on Britain's May

[webfact]

Brexit crisis: Minister quits, piling pressure on Britain's May

By Elizabeth Piper, Kylie MacLellan and William James

 

FILE PHOTO: Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May leaves after giving a news briefing in Brussels, Belgium, March 22, 2019. REUTERS/Toby Melville/File Photo

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Prominent Brexit supporter Andrea Leadsom resigned from Prime Minister Theresa May's government on Wednesday, piling pressure on the British leader after a new Brexitgambit backfired and fuelled calls for her to quit.

 

So far May has resisted, vowing to press on despite opposition from lawmakers and other ministers to her bid to get her Brexit deal through parliament by softening her stance on a second referendum and customs arrangements.

 

But Leadsom's resignation further deepens the Brexit crisis, sapping an already weak leader of her authority. Almost three years since Britain voted to leave the European Union, it is not clear when, how or even if Brexit will happen.

 

Leadsom, Leader of the House of Commons, said she could not announce the new Withdrawal Agreement Bill, which will implement Britain's departure, in parliament on Thursday as she did not believe in it.

 

"I no longer believe that our approach will deliver on the referendum result," Leadsom, once a challenger to May to become prime minister, said in a resignation letter.

 

"It is therefore with great regret and with a heavy heart that I resign from the government."

 

A Downing Street spokesman praised Leadsom and expressed disappointment at her decision, but added: "The prime minister remains focused on delivering the Brexit people voted for."

 

May might still try to press on with her new Brexit plan, which includes a vote on whether to hold a second Brexit referendum -- once her legislation passes the first stage -- as well as closer trading arrangements with the EU.

 

But it has been met with a swift backlash, with several lawmakers who have supported her in previous Brexit votes saying they could not back the new plan, particularly over her U-turn regarding a possible second referendum.

 

"I have always maintained that a second referendum would be dangerously divisive, and I do not support the government willingly facilitating such a concession," Leadsom said.

 

"No one has wanted you to succeed more than I have," Leadsom wrote to May. "But I do now urge you to make the right decisions in the interests of the country, this government and our party."

 

Labour lawmaker Ian Lavery, chair of the opposition party, said the resignation underlined that "the prime minister's authority is shot and her time is up".

"For the sake of the country, Theresa May needs to go, and we need an immediate general election," he said.

 

TIME TO GO

Labour's call echoed those of many of May's own Conservatives, who say that a fourth attempt to get her deal approved by parliament should be shelved and she should leave office to offer a new leader a chance to reset the dial.

 

"There is one last chance to get it right and leave in an orderly fashion. But it is now time for Prime Minister Theresa May to go -- and without delay," said Conservative lawmaker Tom Tugendhat, chairman of parliament's Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

 

"She must announce her resignation after Thursday's European (Parliament) elections," he wrote in the Financial Times.

 

But while so much about Brexit is up in the air, what is clear is that May plans to stay for now, or at least for the next few days.

 

The chairman of the powerful Conservative 1922 Committee, which can make or break prime ministers, told lawmakers that she planned to campaign in the European poll on Thursday before meeting with the group on Friday to discuss her leadership.

 

May has so far fended off bids to oust her by promising to set out a departure timetable once parliament has had a chance to vote again on Brexit, but a new discussion on a possible date could now take place on Friday.

 

Earlier on Wednesday, May stood firm during more than two hours of questions in parliament, urging lawmakers to back the bill and then have a chance to make changes to it, so they can have more control over the final shape of Brexit.

 

Asked by eurosceptic lawmaker Jacob Rees-Mogg whether she really believed in the new deal she had proposed or whether she was simply going through the motions, May said:

"I don't think I would have been standing here at the despatch box and be in receipt of some of the comments I have been in receipt of from colleagues on my own side and across the house if I didn't believe in what I was doing."

 

Britain's marathon crisis over Brexit has stunned allies and foes alike. With the deadlock in London, the world's fifth-largest economy faces an array of options including an exit with a deal to smooth the transition, a no-deal exit, an election, a second referendum, or even revocation of the Article 50 notice to leave the EU.

 

The pound was on track for its longest-ever losing streak against the euro as some traders said they saw the rising chance of a no-deal Brexit. Those fears pushed investors into the relative safety of government bonds -- particularly those that offer protection against a spike in inflation.

 

"The proposed second reading of the WAB is clearly doomed to failure so there really is no point wasting any more time on the prime minister's forlorn hope of salvation," Andrew Bridgen, a Conservative lawmaker, told Reuters. "She's got to go."

 

(Additional reporting by Alistair Smout, Writing by Guy Faulconbridge and Elizabeth Piper; Editing by Mark Heinrich and Catherine Evans)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-05-23

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Chomper Higgot]

The whole idea of the referendum was an attempt to heal a schism in the Tory party.

 

That worked well didn’t it?!

[geoffbezoz]

Teresa May should have sacked her months ago. Andrea Leadsom was no doubt the source of the confidential leaks inorder to undermine the PM, not Gavin Williamson, who was just set up by the Brexiteers as the fall guy.  Hope Leadsom takes up one of the places in "Hell" that Donald Tusk has reserved for the Brexiteers.

Edited May 22, 2019 by geoffbezoz

[baboon]

How can this crisis be "deepened"? It's like saying your terminal cancer isn't the worst of it...

[Pedrogaz]

Andrea Leadsom, such an outstandingly competent politician with no aspirations to claim the Tory party leader position at all. I doubt she will even run as she is so full of righteous principle and moral fibre. Indeed she has such an excess of fibre that she talks s**t all time.

[Pedrogaz]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The whole idea of the referendum was an attempt to heal a schism in the Tory party.

 

That worked well didn’t it?!

Cameron was a genius wasn't he? Britain needs some new leaders and the bullpen looks very empty indeed....imagine Boris or Andrea, imagine Gove or Hunt, or god forbid, Grayling. A real dearth of talent in the Tory party. 

Despite being a real Jeremy Corbyn fan, I don't want him to win the next election....the winner of which will be unelectable for at least a generation. Power atthis time is a poisoned chalice.

[JonnyF]

A good move politically. She can claim she 'did the right thing' by resigning, safe in the knowledge that when Johnson (or another Leaver) becomes PM in a few weeks she will be re-hired, relatively untarnished by May's surrender treaty.

 

It also puts May under more pressure to go, and signals to any fence sitters in Parliament that this 'new deal' is totally unacceptable and should be voted down. Win win.

 

WTO looks more and more likely ????. The EU are no doubt wishing they'd time limited the backstop as we requested and took the 39 Billion when they had the chance. It would still have been a fantastic deal for them. Expensive mistake. Juncker must be crying into his morning Brandy.

[welovesundaysatspace]

 

Quote

The EU are no doubt wishing they'd time limited the backstop as we requested and took the 39 Billion when they had the chance. It would still have been a fantastic deal for them. Expensive mistake. Juncker must be crying into his morning Brandy.

Care to elaborate? You believe the EU won’t get their 39bn if May’s deal doesn’t go through? Next you’ll tell us that the UK had already left on 29 March. 

[malagateddy]

Teresa May should have sacked her months ago. Andrea Leadsom was no doubt the source of the confidential leaks inorder to undermine the PM, not Gavin Williamson, who was just set up by the Brexiteers as the fall guy.  Hope Leadsom takes up one of the places in "Hell" that Donald Tusk has reserved for the Brexiteers.

Why the bitterness towards Brexiteers??

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

[JonnyF]

15 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

 

Care to elaborate? You believe the EU won’t get their 39bn if May’s deal doesn’t go through? Next you’ll tell us that the UK had already left on 29 March. 

Well, the EU said they won't renegotiate so if May's surrender treaty is rejected again then we're down to WTO or revoke.

 

I don't believe they will revoke with a Leave PM, a Leave manifesto, and the Brexit Party breathing down their necks so it's WTO.

 

WTO doesn't include the 39 Billion for Sweet FA that May's surrender treaty does. Clear enough?

[phantomfiddler]

I am beginning to get the feeling that she has been on an anti-Brexit agenda since day ! ????

[dick dasterdly]

49 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

 

Care to elaborate? You believe the EU won’t get their 39bn if May’s deal doesn’t go through? Next you’ll tell us that the UK had already left on 29 March. 

Good point.

 

One of the things that I find most suprising is that nobody is shouting from the rooftops about the proposed 39bn payment (as part of the eu/may 'deal') to the eu!  Why is this being ignored?  Edit - It certainly annoys the hell out of me - 39bn for BRINO???

 

I could understand it if it was a sweetener to obtain a good trade deal - but trade deal discussions (as far as we know) haven't even started yet!

Edited May 23, 2019 by dick dasterdly

[stephenterry]

18 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Well, the EU said they won't renegotiate so if May's surrender treaty is rejected again then we're down to WTO or revoke.

 

I don't believe they will revoke with a Leave PM, a Leave manifesto, and the Brexit Party breathing down their necks so it's WTO.

 

WTO doesn't include the 39 Billion for Sweet FA that May's surrender treaty does. Clear enough?

If it was that simple, Brexshit would have already happened. IMO, the only way out of the impasse is a GE. As for the financial aspect, the UK is committed to continue paying the EU for existing project agreements for the next few years, so your last sentence is clearly skewed and inaccurate.

 

Pity, really, because your posts normally contain informative opinion and are reasonable assumptions. In particular I agree that Leadsom - if she doesn't get the PM's job - will be rehired by a new leave PM.  

 

And if that happens, the two party polarisation would continue to wreck any government's attempt to reunite the UK. 

   

[evadgib]

25 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Good point.

 

One of the things that I find most suprising is that nobody is shouting from the rooftops about the proposed 39bn payment (as part of the eu/may 'deal') to the eu!  Why is this being ignored?  Edit - It certainly annoys the hell out of me - 39bn for BRINO???

 

I could understand it if it was a sweetener to obtain a good trade deal - but trade deal discussions (as far as we know) haven't even started yet!

39bn hasn't gone unnoticed by the Brexit party or ERG.

[stephenterry]

42 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Good point.

 

One of the things that I find most suprising is that nobody is shouting from the rooftops about the proposed 39bn payment (as part of the eu/may 'deal') to the eu!  Why is this being ignored?  Edit - It certainly annoys the hell out of me - 39bn for BRINO???

 

I could understand it if it was a sweetener to obtain a good trade deal - but trade deal discussions (as far as we know) haven't even started yet!

 In comparison to the UK's GDP of £2.8 trillion (million million), a 39b (thousand million) payment to cover existing programme committments over the next few years is probably acceptable as the UK would benefit from these. The Uk would save a few billion every year thereafter. 

 

The UK currently pays about £9 billion (net) to the EU for membership costs which, in the grand scheme of total expenditure of £817bn, is small beer. General UK government costs are nearly £16bn.

Edited May 23, 2019 by stephenterry
correction

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

 

Care to elaborate? You believe the EU won’t get their 39bn if May’s deal doesn’t go through? Next you’ll tell us that the UK had already left on 29 March. 

Good idea.

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

 In comparison to the UK's GDP of £2.8 trillion (million million), a 39b (thousand million) payment to cover existing programme committments over the next few years is probably acceptable as the UK would benefit from these. The Uk would save a few billion every year thereafter. 

 

The UK currently pays about £6 billion to the EU for membership costs which, in the grand scheme of total expenditure of £817bn, is small beer. General UK government costs are nearly £16bn.

You numbers look all wrong but never what's new?

[vogie]

3 hours ago, geoffbezoz said:

Teresa May should have sacked her months ago. Andrea Leadsom was no doubt the source of the confidential leaks inorder to undermine the PM, not Gavin Williamson, who was just set up by the Brexiteers as the fall guy.  Hope Leadsom takes up one of the places in "Hell" that Donald Tusk has reserved for the Brexiteers.

Have you got a link to your claim that Andrea Leadsom was "no doubt" the source of the confidential leaks, thanks.

[ThaiBunny]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

Have you got a link to your claim that Andrea Leadsom was "no doubt" the source of the confidential leaks, thanks.

Why spoil a good conspiracy theory?

[stephenterry]

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

You numbers look all wrong but never what's new?

Quick off the mark today, then. Just testing. The net contribution to the EU memberships works out at £9bn per annum, when the rebate is included. 

[geoffbezoz]

11 minutes ago, vogie said:

Have you got a link to your claim that Andrea Leadsom was "no doubt" the source of the confidential leaks, thanks.

You too lazy to read the various media reports ? Or perhaps you only read the Mogg/Farage press releases ? ????

[dick dasterdly]

27 minutes ago, evadgib said:

39bn hasn't gone unnoticed by the Brexit party or ERG.

I hope you're right, but I don't follow the news closely and it's rarely mentioned on these threads.

 

Hopefully it's an important topic back in the uk.

[nauseus]

14 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Quick off the mark today, then. Just testing. The net contribution to the EU memberships works out at £9bn per annum, when the rebate is included. 

So why say 6? And what makes up this 2.8 trillion?

[dick dasterdly]

29 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

 In comparison to the UK's GDP of £2.8 trillion (million million), a 39b (thousand million) payment to cover existing programme committments over the next few years is probably acceptable as the UK would benefit from these. The Uk would save a few billion every year thereafter. 

 

The UK currently pays about £9 billion (net) to the EU for membership costs which, in the grand scheme of total expenditure of £817bn, is small beer. General UK government costs are nearly £16bn.

 

21 minutes ago, nauseus said:

You numbers look all wrong but never what's new?

Whether the posters numbers are wrong or right is pretty much irrelevant?

 

"The UK currently pays about £9 billion (net) to the EU for membership costs"

 

So why on earth would the uk pay 39bn for BRINO?

[vogie]

9 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

You too lazy to read the various media reports ? Or perhaps you only read the Mogg/Farage press releases ? ????

Just as I thought, you made it up. If you claim something it is up to you to prove it, that way we will know you are not lying.

[geoffbezoz]

Just now, vogie said:

Just as I thought, you made it up. If you claim something it is up to you to prove it, that way we will know you are not lying.

So you are too lazy to read what is currently available or does the truth spoil your biased argument ?

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

Whether the posters numbers are wrong or right is pretty much irrelevant?

 

"The UK currently pays about £9 billion (net) to the EU for membership costs"

 

So why on earth would the uk pay 39bn for BRINO?

Using the right number is absolutely relevant to calculating what the UK should pay the EU on Brexit. 

 

I challenged all of these numbers because I don't like falsification. I see the 6 has been changed to a 9 already. What else could be wrong, I wonder?

[stephenterry]

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

So why say 6? And what makes up this 2.8 trillion?

You look it up. It's the UK's GDP.

[evadgib]

9 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

You too lazy to read the various media reports ? Or perhaps you only read the Mogg/Farage press releases ? ????

No need; a lack of Serial Guffaw did the trick ????

[vogie]

Just now, geoffbezoz said:

So you are too lazy to read what is currently available or does the truth spoil your biased argument ?

You made the claim, you own it. Just because you don't like someone it doesn't give anyone a gods given right to lie about them.