UK PM Boris Johnson tweeted that 'UK & EU agreed on a great new deal for Brexit'. But this deal still needs the approval of both UK & EU Parliament. EU summit to kick off in a few hours.

WION Dispatch: EU summit to kick off in few hours

UK PM Boris Johnson tweeted that 'UK & EU agreed on a great new deal for Brexit'. But this deal still needs the approval of both UK & EU Parliament.

UK & EU holds a new Brexit deal, both still need approval of their respective Parliaments

Clocking is ticking for the UK Parliament as 13 days is remaining for the UK to exit from the European Union.

Will EU, UK sign Brexit deal today?

Reaching a divorce deal between Britain and the European Union is still possible this week, even if it more and more difficult, the EU's chief negotiator <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/eu-warns-a-lot-of-work-to-be-done-before-brexit-deal-255708">Michel Barnier said</a> on Tuesday.

Speaking to reporters before a meeting of Europe ministers of the EU, Barnier said it was high time for London to "turn good intentions into a legal text."

"Even if an agreement has been difficult, more and more difficult, it’s still possible this week," Barnier said.

"Reaching an agreement is still possible. Obviously, any agreement must work for all. The whole of the UK and the whole of the EU. Let me add also that it is high time to turn good intentions in a legal text," he said.

Earlier, Barnier warned diplomats that "a lot of work remains to be done" in withdrawal talks between London and Brussels.

Meanwhile, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/brexit-on-october-31-a-priority-for-british-government-queen-255851">Queen Elizabeth II</a> said that Britain is still aiming for Brexit at the end of the month.

The government wants a new partnership with the European Union, based on free trade, the Queen said.

If <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/britains-johnson-plays-down-brexit-breakthrough-hopes-255701">Prime Minister Boris Johnson</a> is not able to come to an agreement with the other 27 EU leaders this month, Britain may crash out without a follow-on treaty.&nbsp;

Reaching a divorce deal between Britain and the European Union is still possible this week, even if it more and more difficult, the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier said on Tuesday.

Reaching a divorce deal between Britain and the European Union is still possible this week, even if it more and more difficult, the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier said on Tuesday. Speaking to reporters before a meeting of Europe ministers of the EU, Barnier said it was high time for London to "turn good intentions into a legal text." "Even if an agreement has been difficult, more and more difficult, it’s still possible this week," Barnier said. "Reaching an agreement is still possible. Obviously, any agreement must work for all. The whole of the UK and the whole of the EU. Let me add also that it is high time to turn good intentions in a legal text," he said. Earlier, Barnier warned diplomats that "a lot of work remains to be done" in withdrawal talks between London and Brussels. Meanwhile, Queen Elizabeth II said that Britain is still aiming for Brexit at the end of the month. The government wants a new partnership with the European Union, based on free trade, the Queen said. If Prime Minister Boris Johnson is not able to come to an agreement with the other 27 EU leaders this month, Britain may crash out without a follow-on treaty.

Brexit deal 'possible this week', says European Union chief negotiator Michel Barnier

Make-or-break week for Brexit deal as 14 days is remaining for the country to exit from the EU. Reaching a divorce deal between Britain and the European Union is still possible this week, even if it more and more difficult, the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier said on Tuesday. Watch this video to know more.

Make-or-break week for Brexit deal

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson met with European Parliament President David Sassoli in London on Tuesday, as both the UK and the EU position themselves to avoid blame for a delay or a disorderly no-deal Brexit.

UK PM Johnson meets EU parliament president as Brexit looks uncertain

European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker said Thursday that Brussels could drop the so-called "backstop" solution for Brexit's Irish border dilemma if Britain came up with a fail-safe alternative.

"If the objectives are met -- all of them -- we don't need the backstop," Juncker told Britain's Sky News television.

The disputed proposal attempts to guarantee that no hard border emerges between EU member Ireland and the UK's province of Northern Ireland in any Brexit scenario.

But its effort to simultaneously ensure that the EU's single market remains protected would temporarily keep the UK in the bloc's customs union.

The fix has been repeatedly rejected by the UK parliament and Prime Minister Boris Johnson has vowed to come up with a new plan -- and not sign any deal in which the backstop remains.

His government is instead trying to draft "alternative arrangements" that could make sure that no hard border is required for handling trade once Britain leaves the bloc.

Juncker said he had a "rather positive" meeting with Johnson in Luxembourg on Monday and still thought a deal could be done before the October 31 Brexit deadline.

He added that Brussels received the first outlines of Britain's new plan on Wednesday night and that he had not had time to study them yet.

"As far as the so-called alternative arrangements are concerns, allowing us and Britain to achieve the main objectives of the backstop. I don't have an erotic relation to the backstop," Juncker said with a chuckle.

"But if the results are there, I don’t care about the instruments."

European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker said Thursday that Brussels could drop the so-called "backstop" solution for Brexit's Irish border dilemma if Britain came up with a fail-safe alternative.

European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker said Thursday that Brussels could drop the so-called "backstop" solution for Brexit's Irish border dilemma if Britain came up with a fail-safe alternative. "If the objectives are met -- all of them -- we don't need the backstop," Juncker told Britain's Sky News television. The disputed proposal attempts to guarantee that no hard border emerges between EU member Ireland and the UK's province of Northern Ireland in any Brexit scenario. But its effort to simultaneously ensure that the EU's single market remains protected would temporarily keep the UK in the bloc's customs union. The fix has been repeatedly rejected by the UK parliament and Prime Minister Boris Johnson has vowed to come up with a new plan -- and not sign any deal in which the backstop remains. His government is instead trying to draft "alternative arrangements" that could make sure that no hard border is required for handling trade once Britain leaves the bloc. Juncker said he had a "rather positive" meeting with Johnson in Luxembourg on Monday and still thought a deal could be done before the October 31 Brexit deadline. He added that Brussels received the first outlines of Britain's new plan on Wednesday night and that he had not had time to study them yet. "As far as the so-called alternative arrangements are concerns, allowing us and Britain to achieve the main objectives of the backstop. I don't have an erotic relation to the backstop," Juncker said with a chuckle. "But if the results are there, I don’t care about the instruments."

If objectives meet, we don't need backstop in Brexit deal: European Union chief

Britain must deliver a written proposal for a solution to the Brexit impasse this month to avoid a no-deal Brexit, the Finnish Prime Minister Antti Rinne's office told AFP on Thursday.

It is "a view of prime minister Rinne that the UK must come up with a written proposal by the end of this month," a spokesperson said.

Finland currently holds the rotating presidency of the European Union.

Rinne's statement comes a day after he met President Emmanuel Macron in Paris, where he said that the European Union (EU) is unlikely to grant an extension to the current October 31 deadline, and thus avoid a no-deal exit, unless London proposes concrete measures.

"Finland, nor I, nor the other 26 member states have much enthusiasm for an extension unless there is a sensible solution in sight for the future", Rinne said.

Rinne's office confirmed that he will speak with European Council president Donald Tusk by telephone to discuss the end of Septemer deadline.&nbsp;

On Thursday a French diplomatic source told AFP that "time is running out" to reach a Brexit accord, warning that it will not be possible to negotiate "directly" at the next European Council meeting in mid-October.

The 28 EU leaders are due to meet on October 17 and 18 in Brussels, less than two weeks ahead of the &nbsp;scheduled Brexit date of 31 October.

Brexit minister Stephen Barclay said on Thursday morning that he will meet EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier on Friday.

"The Prime Minister returned from talks with President (Jean-Claude) Juncker in Luxembourg on Monday with assurances that negotiations will intensify," Barclay said in a speech in Madrid.&nbsp;

"I also met with Michel Barnier at the same time and I will meet him again tomorrow," he said.

According to a European source, the Brexit timetable will also be discussed at a meeting between British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Juncker on the margins of the UN General Assembly in New York next week.

Britain must deliver a written proposal for a solution to the Brexit impasse this month to avoid a no-deal Brexit, the Finnish Prime Minister Antti Rinne's office told AFP on Thursday.

Britain must deliver a written proposal for a solution to the Brexit impasse this month to avoid a no-deal Brexit, the Finnish Prime Minister Antti Rinne's office told AFP on Thursday. It is "a view of prime minister Rinne that the UK must come up with a written proposal by the end of this month," a spokesperson said. Finland currently holds the rotating presidency of the European Union. Rinne's statement comes a day after he met President Emmanuel Macron in Paris, where he said that the European Union (EU) is unlikely to grant an extension to the current October 31 deadline, and thus avoid a no-deal exit, unless London proposes concrete measures. "Finland, nor I, nor the other 26 member states have much enthusiasm for an extension unless there is a sensible solution in sight for the future", Rinne said. Rinne's office confirmed that he will speak with European Council president Donald Tusk by telephone to discuss the end of Septemer deadline. On Thursday a French diplomatic source told AFP that "time is running out" to reach a Brexit accord, warning that it will not be possible to negotiate "directly" at the next European Council meeting in mid-October. The 28 EU leaders are due to meet on October 17 and 18 in Brussels, less than two weeks ahead of the scheduled Brexit date of 31 October. Brexit minister Stephen Barclay said on Thursday morning that he will meet EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier on Friday. "The Prime Minister returned from talks with President (Jean-Claude) Juncker in Luxembourg on Monday with assurances that negotiations will intensify," Barclay said in a speech in Madrid. "I also met with Michel Barnier at the same time and I will meet him again tomorrow," he said. According to a European source, the Brexit timetable will also be discussed at a meeting between British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Juncker on the margins of the UN General Assembly in New York next week.

UK must give written Brexit proposal this month: Finnish PM

Prime Minister<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/uk-needs-inspiring-leadership-to-break-brexit-impasse-250360"> Boris Johnson</a>'s lawyer told Britain's Supreme Court on Wednesday that it was not for judges to intervene over his decision to suspend parliament in the run-up to Brexit.

In the second of three days of highly-charged arguments, James Eadie told the country's top court that parliament had been considering Britain's exit from the European Union for years.

He argued that if MPs had needed more time, they had the opportunity to say before Johnson suspended their sitting earlier this month, barely weeks before Brexit is due to take place on October 31.

Eadie said that any suggestion that Johnson's motives were improper in proroguing, or suspending parliament, were "unsustainable".

Watch: No-deal Brexit could leave UK teetering

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/no-deal-brexit-could-leave-uk-teetering-249097/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Supreme Court is deliberating the legality of the advice Johnson gave Queen Elizabeth II to suspend parliament for five weeks until October 14, after two lower courts made conflicting rulings.

Johnson, who took office in July, says he suspended parliament to open a new session with a fresh legislative agenda.

His opponents claim he did so to silence opposition to his plans to take Britain out of the EU on time, with or without a divorce deal with Brussels.

Eadie said any decision to prorogue parliament was "inherently and fundamentally political in nature" as it concerned managing the government's legislative agenda, curtailing parliamentary debate and deciding on when it might be appropriate to end a sitting.

"This is, we submit, therefore the territory of political judgement, not legal standards," he said.

"If the basic attack is this was improper purpose, motivation or effect, because it was designed to stymie parliament, we respectfully submit: that is unsustainable."

He said parliament had previously passed laws on prorogation, but there was no law relevant to the case and so it was not for the court to decide upon.

'True reasons'

The maximum 11 of the 12 Supreme Court judges are hearing the case, which began on Tuesday and will end on Thursday, although a decision may be deferred.

Judge Nicholas Wilson questioned Eadie on the lack of a witness statement from the prime minister.

"Isn't it odd that nobody has signed a witness statement to say 'this is true, these are the true reasons for what was done'?" he asked.

Eadie said cabinet documents had been produced which showed the aim of prorogation was to bring forward a new legislative agenda.

The Supreme Court is hearing appeals against two conflicting lower court decisions.

Scotland's highest civil court called the suspension of parliament "unlawful", but the High Court in England said it was not a matter for judges.

The Supreme Court must rule on whether they even have the right to adjudicate on the politically contentious issue, before considering Johnson's motivations.

Unlike Tuesday's chaotic scenes, there were few protesters outside the court on Wednesday.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson's lawyer told Britain's Supreme Court on Wednesday that it was not for judges to intervene over his decision to suspend parliament in the run-up to Brexit.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson's lawyer told Britain's Supreme Court on Wednesday that it was not for judges to intervene over his decision to suspend parliament in the run-up to Brexit. In the second of three days of highly-charged arguments, James Eadie told the country's top court that parliament had been considering Britain's exit from the European Union for years. He argued that if MPs had needed more time, they had the opportunity to say before Johnson suspended their sitting earlier this month, barely weeks before Brexit is due to take place on October 31. Eadie said that any suggestion that Johnson's motives were improper in proroguing, or suspending parliament, were "unsustainable". Watch: No-deal Brexit could leave UK teetering × The Supreme Court is deliberating the legality of the advice Johnson gave Queen Elizabeth II to suspend parliament for five weeks until October 14, after two lower courts made conflicting rulings. Johnson, who took office in July, says he suspended parliament to open a new session with a fresh legislative agenda. His opponents claim he did so to silence opposition to his plans to take Britain out of the EU on time, with or without a divorce deal with Brussels. Eadie said any decision to prorogue parliament was "inherently and fundamentally political in nature" as it concerned managing the government's legislative agenda, curtailing parliamentary debate and deciding on when it might be appropriate to end a sitting. "This is, we submit, therefore the territory of political judgement, not legal standards," he said. "If the basic attack is this was improper purpose, motivation or effect, because it was designed to stymie parliament, we respectfully submit: that is unsustainable." He said parliament had previously passed laws on prorogation, but there was no law relevant to the case and so it was not for the court to decide upon. 'True reasons' The maximum 11 of the 12 Supreme Court judges are hearing the case, which began on Tuesday and will end on Thursday, although a decision may be deferred. Judge Nicholas Wilson questioned Eadie on the lack of a witness statement from the prime minister. "Isn't it odd that nobody has signed a witness statement to say 'this is true, these are the true reasons for what was done'?" he asked. Eadie said cabinet documents had been produced which showed the aim of prorogation was to bring forward a new legislative agenda. The Supreme Court is hearing appeals against two conflicting lower court decisions. Scotland's highest civil court called the suspension of parliament "unlawful", but the High Court in England said it was not a matter for judges. The Supreme Court must rule on whether they even have the right to adjudicate on the politically contentious issue, before considering Johnson's motivations. Unlike Tuesday's chaotic scenes, there were few protesters outside the court on Wednesday.

Not for courts to decide parliament suspension: UK PM Boris Johnson's lawyer

By Jon Stokes and Stefan Stern

Britain’s destiny is uncertain. The country is in the middle of a political and, arguably, an identity crisis as well. At such a challenging moment it is understandable if people might long for a charismatic figure to lead them out of it. Indeed, that is probably one of the evolutionary functions of charismatic leadership: when a degree of mindlessness may be helpful for the survival of the group. But the complexities of negotiating a successful Brexit require something less intoxicating and more thoughtful.

As we’ve argued before, people fall in love with charismatic leaders because we believe they represent our ideal version of ourselves. A version we would, sometimes unconsciously, like to be. But no human being is ever ideal. When we expect perfection from a leader we set ourselves up for severe disappointment.

Boris Johnson’s undoubted charisma, although a mystery to some, is much remarked upon. But apart from an instant sugar rush of ephemeral optimism what can his charisma provide? Not managerial competence or a serious grasp of detail; nor, equally importantly, the genuine and lasting inspiration that a truly capable leader might bring.

In response to the timeless challenge made by leadership gurus Gareth Jones and Rob Goffee, “Why should anyone be led by you?”, we suggest that inspiring, as opposed to merely charismatic, leadership is what’s needed right now. Inspiring leaders help people build and sustain strength and long-term improvement, in an organisation or in society. While charisma is based on an instant and uncritical falling in love, inspiring leadership arises out of a more mature form of discerning love between leader and followers.

Grading Johnson’s performance

We’ve asked more than 500 managers the question, “Who have you personally known in your real life that has been inspiring to you?” in workshops over the years. Their answers reveal six key elements necessary for a leader to inspire. Let’s measure the UK’s current prime minister against them and see how he scores.

1. Being the exemplar: inspiring leaders demonstrate a clear set of strong values through their behaviour. These provide a role model that empowers their followers to take sometimes difficult decisions and actions.

Boris Johnson’s values are much questioned and seemingly shifting. There is a strong suspicion (shared, apparently, by former prime minister David Cameron) that his primary driver is to attain power for himself. Score: 2/10

2. Articulating a future: Effective leaders create a clear picture of a future state that provides followers with direction. By taking them there first in their imagination they provide a pull factor for changing current behaviour.

Boris Johnson’s picture of a future Britain is hyperbolically optimistic but lacking in detail and a route map to get there. Score: 4/10

3. Reading the situation: Leaders use their intuition to gauge the appropriate timing and course of their actions through reading people, gauging their likely reactions to a situation and identifying future trends and dynamics that will drive behaviour.

Boris Johnson may be quite a good reader of people but apparently he is a poor reader of the likely impact of his behaviour on them. He seems to have no detailed analysis of Britain’s likely future but is driven by what he believes most people want. Score: 3/10

4. Affirmation: Inspiring leaders provide people with an accurate sense of their actual and potential contribution and worth. They enable people to feel good about themselves by making them feel appropriately valued.

Boris Johnson is very positive about people as long as they support him. He seems to lose patience quickly when they don’t, as he did with the 21 Tory “rebels”, who lost the whip as soon as they refused to support him. Score: 2/10

5. Having the difficult conversations: Inspiring leaders do not avoid difficult conversations – they are prepared to provide constructive critical feedback that enables people to develop. They give people what they need rather than necessarily what they want.

Boris Johnson bumbling style is unlikely to provide those who work for him with clear, constructively critical feedback. When frustrated he seems quick to break off relationships as he did with Luxembourg prime minister, Xavier Bettel, preferring to abandon their press conference rather than discuss how Brexit negotiations were going. Score: 1/10

6. Being authentic: Inspiring leaders are able to be true to themselves in a skillful way, authentic both to themselves and to the requirements of the situation in which they find themselves. By acknowledging inevitable imperfections and vulnerability they create a climate in which others can do the same.

This is an area where Britain’s prime minister scores quite highly for some people. By acknowledging he is far from perfect, he creates a sense that he is a human not a robot. Yet doubts remain about how authentic the persona he presents truly is. Maybe it is all just a bit of an act. Score: 5/10

So as far as being an inspiring leader is concerned the prime minister, sadly, has to be considered a failure (17 points out of 60, or 28%). He needs to make a better effort next term – if given another chance.

(Jon Stokes is Senior Fellow in Management Practice, University of Oxford; Stefan Stern is Visiting Professor of Management Practice, Cass Business School, City, University of London) 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk-needs-inspiring-not-just-charismatic-leadership-to-break-brexit-impasse-123629">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

By Jon Stokes and Stefan Stern Britain’s destiny is uncertain. The country is in the middle of a political and, arguably, an identity crisis as well. At such a challenging moment it is understandable if people might long for a charismatic figure to lead them out of it.

By Jon Stokes and Stefan Stern Britain’s destiny is uncertain. The country is in the middle of a political and, arguably, an identity crisis as well. At such a challenging moment it is understandable if people might long for a charismatic figure to lead them out of it. Indeed, that is probably one of the evolutionary functions of charismatic leadership: when a degree of mindlessness may be helpful for the survival of the group. But the complexities of negotiating a successful Brexit require something less intoxicating and more thoughtful. As we’ve argued before, people fall in love with charismatic leaders because we believe they represent our ideal version of ourselves. A version we would, sometimes unconsciously, like to be. But no human being is ever ideal. When we expect perfection from a leader we set ourselves up for severe disappointment. Boris Johnson’s undoubted charisma, although a mystery to some, is much remarked upon. But apart from an instant sugar rush of ephemeral optimism what can his charisma provide? Not managerial competence or a serious grasp of detail; nor, equally importantly, the genuine and lasting inspiration that a truly capable leader might bring. In response to the timeless challenge made by leadership gurus Gareth Jones and Rob Goffee, “Why should anyone be led by you?”, we suggest that inspiring, as opposed to merely charismatic, leadership is what’s needed right now. Inspiring leaders help people build and sustain strength and long-term improvement, in an organisation or in society. While charisma is based on an instant and uncritical falling in love, inspiring leadership arises out of a more mature form of discerning love between leader and followers. Grading Johnson’s performance We’ve asked more than 500 managers the question, “Who have you personally known in your real life that has been inspiring to you?” in workshops over the years. Their answers reveal six key elements necessary for a leader to inspire. Let’s measure the UK’s current prime minister against them and see how he scores. 1. Being the exemplar: inspiring leaders demonstrate a clear set of strong values through their behaviour. These provide a role model that empowers their followers to take sometimes difficult decisions and actions. Boris Johnson’s values are much questioned and seemingly shifting. There is a strong suspicion (shared, apparently, by former prime minister David Cameron) that his primary driver is to attain power for himself. Score: 2/10 2. Articulating a future: Effective leaders create a clear picture of a future state that provides followers with direction. By taking them there first in their imagination they provide a pull factor for changing current behaviour. Boris Johnson’s picture of a future Britain is hyperbolically optimistic but lacking in detail and a route map to get there. Score: 4/10 3. Reading the situation: Leaders use their intuition to gauge the appropriate timing and course of their actions through reading people, gauging their likely reactions to a situation and identifying future trends and dynamics that will drive behaviour. Boris Johnson may be quite a good reader of people but apparently he is a poor reader of the likely impact of his behaviour on them. He seems to have no detailed analysis of Britain’s likely future but is driven by what he believes most people want. Score: 3/10 4. Affirmation: Inspiring leaders provide people with an accurate sense of their actual and potential contribution and worth. They enable people to feel good about themselves by making them feel appropriately valued. Boris Johnson is very positive about people as long as they support him. He seems to lose patience quickly when they don’t, as he did with the 21 Tory “rebels”, who lost the whip as soon as they refused to support him. Score: 2/10 5. Having the difficult conversations: Inspiring leaders do not avoid difficult conversations – they are prepared to provide constructive critical feedback that enables people to develop. They give people what they need rather than necessarily what they want. Boris Johnson bumbling style is unlikely to provide those who work for him with clear, constructively critical feedback. When frustrated he seems quick to break off relationships as he did with Luxembourg prime minister, Xavier Bettel, preferring to abandon their press conference rather than discuss how Brexit negotiations were going. Score: 1/10 6. Being authentic: Inspiring leaders are able to be true to themselves in a skillful way, authentic both to themselves and to the requirements of the situation in which they find themselves. By acknowledging inevitable imperfections and vulnerability they create a climate in which others can do the same. This is an area where Britain’s prime minister scores quite highly for some people. By acknowledging he is far from perfect, he creates a sense that he is a human not a robot. Yet doubts remain about how authentic the persona he presents truly is. Maybe it is all just a bit of an act. Score: 5/10 So as far as being an inspiring leader is concerned the prime minister, sadly, has to be considered a failure (17 points out of 60, or 28%). He needs to make a better effort next term – if given another chance. (Jon Stokes is Senior Fellow in Management Practice, University of Oxford; Stefan Stern is Visiting Professor of Management Practice, Cass Business School, City, University of London) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

UK needs inspiring leadership to break Brexit impasse

British Prime Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/cautiously-optimistic-on-brexit-deal-says-pm-boris-johnson-ahead-of-eu-meeting-249472">Boris Johnson</a> was heckled on Friday by an audience member while he was delivering a speech at a convention in South Yorkshire in northern England.

The British PM was speaking on plans to give more powers to local authorities in the North of England during which the heckler interupted Johnson's speech for his decision to suspend parliament in the run-up to the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/boris-johnson-denies-lying-to-queen-in-brexit-crisis-249286">Brexit deadline</a>.

"I know the transformative potential of local accountable leadership. Someone with the power to sort out what matters most to local people," Johnson said when heckler interjeted and screamed, "Like our MPs Boris. Maybe get back to Parliament."

Johnson replied, "Yes, indeed. I'm all in favour of our MPs."

The unidentified man then demanded to know why the British prime minister wasn't in parliament fixing "the mess" he had created.&nbsp;

"Why are you not with them in parliament sorting out the mess that you have created," he said.

"I'm very happy to get back to parliament very soon"&nbsp;Johnson replied&nbsp;as he tried to return to his speech,

The heckler then again screamed, "Where's your accountability? Why don't you sort it out Boris, why don't you sort it out".

"What we want to see in this region is towns and communities able to represent that gentleman and sort out his needs," Johnson responded.

Johnson, a former London mayor who helped lead the campaign to leave the European Union, has angered his critics by suspending parliament for five weeks before Brexit.

The government has said it is a normal part of the process of launching a new legislative program, but Johnson's opponents have accused the prime minister of trying to prevent them scrutinising his Brexit plans.

Meanwhile, Johnson is scheduled to meet European Union chief Jean-Claude Juncker in Luxembourg on Monday as he bids to broker a Brexit compromise ahead of the October 31 deadline.

Johnson will "hold talks with President Juncker on Brexit," his Downing Street office had said without providing further details.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was heckled on Friday by an audience member while he was delivering a speech at a convention in South Yorkshire in northern England.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was heckled on Friday by an audience member while he was delivering a speech at a convention in South Yorkshire in northern England. The British PM was speaking on plans to give more powers to local authorities in the North of England during which the heckler interupted Johnson's speech for his decision to suspend parliament in the run-up to the Brexit deadline. "I know the transformative potential of local accountable leadership. Someone with the power to sort out what matters most to local people," Johnson said when heckler interjeted and screamed, "Like our MPs Boris. Maybe get back to Parliament." Johnson replied, "Yes, indeed. I'm all in favour of our MPs." The unidentified man then demanded to know why the British prime minister wasn't in parliament fixing "the mess" he had created. "Why are you not with them in parliament sorting out the mess that you have created," he said. "I'm very happy to get back to parliament very soon" Johnson replied as he tried to return to his speech, The heckler then again screamed, "Where's your accountability? Why don't you sort it out Boris, why don't you sort it out". "What we want to see in this region is towns and communities able to represent that gentleman and sort out his needs," Johnson responded. Johnson, a former London mayor who helped lead the campaign to leave the European Union, has angered his critics by suspending parliament for five weeks before Brexit. The government has said it is a normal part of the process of launching a new legislative program, but Johnson's opponents have accused the prime minister of trying to prevent them scrutinising his Brexit plans. Meanwhile, Johnson is scheduled to meet European Union chief Jean-Claude Juncker in Luxembourg on Monday as he bids to broker a Brexit compromise ahead of the October 31 deadline. Johnson will "hold talks with President Juncker on Brexit," his Downing Street office had said without providing further details.

'Get back to parliament': British PM Boris Johnson heckled during speech

Prime Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/cautiously-optimistic-on-brexit-deal-says-pm-boris-johnson-ahead-of-eu-meeting-249472">Boris Johnson</a> insisted Sunday that "huge" progress was being made in Brexit talks and declared Britain would break out of the European Union just like the comic-book hero Hulk.

The Conservative leader made the comments ahead of meetings with European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker and EU negotiator Michel Barnier in Luxembourg on Monday.

In an interview with the Mail on Sunday newspaper, Johnson said he was "very confident" of getting a divorce deal at an EU summit on October 17, in time for <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/boris-johnson-denies-lying-to-queen-in-brexit-crisis-249286">Brexit on October 31</a>.

In an odd analogy, he compared Britain to the comic book character Hulk.

"The madder Hulk gets, the stronger Hulk gets and he always escaped, no matter how tightly bound in he seemed to be and that is the case for this country," he said.

But <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/british-pm-johnson-tells-parliament-you-can-tie-my-hands-but-i-will-not-delay-brexit-248705">Johnson</a> is facing opposition in parliament to his threat to leave the EU without a deal next month if his negotiations fail.

On Saturday night, one of his Conservative MPs defected to the pro-European Liberal Democrats.

Former universities minister Sam Gyimah, who has called for a re-run of the 2016 Brexit referendum, condemned Johnson for "veering towards populism".

Meanwhile, former prime minister David Cameron, who led the failed campaign to stay in the EU in 2016, accused Johnson in his memoirs of only pursuing Brexit out of political ambition.

The turmoil comes ahead of another crucial week, as the Supreme Court considers the legality of Johnson's decision to suspend parliament earlier this month until October 14.

'Landing zone'

Johnson was a leading "Leave" campaigner in the referendum and took office in July promising to deliver Brexit no matter what.

He wants to renegotiate the terms struck by his predecessor Theresa May, which MPs have rejected, but EU leaders have so far refused.

He told the Mail there was a "very good conversation" going on about the key sticking point, the issue of the Irish border.

"A huge amount of progress is being made," he said.

Much of the opposition in London to the current Brexit deal is focused on the so-called backstop plan to keep open the Irish border.

It could keep Britain indefinitely tied to EU trade rules to avoid frontier checks between British Northern and EU member Ireland.

Brexit minister Steve Barclay insisted "the backstop needs to go", but fuelled speculation that an alternative might be taking shape.

"We can see a landing zone in terms of a future deal but there is significant work still to do," he told Sky News television on Sunday.

"The talks tomorrow will be an important step forward as part of that and they build on significant discussions that have been happening at a technical level."

'Stark choice'

Johnson repeated that "under no circumstances" would he delay Brexit.

However, he may have no choice after MPs last week passed a law to postpone until January if he does not get a divorce deal by the EU summit.

Twenty-one Conservatives rebelled to back the law and were expelled from the party, leaving Johnson without a majority in the House of Commons.

One of the rebels was Gyimah, who becomes the Lib Dems' 18th MP in the 650-seat chamber.

The 43-year-old was once viewed as a rising star in the Conservatives and briefly ran against Johnson for the party leadership.

But he said Johnson had left moderates like him with a "stark choice&nbsp;to accept a no-deal Brexit or walk away from public life".

He told The Observer newspaper: "It is beyond Brexit how you conduct politics and the veering towards populism and English nationalism."

Cameron critique&nbsp;

Johnson also suffered fresh criticism from his predecessor, Cameron, whose memoir "For The Record", was serialised in the Sunday Times ahead of its publication on Thursday.

Cameron said Johnson only backed Brexit because he believed it would make him the "darling" of the Tory party, thus positioning him for power.

He said he "risked an outcome he didn't believe in because it would help his political career".

Cameron also accused Johnson and fellow Brexit campaigner Michael Gove, now a top minister, of "becoming ambassadors for the expert-trashing, truth-twisting age of populism".

He condemned claims they made about the savings Britain would make by ending its EU membership, and of the likelihood of Turkey joining the bloc.

"Leave was lying," he wrote.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson insisted Sunday that "huge" progress was being made in Brexit talks and declared Britain would break out of the European Union just like the comic-book hero Hulk.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson insisted Sunday that "huge" progress was being made in Brexit talks and declared Britain would break out of the European Union just like the comic-book hero Hulk. The Conservative leader made the comments ahead of meetings with European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker and EU negotiator Michel Barnier in Luxembourg on Monday. In an interview with the Mail on Sunday newspaper, Johnson said he was "very confident" of getting a divorce deal at an EU summit on October 17, in time for Brexit on October 31. In an odd analogy, he compared Britain to the comic book character Hulk. "The madder Hulk gets, the stronger Hulk gets and he always escaped, no matter how tightly bound in he seemed to be and that is the case for this country," he said. But Johnson is facing opposition in parliament to his threat to leave the EU without a deal next month if his negotiations fail. On Saturday night, one of his Conservative MPs defected to the pro-European Liberal Democrats. Former universities minister Sam Gyimah, who has called for a re-run of the 2016 Brexit referendum, condemned Johnson for "veering towards populism". Meanwhile, former prime minister David Cameron, who led the failed campaign to stay in the EU in 2016, accused Johnson in his memoirs of only pursuing Brexit out of political ambition. The turmoil comes ahead of another crucial week, as the Supreme Court considers the legality of Johnson's decision to suspend parliament earlier this month until October 14. 'Landing zone' Johnson was a leading "Leave" campaigner in the referendum and took office in July promising to deliver Brexit no matter what. He wants to renegotiate the terms struck by his predecessor Theresa May, which MPs have rejected, but EU leaders have so far refused. He told the Mail there was a "very good conversation" going on about the key sticking point, the issue of the Irish border. "A huge amount of progress is being made," he said. Much of the opposition in London to the current Brexit deal is focused on the so-called backstop plan to keep open the Irish border. It could keep Britain indefinitely tied to EU trade rules to avoid frontier checks between British Northern and EU member Ireland. Brexit minister Steve Barclay insisted "the backstop needs to go", but fuelled speculation that an alternative might be taking shape. "We can see a landing zone in terms of a future deal but there is significant work still to do," he told Sky News television on Sunday. "The talks tomorrow will be an important step forward as part of that and they build on significant discussions that have been happening at a technical level." 'Stark choice' Johnson repeated that "under no circumstances" would he delay Brexit. However, he may have no choice after MPs last week passed a law to postpone until January if he does not get a divorce deal by the EU summit. Twenty-one Conservatives rebelled to back the law and were expelled from the party, leaving Johnson without a majority in the House of Commons. One of the rebels was Gyimah, who becomes the Lib Dems' 18th MP in the 650-seat chamber. The 43-year-old was once viewed as a rising star in the Conservatives and briefly ran against Johnson for the party leadership. But he said Johnson had left moderates like him with a "stark choice to accept a no-deal Brexit or walk away from public life". He told The Observer newspaper: "It is beyond Brexit how you conduct politics and the veering towards populism and English nationalism." Cameron critique Johnson also suffered fresh criticism from his predecessor, Cameron, whose memoir "For The Record", was serialised in the Sunday Times ahead of its publication on Thursday. Cameron said Johnson only backed Brexit because he believed it would make him the "darling" of the Tory party, thus positioning him for power. He said he "risked an outcome he didn't believe in because it would help his political career". Cameron also accused Johnson and fellow Brexit campaigner Michael Gove, now a top minister, of "becoming ambassadors for the expert-trashing, truth-twisting age of populism". He condemned claims they made about the savings Britain would make by ending its EU membership, and of the likelihood of Turkey joining the bloc. "Leave was lying," he wrote.

UK's Johnson, likening himself to Incredible Hulk, vows October 31 Brexit

Britain's Liberal Democrats party leader Jo Swinson said on Sunday there was no Brexit deal that her party would vote for in parliament, saying her priority was to stop <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/cautiously-optimistic-on-brexit-deal-says-pm-boris-johnson-ahead-of-eu-meeting-249472">Britain</a> leaving the European Union.

"I am very clear I don't think there is a good Brexit deal. I think every Brexit, whether you have a blue rosette or a red rosette on it, is bad for our country, and I'm not going to support Brexit," she told the BBC when asked if her party would reject any deal put before parliament.

Britain's Liberal Democrats party leader Jo Swinson said on Sunday there was no Brexit deal that her party would vote for in parliament, saying her priority was to stop Britain leaving the European Union.

Britain's Liberal Democrats party leader Jo Swinson said on Sunday there was no Brexit deal that her party would vote for in parliament, saying her priority was to stop Britain leaving the European Union. "I am very clear I don't think there is a good Brexit deal. I think every Brexit, whether you have a blue rosette or a red rosette on it, is bad for our country, and I'm not going to support Brexit," she told the BBC when asked if her party would reject any deal put before parliament.

UK Liberal Democrat leader says her party will not support any Brexit deal

British Prime Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/boris-johnson-denies-lying-to-queen-in-brexit-crisis-249286">Boris Johnson</a> on Friday said he was "cautiously optimistic" about the possibility of a Brexit deal, noting a "good deal of progress" in talks with Brussels.

"There is the rough shape of a deal to be done... I am cautiously optimistic," Johnson said, speaking during a visit to Rotherham in northern England.

The latest comments came ahead of the scheduled meeting between Johnson and European Union chief&nbsp;Jean-Claude Juncker in Luxembourg on Monday as he bids to broker a Brexit compromise ahead of the October 31&nbsp;deadline.

Johnson will "hold talks with President Juncker on Brexit," his Downing Street office had said without providing further details.

Meanwhile, the British pound gained one per cent against the dollar on&nbsp;Friday trading on speculation that the two sides were edging closer to a compromise over the contentious Irish border issue.

Watch: Both houses of UK parliament passed a law to stop 'No Deal Brexit' on 31st October

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/both-houses-of-uk-parliament-passed-a-law-to-stop-no-deal-brexit-on-31st-october-248357/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

However later in the day, the&nbsp;Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar cautioned that the gap between London and Brussels on reaching a Brexit deal was still "very wide".

"We are exploring what is possible,"&nbsp;Varadkar said adding,&nbsp;"The gap is very wide but we will fight for and work for" a deal, local media reported.

Johnson took office in July promising to implement the 2016 referendum decision by leaving the EU on October 31, even without a deal.

However, he lost his parliamentary majority last week after a series of defections and expulsions from his governing Conservative Party amid opposition to his strident Brexit stance.

The British leader wants to renegotiate the divorce terms struck by his predecessor Theresa May, which MPs have repeatedly rejected.

In particular, he wants to change the so-called backstop provisions, which concern ways to keep the Northern Irish border with the Republic of Ireland open in all scenarios.&nbsp;European leaders have accused the British prime minister&nbsp;offering no viable alternatives.

(With inputs from agencies)

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Friday said he was "cautiously optimistic" about the possibility of a Brexit deal, noting a "good deal of progress" in talks with Brussels.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Friday said he was "cautiously optimistic" about the possibility of a Brexit deal, noting a "good deal of progress" in talks with Brussels. "There is the rough shape of a deal to be done... I am cautiously optimistic," Johnson said, speaking during a visit to Rotherham in northern England. The latest comments came ahead of the scheduled meeting between Johnson and European Union chief Jean-Claude Juncker in Luxembourg on Monday as he bids to broker a Brexit compromise ahead of the October 31 deadline. Johnson will "hold talks with President Juncker on Brexit," his Downing Street office had said without providing further details. Meanwhile, the British pound gained one per cent against the dollar on Friday trading on speculation that the two sides were edging closer to a compromise over the contentious Irish border issue. Watch: Both houses of UK parliament passed a law to stop 'No Deal Brexit' on 31st October × However later in the day, the Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar cautioned that the gap between London and Brussels on reaching a Brexit deal was still "very wide". "We are exploring what is possible," Varadkar said adding, "The gap is very wide but we will fight for and work for" a deal, local media reported. Johnson took office in July promising to implement the 2016 referendum decision by leaving the EU on October 31, even without a deal. However, he lost his parliamentary majority last week after a series of defections and expulsions from his governing Conservative Party amid opposition to his strident Brexit stance. The British leader wants to renegotiate the divorce terms struck by his predecessor Theresa May, which MPs have repeatedly rejected. In particular, he wants to change the so-called backstop provisions, which concern ways to keep the Northern Irish border with the Republic of Ireland open in all scenarios. European leaders have accused the British prime minister offering no viable alternatives. (With inputs from agencies)

Cautiously optimistic on Brexit deal, says PM Boris Johnson ahead of EU meeting

British finance minister Sajid Javid said on Sunday Prime Minister Boris Johnson will not ask for a Brexit delay at an EU summit next month, but will instead press to secure a deal to smooth Britain's departure from the bloc.

"First of all, the prime minister will go to the council meeting on the 17th and 18th (of October), he'll be trying to strike a deal. He absolutely will not be asking for an extension in that meeting," Javid told the BBC's Andrew Marr show.

He said the bill to force the government to ask for an extension to Brexit talks only has Oct. 19 as a deadline for parliament to either back a deal or leaving without an agreement, and that that was the date the government was watching.

"The bill talks about the 19th (of October) being an important date and at that point we will consider our options but our policy is clear. It is unchanged, we will be leaving on Oct. 31," he said. "We will obey all laws because all governments should obey laws absolutely, but you will have to wait and see what happens then." 
&nbsp;

British finance minister Sajid Javid said on Sunday Prime Minister Boris Johnson will not ask for a Brexit delay at an EU summit next month, but will instead press to secure a deal to smooth Britain's departure from the bloc.

British finance minister Sajid Javid said on Sunday Prime Minister Boris Johnson will not ask for a Brexit delay at an EU summit next month, but will instead press to secure a deal to smooth Britain's departure from the bloc. "First of all, the prime minister will go to the council meeting on the 17th and 18th (of October), he'll be trying to strike a deal. He absolutely will not be asking for an extension in that meeting," Javid told the BBC's Andrew Marr show. He said the bill to force the government to ask for an extension to Brexit talks only has Oct. 19 as a deadline for parliament to either back a deal or leaving without an agreement, and that that was the date the government was watching. "The bill talks about the 19th (of October) being an important date and at that point we will consider our options but our policy is clear. It is unchanged, we will be leaving on Oct. 31," he said. "We will obey all laws because all governments should obey laws absolutely, but you will have to wait and see what happens then."

PM Boris Johnson will go to EU to seek a deal, not a Brexit delay: Finance minister

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government was<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/british-lawmakers-vote-to-block-no-deal-brexit-in-fresh-blow-to-pm-johnson-247639"> left in limbo </a>on Wednesday after MPs voted to derail his Brexit plan and rejected his call for an <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/i-am-absolutely-ready-to-fight-elections-british-labour-leader-jeremy-corbyn-247444">early election to break the political deadlock</a>.

Just six weeks after taking office, Johnson lost his majority in the House of Commons as his own MPs joined opposition parties to stop him taking Britain out of the EU next month without a deal.

On Wednesday evening, they approved a bill that could force Johnson to delay Brexit to January or even later if he cannot agree exit terms with Brussels in time.

Johnson says he does not want a "no-deal" exit on October 31 but says he must keep that option open in order to get an agreement.

Watch: 'No deal' Brexit would cost at least $16 billion in UK sales to the EU, says UN

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/no-deal-brexit-would-cost-at-least-16-billion-in-uk-sales-to-the-eu-un-247636/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

He said the bill, which was being debated in the upper House of Lords into the night, "destroys the ability of government to negotiate" -- and said he had no option to call an election to win a new mandate.

"If I'm still prime minister after (the vote on) Tuesday, October 15 then we will leave on October 31 with, I hope, a much better deal," he told MPs.

Labour rejects 'cynical' move

But in yet another twist in the tortuous Brexit process, the opposition Labour Party refused to vote for the election, which requires the backing of two-thirds of MPs.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said that while he wanted an election, he would not support the prime minister's "cynical" call until the law blocking "no deal" was implemented.

The default legal position is that Britain will leave the EU on October 31 unless it delays or asks to stay in the bloc.

Corbyn said: "Let this bill pass, then gain royal assent, then we will back an election so we do not crash out with a no-deal exit from the European Union."

Johnson accused Corbyn of being frightened of losing but urged the opposition to reconsider over the next few days.

For now, he is unable to pursue his Brexit plan -- the central focus of his leadership -- or call an election that might change the situation.

Across the Atlantic, US President Donald Trump earlier offered his support, telling reporters: "Boris knows how to win. Don't worry about him. He's going to be OK."

'Sham' negotiations

Johnson took office in July, three years after the 2016 referendum vote to leave the EU, promising to deliver Brexit whatever happens.

He says he wants to renegotiate the divorce deal his predecessor Theresa May agreed with Brussels, while at the same time stepping up preparations for a disorderly exit.

Johnson insisted his team was making "substantial progress".

But the bloc has so far refused to reopen the text, and a senior EU source poured cold water on the idea that a deal could be struck at next month's Brussels summit.

The European Commission says Britain has yet to come up with any alternative for the most controversial element of the current deal, the so-called "backstop" plan for the Irish border.

Corbyn said the negotiations Johnson talked about "are a sham -- all he's doing is running down the clock".

The European Commission also said the risk of a "no-deal" exit has increased, a prospect many fear because of the economic damage risked by severing 46 years of UK-EU ties overnight.

'Hand power to the EU'

MPs only returned from their summer holiday on Tuesday but had to move fast as Johnson has controversially decided to suspend parliament next week until October 14.

They first had to vote to make time in the Commons to debate their legislation, which they then forced through on Wednesday afternoon in only five hours with the support of rebel Conservatives.

The bill would require the government to delay Brexit until January 31 unless it has agreed an exit deal or secured MPs' approval for "no-deal" by October 19.

Johnson said it would "take away the right of this country to decide how long it must remain in the EU and hand that power to the EU".

To take effect, the bill must now be approved by the Lords, who were braced for a rare overnight sitting on Wednesday, with some bringing sleeping bags into the chamber.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government was left in limbo on Wednesday after MPs voted to derail his Brexit plan and rejected his call for an early election to break the political deadlock.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government was left in limbo on Wednesday after MPs voted to derail his Brexit plan and rejected his call for an early election to break the political deadlock. Just six weeks after taking office, Johnson lost his majority in the House of Commons as his own MPs joined opposition parties to stop him taking Britain out of the EU next month without a deal. On Wednesday evening, they approved a bill that could force Johnson to delay Brexit to January or even later if he cannot agree exit terms with Brussels in time. Johnson says he does not want a "no-deal" exit on October 31 but says he must keep that option open in order to get an agreement. Watch: 'No deal' Brexit would cost at least $16 billion in UK sales to the EU, says UN × He said the bill, which was being debated in the upper House of Lords into the night, "destroys the ability of government to negotiate" -- and said he had no option to call an election to win a new mandate. "If I'm still prime minister after (the vote on) Tuesday, October 15 then we will leave on October 31 with, I hope, a much better deal," he told MPs. Labour rejects 'cynical' move But in yet another twist in the tortuous Brexit process, the opposition Labour Party refused to vote for the election, which requires the backing of two-thirds of MPs. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said that while he wanted an election, he would not support the prime minister's "cynical" call until the law blocking "no deal" was implemented. The default legal position is that Britain will leave the EU on October 31 unless it delays or asks to stay in the bloc. Corbyn said: "Let this bill pass, then gain royal assent, then we will back an election so we do not crash out with a no-deal exit from the European Union." Johnson accused Corbyn of being frightened of losing but urged the opposition to reconsider over the next few days. For now, he is unable to pursue his Brexit plan -- the central focus of his leadership -- or call an election that might change the situation. Across the Atlantic, US President Donald Trump earlier offered his support, telling reporters: "Boris knows how to win. Don't worry about him. He's going to be OK." 'Sham' negotiations Johnson took office in July, three years after the 2016 referendum vote to leave the EU, promising to deliver Brexit whatever happens. He says he wants to renegotiate the divorce deal his predecessor Theresa May agreed with Brussels, while at the same time stepping up preparations for a disorderly exit. Johnson insisted his team was making "substantial progress". But the bloc has so far refused to reopen the text, and a senior EU source poured cold water on the idea that a deal could be struck at next month's Brussels summit. The European Commission says Britain has yet to come up with any alternative for the most controversial element of the current deal, the so-called "backstop" plan for the Irish border. Corbyn said the negotiations Johnson talked about "are a sham -- all he's doing is running down the clock". The European Commission also said the risk of a "no-deal" exit has increased, a prospect many fear because of the economic damage risked by severing 46 years of UK-EU ties overnight. 'Hand power to the EU' MPs only returned from their summer holiday on Tuesday but had to move fast as Johnson has controversially decided to suspend parliament next week until October 14. They first had to vote to make time in the Commons to debate their legislation, which they then forced through on Wednesday afternoon in only five hours with the support of rebel Conservatives. The bill would require the government to delay Brexit until January 31 unless it has agreed an exit deal or secured MPs' approval for "no-deal" by October 19. Johnson said it would "take away the right of this country to decide how long it must remain in the EU and hand that power to the EU". To take effect, the bill must now be approved by the Lords, who were braced for a rare overnight sitting on Wednesday, with some bringing sleeping bags into the chamber.

British PM Boris Johnson in limbo after MPs reject his Brexit plan, elections

By Matthew Cole

Westminster is alive with speculation about an autumn general election, with advisers’ leave cancelled and the Treasury’s wallet open. But the last prime minister learned to her cost that those who start the campaign do not always determine its course.

Boris Johnson has not formally announced any such plan, but it is being heavily trailed. A general election could take place before, but in practice more likely after, a no-deal Brexit at the end of October. Johnson intends for the campaign to be fought on the theme of “the people versus the politicians”. He aims to present himself as the champion of popular opinion, as expressed in the 2016 referendum against a patronising and detached establishment. That appears to mean parliament, the courts and the media, all of whom, his team argues, are determined to frustrate the implementation of the 2016 EU referendum result.

This is a high-stakes strategy for which the current evidence looks good, but the historical precedents are more mixed.

Public opinion, as demonstrated in elections and polls, seems static since 2016. The nation is evenly divided between Leavers and Remainers, though now Remainers are divided between those resigned to defeat and those determined to seek a new referendum, and Leavers are split over the type of new relationship with the EU they would prefer.

Johnson hopes to unite Leavers by marginalising the Brexit Party. He also knows that Remain opinion is divided between Labour, the Liberal Democrats and other opposition parties. This could grant him a parliamentary majority, even with significantly less than half the vote (bear in mind, Tony Blair won a majority of 60 on 35% of the vote in 2005).

There are, however, serious problems here. One is Johnson himself. He is untested electorally at national level, and his initial bounce in the polls is no better than those enjoyed by Theresa May or Labour’s Gordon Brown when they took office. Both of these, of course, subsequently led their parties in disastrous election campaigns.

Johnson’s credentials as a man of the people are slim. He has been a politician for most of his adult life and spent his childhood at the school which has been the nursery of 20 prime ministers. Even before starting at that school, he was declaring his ambition to be “World King”. Boris is the consummate politician – he is an outsider only to everyday British life.

Johnson’s weaknesses in public and private life – his conduct as a member of the Bullingdon Club, various affairs, his failed multi-million pound Garden Bridge project in London, and the Nazanin Zaghari Ratcliffe gaffe – did not dent support amongst his admirers before his recent promotion. But as premier he may lack the consensus-building skills to resolve Brexit by reaching to a wider audience in a potentially volatile economic environment.

The dangers of division 
The history of populist, binary confrontational election campaigns in British politics also offers as much discouragement as hope to the prime minister.

In 1910, David Lloyd George’s Liberals ran a “peers versus the people” campaign in an attempt to pass a radical “people’s budget” which taxed the super-rich to pay for welfare benefits for the old, unemployed and sick. He hoped to paint the House of Lords as self-interested for blocking his budget, while they claimed they were exercising their right to veto a change in the role of the state for which Lloyd George had, in their view, no mandate.

The gamble ended in the Liberals losing their three-figure majority despite two elections in a year. A parliamentary stalemate eventually had to be resolved by the support of Irish MPs, and the Liberals never again governed alone.

Other campaigns have prompted more potent counter-claims or misread the public mood. In 1945 Churchill’s “Help him Finish the Job” slogan, referring to his war record, was successfully answered by Labour’s “Help THEM finish their job!” – a slogan used on images of servicemen looking to the future and the business of reconstruction.

And the Conservatives’ “New Labour, New Danger” campaign of 1997 was suspended because focus groups showed the public did not understand what was “new” about the threat posed by Blair. John Major also withdrew a Conservative party political broadcast depicting Blair in a Faust-like role with Peter Mandelson as Mephistopheles, saying “it would fail and it would deserve to fail”.

The deepest danger to Johnson’s proposed slogan is that “the people vs. the politicians” could easily be read as “the people vs. parliament”. The UK is not a Trump-style system of presidential rule, but an embedded parliamentary democracy, and voters – with a national memory going back to 1910 and even to the civil war – may not back him in enough numbers in such a fight. It was, after all, to protect the rights of parliament that many voted Leave.

It may be just over 390 years since Charles I’s arrogance towards parliament - dismissing it when it refused to accept his policies - proved fatal. Johnson might yet be sloganised not as the man of the people – but as “King Boris”. Perhaps the prime minister should be careful what he wishes for.

(Matthew Cole is Teaching Fellow, Department of History, University of Birmingham)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-anyone-really-going-to-buy-boris-johnsons-people-vs-the-politicians-election-campaign-121644">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Matthew Cole Westminster is alive with speculation about an autumn general election, with advisers’ leave cancelled and the Treasury’s wallet open. But the last prime minister learned to her cost that those who start the campaign do not always determine its course.

By Matthew Cole Westminster is alive with speculation about an autumn general election, with advisers’ leave cancelled and the Treasury’s wallet open. But the last prime minister learned to her cost that those who start the campaign do not always determine its course. Boris Johnson has not formally announced any such plan, but it is being heavily trailed. A general election could take place before, but in practice more likely after, a no-deal Brexit at the end of October. Johnson intends for the campaign to be fought on the theme of “the people versus the politicians”. He aims to present himself as the champion of popular opinion, as expressed in the 2016 referendum against a patronising and detached establishment. That appears to mean parliament, the courts and the media, all of whom, his team argues, are determined to frustrate the implementation of the 2016 EU referendum result. This is a high-stakes strategy for which the current evidence looks good, but the historical precedents are more mixed. Public opinion, as demonstrated in elections and polls, seems static since 2016. The nation is evenly divided between Leavers and Remainers, though now Remainers are divided between those resigned to defeat and those determined to seek a new referendum, and Leavers are split over the type of new relationship with the EU they would prefer. Johnson hopes to unite Leavers by marginalising the Brexit Party. He also knows that Remain opinion is divided between Labour, the Liberal Democrats and other opposition parties. This could grant him a parliamentary majority, even with significantly less than half the vote (bear in mind, Tony Blair won a majority of 60 on 35% of the vote in 2005). There are, however, serious problems here. One is Johnson himself. He is untested electorally at national level, and his initial bounce in the polls is no better than those enjoyed by Theresa May or Labour’s Gordon Brown when they took office. Both of these, of course, subsequently led their parties in disastrous election campaigns. Johnson’s credentials as a man of the people are slim. He has been a politician for most of his adult life and spent his childhood at the school which has been the nursery of 20 prime ministers. Even before starting at that school, he was declaring his ambition to be “World King”. Boris is the consummate politician – he is an outsider only to everyday British life. Johnson’s weaknesses in public and private life – his conduct as a member of the Bullingdon Club, various affairs, his failed multi-million pound Garden Bridge project in London, and the Nazanin Zaghari Ratcliffe gaffe – did not dent support amongst his admirers before his recent promotion. But as premier he may lack the consensus-building skills to resolve Brexit by reaching to a wider audience in a potentially volatile economic environment. The dangers of division The history of populist, binary confrontational election campaigns in British politics also offers as much discouragement as hope to the prime minister. In 1910, David Lloyd George’s Liberals ran a “peers versus the people” campaign in an attempt to pass a radical “people’s budget” which taxed the super-rich to pay for welfare benefits for the old, unemployed and sick. He hoped to paint the House of Lords as self-interested for blocking his budget, while they claimed they were exercising their right to veto a change in the role of the state for which Lloyd George had, in their view, no mandate. The gamble ended in the Liberals losing their three-figure majority despite two elections in a year. A parliamentary stalemate eventually had to be resolved by the support of Irish MPs, and the Liberals never again governed alone. Other campaigns have prompted more potent counter-claims or misread the public mood. In 1945 Churchill’s “Help him Finish the Job” slogan, referring to his war record, was successfully answered by Labour’s “Help THEM finish their job!” – a slogan used on images of servicemen looking to the future and the business of reconstruction. And the Conservatives’ “New Labour, New Danger” campaign of 1997 was suspended because focus groups showed the public did not understand what was “new” about the threat posed by Blair. John Major also withdrew a Conservative party political broadcast depicting Blair in a Faust-like role with Peter Mandelson as Mephistopheles, saying “it would fail and it would deserve to fail”. The deepest danger to Johnson’s proposed slogan is that “the people vs. the politicians” could easily be read as “the people vs. parliament”. The UK is not a Trump-style system of presidential rule, but an embedded parliamentary democracy, and voters – with a national memory going back to 1910 and even to the civil war – may not back him in enough numbers in such a fight. It was, after all, to protect the rights of parliament that many voted Leave. It may be just over 390 years since Charles I’s arrogance towards parliament - dismissing it when it refused to accept his policies - proved fatal. Johnson might yet be sloganised not as the man of the people – but as “King Boris”. Perhaps the prime minister should be careful what he wishes for. (Matthew Cole is Teaching Fellow, Department of History, University of Birmingham) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Is anyone really going to buy Boris Johnson’s ‘people vs politicians’ election campaign?

A no-deal Brexit would hurt Britain more than the rest of Europe no matter how much <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uks-johnson-tells-civil-servants-their-top-priority-is-preparing-for-no-deal-brexit-sky-241873">Prime Minister Boris Johnson</a>'s government pretends otherwise, outgoing European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said in remarks published on Saturday.

Britain has been pressing the European Union to amend the terms of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/british-prime-minister-johnson-urges-lawmakers-to-back-october-31-brexit-241537">Britain's withdrawal agreement</a>, saying Brussels would have to take responsibility for a no-deal Brexit if it does not compromise.

But at the end of the day that would do the most harm to Britain, Juncker told a regional newspaper in the Austrian province of Tyrol, where he regularly spends his summer holiday.

"If it comes to a hard Brexit, that is in no one's interest, but the British would be the big losers. They are acting as though that were not the case but it is," Juncker told the Tiroler Tageszeitung newspaper.

"We are fully prepared even though some in Britain say we are not well set up for a 'no deal'. But I am not taking part in these little summer games," said Juncker, who is due to be succeeded by German conservative Ursula von der Leyen once she has put together her Commission.

The European Union has said the withdrawal agreement negotiated by the previous British administration led by Theresa May will not be re-opened. Johnson says it wants a key element of that deal, the so-called Irish "backstop", to be scrapped.

The backstop, agreed between Brussels and May's government, aims to keep the border between the Republic of Ireland and British-ruled Northern Ireland open, and would effectively keep Northern Ireland within the EU's single market if no alternative arrangement can be found.

"We have made clear that we are not prepared to hold new negotiations on the withdrawal agreement but only to make certain clarifications in the framework of the political declarations that regulate future relations between the United Kingdom and European Union," Juncker said.

"We are well prepared (for no deal) and I hope the British are too." 
&nbsp;

A no-deal Brexit would hurt Britain more than the rest of Europe no matter how much Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government pretends otherwise, outgoing European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said in remarks published on Saturday.

A no-deal Brexit would hurt Britain more than the rest of Europe no matter how much Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government pretends otherwise, outgoing European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said in remarks published on Saturday. Britain has been pressing the European Union to amend the terms of Britain's withdrawal agreement, saying Brussels would have to take responsibility for a no-deal Brexit if it does not compromise. But at the end of the day that would do the most harm to Britain, Juncker told a regional newspaper in the Austrian province of Tyrol, where he regularly spends his summer holiday. "If it comes to a hard Brexit, that is in no one's interest, but the British would be the big losers. They are acting as though that were not the case but it is," Juncker told the Tiroler Tageszeitung newspaper. "We are fully prepared even though some in Britain say we are not well set up for a 'no deal'. But I am not taking part in these little summer games," said Juncker, who is due to be succeeded by German conservative Ursula von der Leyen once she has put together her Commission. The European Union has said the withdrawal agreement negotiated by the previous British administration led by Theresa May will not be re-opened. Johnson says it wants a key element of that deal, the so-called Irish "backstop", to be scrapped. The backstop, agreed between Brussels and May's government, aims to keep the border between the Republic of Ireland and British-ruled Northern Ireland open, and would effectively keep Northern Ireland within the EU's single market if no alternative arrangement can be found. "We have made clear that we are not prepared to hold new negotiations on the withdrawal agreement but only to make certain clarifications in the framework of the political declarations that regulate future relations between the United Kingdom and European Union," Juncker said. "We are well prepared (for no deal) and I hope the British are too."

If it comes to hard Brexit, British would be the big losers: European Union's Jean-Claude Juncker tells UK

The European Commission is willing to discuss Brexit with Britain over the coming weeks, a spokeswoman said on Tuesday.

She said while the bloc's executive was hoping to avoid a "no-deal" exit, the EU was prepared for such an outcome.

"The Commission does remain available over the coming weeks should the United Kingdom wish to hold talks and clarify its position in more detail, whether by phone or in person," the spokeswoman told a news briefing.

Earlier on Tuesday a senior British government source said London was "ready and willing" to do a deal to leave the EU if Brussels renegotiated the agreement, denying that a no-deal Brexit was Prime Minister Boris Johnson's central plan.

Johnson, who took over as prime minister two weeks ago, has taken a hard line with the EU, demanding that it show willingness to change the divorce deal it agreed with his predecessor before negotiations can restart to secure Britain's smooth departure from the bloc.

The deal agreed with Theresa May in November has been rejected three times by the British parliament.

"A no-deal scenario is not our preferred option," the Commission spokeswoman said, adding the agreement reached was the "best possible" and could not be re-negotiated.

"Our no-deal preparedness protects the EU 27 and the interests in the case of a no-deal Brexit," she said.

The European Commission is willing to discuss Brexit with Britain over the coming weeks, a spokeswoman said on Tuesday. She said while the bloc's executive was hoping to avoid a "no-deal" exit, the EU was prepared for such an outcome.

The European Commission is willing to discuss Brexit with Britain over the coming weeks, a spokeswoman said on Tuesday. She said while the bloc's executive was hoping to avoid a "no-deal" exit, the EU was prepared for such an outcome. "The Commission does remain available over the coming weeks should the United Kingdom wish to hold talks and clarify its position in more detail, whether by phone or in person," the spokeswoman told a news briefing. Earlier on Tuesday a senior British government source said London was "ready and willing" to do a deal to leave the EU if Brussels renegotiated the agreement, denying that a no-deal Brexit was Prime Minister Boris Johnson's central plan. Johnson, who took over as prime minister two weeks ago, has taken a hard line with the EU, demanding that it show willingness to change the divorce deal it agreed with his predecessor before negotiations can restart to secure Britain's smooth departure from the bloc. The deal agreed with Theresa May in November has been rejected three times by the British parliament. "A no-deal scenario is not our preferred option," the Commission spokeswoman said, adding the agreement reached was the "best possible" and could not be re-negotiated. "Our no-deal preparedness protects the EU 27 and the interests in the case of a no-deal Brexit," she said.

European Union open to Brexit discussions but prepared for no-deal: Spokeswoman

EU open to Brexit discussions but prepared for no-deal: Spokeswoman

By Paula Keaveney

This week’s by-election in Brecon and Radnorshire will be the first formal test of the so-called Remain Alliance. The unusually shortlist of candidates in this contest is partly because parties such as the Green Party and Plaid Cymru, have stood down in favour of the Liberal Democrats. Campaign visits have also been made by those who originally formed Change UK, such as former Conservatives MPs Anna Soubry and Heidi Allen.

It is rare in British politics for parties to stand down in favour of their usual competitors. And while this isn’t the first occurrence or the first initiative, the Brecon agreements could well lead to something more formal. A little earlier in the summer, former Change UK (now Independent Group for Change) leader Heidi Allen launched Unite to Remain. The idea is for Remain-supporting parties to work together to maximise the chance of electoral, and therefore policy, success. This would include the use of a common title or strapline to make the point.

There have been attempts to achieve a common purpose in the past. The 2017 general election, for example, saw the promotion of the so-called Progressive Alliance (of which more later). But what marks out the latest attempt is the move to register a name and logo (Remain Alliance) with the Electoral Commission. Current electoral law means that ballot papers can only include registered names and logos (or the word “Independent”).

Tribalism

To understand whether or not the current initiative can succeed, it is worth looking at cross-party cooperation, or the lack of it, in the past.

British politics is usually very tribal. This tribalism has meant that past efforts at cooperation have generally been motivated by negative factors, such as a desire to defeat a particular party (usually the Conservatives).

But the nature of the electoral system also means that tactics could trump tribalism. In a first-past-the-post system, which is used for UK parliamentary elections, a horse-race narrative often develops. It is in the interests of a challenger party to appear as the only participant with a chance to overtake the favourite and win.

This, in turn, means supporters of lower-placed, unlikely-to-win parties are targeted to “lend” their votes to defeat a less-preferred option. This has given birth to the idea that only certain parties are worth supporting.

Resistance, however, can come from the candidates and activists of those lower-placed parties. While the Green Party did stand down in favour of the Liberal Democrats in the 2016 Richmond Park by-election when the Lib-Dems successfully took the seat from Zac Goldsmith, for example, parts of the local Green Party felt very aggrieved and voiced their annoyance quite publicly. This, in turn, means that cooperative arrangements are often rare.

Who wins, and loses?

It can be very difficult to negotiate cooperation, particularly when one party will feel it is losing out. Anyone who thinks this is easy needs to look further into the SDP-Liberal Alliance.

The SDP was formed in 1981 and almost immediately began working with the existing Liberal Party. The idea was that one of either party would contest each parliamentary seat. This was generally achieved, but only after tortuous negotiations which rather ruined the image of cooperation and which are well described by participants such as the then MP, now Lord, Bill Rogers and the authors Ivor Crewe and Anthony King.

In fact, the Croydon North West by-election in 1981 was fought by the Liberal Bill Pitt – rather than by the leaders’ preferred option, Shirley Williams – because Pitt simply refused to budge. Pitt went on to win.

Of course, parties do not need to be working together explicitly for voters, or organisations, to urge tactical outcomes. While tribalism has a long history in UK politics, so too do attempts to persuade voters to make tactical decisions.

TV87, for example, referenced in an article in Political Behaviour, was a campaign set up to focus voters’ minds on the possibility of lending votes in the 1987 election. And it became common for publications and campaigns to produce lists of seats where incumbents were vulnerable to temporary tactics.

The current initiative, which goes well beyond leaving decisions to voters alone, can perhaps best be judged against more recent projects. The 2017 general election saw the promotion of the so-called Progressive Alliance. The thinking was that Progressive parties (generally centre-left or left wing) could stand down for each other in seats where this might help defeat a Tory, or assist a vulnerable Progressive incumbent. The book All Together Now by Barry Langford lists 42 seats in which this happened, but it was not always successful and it was only really the Green party which played a full part.

So can Remain Alliance work?

The Brecon and Radnorshire by-election result may provide part of an answer, although we need to remember that this has been a Lib-Dem seat in the past and the party has been campaigning there for some time (in other words, the cooperation between parties may not be the crucial factor here).

Perhaps more telling will be any negotiations ahead of the forthcoming Sheffield Hallam by-election as well as what happens when more than one party has a justifiable claim to stand.

The big issue, however, must be Labour’s role and how one can define a Remain party. Labour played no active part in the 2017 Progressive Alliance, so what would the Remain Alliance do if Labour was the clear challenger to the Conservatives, or Brexit party, in a tight contest? Only time will tell, but the answer hangs on whether or not Jeremy Corbyn ever comes out as an unequivocal supporter of either Leave or Remain.

(Paula Keaveney is Senior Lecturer in Politics, Edge Hill University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

 
&nbsp;

By Paula Keaveney This week’s by-election in Brecon and Radnorshire will be the first formal test of the so-called Remain Alliance. The unusually shortlist of candidates in this contest is partly because parties such as the Green Party and Plaid Cymru, have stood down in favour of the Liberal Democrats.

By Paula Keaveney This week’s by-election in Brecon and Radnorshire will be the first formal test of the so-called Remain Alliance. The unusually shortlist of candidates in this contest is partly because parties such as the Green Party and Plaid Cymru, have stood down in favour of the Liberal Democrats. Campaign visits have also been made by those who originally formed Change UK, such as former Conservatives MPs Anna Soubry and Heidi Allen. It is rare in British politics for parties to stand down in favour of their usual competitors. And while this isn’t the first occurrence or the first initiative, the Brecon agreements could well lead to something more formal. A little earlier in the summer, former Change UK (now Independent Group for Change) leader Heidi Allen launched Unite to Remain. The idea is for Remain-supporting parties to work together to maximise the chance of electoral, and therefore policy, success. This would include the use of a common title or strapline to make the point. There have been attempts to achieve a common purpose in the past. The 2017 general election, for example, saw the promotion of the so-called Progressive Alliance (of which more later). But what marks out the latest attempt is the move to register a name and logo (Remain Alliance) with the Electoral Commission. Current electoral law means that ballot papers can only include registered names and logos (or the word “Independent”). Tribalism To understand whether or not the current initiative can succeed, it is worth looking at cross-party cooperation, or the lack of it, in the past. British politics is usually very tribal. This tribalism has meant that past efforts at cooperation have generally been motivated by negative factors, such as a desire to defeat a particular party (usually the Conservatives). But the nature of the electoral system also means that tactics could trump tribalism. In a first-past-the-post system, which is used for UK parliamentary elections, a horse-race narrative often develops. It is in the interests of a challenger party to appear as the only participant with a chance to overtake the favourite and win. This, in turn, means supporters of lower-placed, unlikely-to-win parties are targeted to “lend” their votes to defeat a less-preferred option. This has given birth to the idea that only certain parties are worth supporting. Resistance, however, can come from the candidates and activists of those lower-placed parties. While the Green Party did stand down in favour of the Liberal Democrats in the 2016 Richmond Park by-election when the Lib-Dems successfully took the seat from Zac Goldsmith, for example, parts of the local Green Party felt very aggrieved and voiced their annoyance quite publicly. This, in turn, means that cooperative arrangements are often rare. Who wins, and loses? It can be very difficult to negotiate cooperation, particularly when one party will feel it is losing out. Anyone who thinks this is easy needs to look further into the SDP-Liberal Alliance. The SDP was formed in 1981 and almost immediately began working with the existing Liberal Party. The idea was that one of either party would contest each parliamentary seat. This was generally achieved, but only after tortuous negotiations which rather ruined the image of cooperation and which are well described by participants such as the then MP, now Lord, Bill Rogers and the authors Ivor Crewe and Anthony King. In fact, the Croydon North West by-election in 1981 was fought by the Liberal Bill Pitt – rather than by the leaders’ preferred option, Shirley Williams – because Pitt simply refused to budge. Pitt went on to win. Of course, parties do not need to be working together explicitly for voters, or organisations, to urge tactical outcomes. While tribalism has a long history in UK politics, so too do attempts to persuade voters to make tactical decisions. TV87, for example, referenced in an article in Political Behaviour, was a campaign set up to focus voters’ minds on the possibility of lending votes in the 1987 election. And it became common for publications and campaigns to produce lists of seats where incumbents were vulnerable to temporary tactics. The current initiative, which goes well beyond leaving decisions to voters alone, can perhaps best be judged against more recent projects. The 2017 general election saw the promotion of the so-called Progressive Alliance. The thinking was that Progressive parties (generally centre-left or left wing) could stand down for each other in seats where this might help defeat a Tory, or assist a vulnerable Progressive incumbent. The book All Together Now by Barry Langford lists 42 seats in which this happened, but it was not always successful and it was only really the Green party which played a full part. So can Remain Alliance work? The Brecon and Radnorshire by-election result may provide part of an answer, although we need to remember that this has been a Lib-Dem seat in the past and the party has been campaigning there for some time (in other words, the cooperation between parties may not be the crucial factor here). Perhaps more telling will be any negotiations ahead of the forthcoming Sheffield Hallam by-election as well as what happens when more than one party has a justifiable claim to stand. The big issue, however, must be Labour’s role and how one can define a Remain party. Labour played no active part in the 2017 Progressive Alliance, so what would the Remain Alliance do if Labour was the clear challenger to the Conservatives, or Brexit party, in a tight contest? Only time will tell, but the answer hangs on whether or not Jeremy Corbyn ever comes out as an unequivocal supporter of either Leave or Remain. (Paula Keaveney is Senior Lecturer in Politics, Edge Hill University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Remain Alliance – can it halt Brexit and beat Boris Johnson?

By Timothy Oliver

As Boris Johnson begins his term as British prime minister, he takes charge of a country facing a series of overlapping crises. Alongside the constitutional and political crises provoked by the Brexit process, are wider social and economic problems of homelessness and poor productivity. But one of the most significant challenges he faces is the UK’s current identity crisis.

Countries, like people, have identities, and that’s remained true of Britain since the EU referendum of 2016, regardless of the divisions that have hardened since.

Precisely identifying what a country’s identity is can be a difficult process, but Britain certainly imagines itself to be a major international player, focused on upholding the rules-based international order. Under that overarching identity, there are a host of other identities at play – some of them longstanding, but two of significant importance that have only emerged since that referendum: Leave, and Remain.

Research on Brexit identities published by the UK in a Changing Europe research group in January 2019, found that while Remain as an identity appeared later than Leave during the referendum campaign, they are now roughly of equal strength.

Roughly equal numbers of people adhere to both Remain and Leave identities, with about equivalent strength. These identities are also more powerful than other existing political identities, such as party identity. While one in five British people don’t report a party identity, only one in 16 doesn’t report either a Remain or Leave identity.

The electorate are therefore broadly divided between two powerful identity blocs, of roughly equal size. As we saw in the European parliamentary elections, they are strongly polarised – the two parties that finished top of that ballot, the Brexit Party and the Liberal Democrats, represent the clearest articulation of each side of this divide.

These identities are deeply and sincerely held on both sides. They are defined in part by a rejection of the other identity, but also by what positive vision they hold for the future. This poses a significant challenge for politicians and civil servants seeking to lead the UK through the process of leaving the EU, and through a host of related policy issues around trade, immigration, and so on.

The polarisation between Leave and Remain is often commented on in dark tones. Many have said that the UK is irreparably divided and therefore dysfunctional to the point of impeding the ability of anyone party to govern it effectively.

Others claim that the referendum and then Brexit itself created and then embedded unbridgeable divides between these two large groups of voters. This gap will be near impossible to surmount, particularly as research shows these voters interpret the same economic data differently.

Looking for Common Ground 
 
But there is also reason to believe that some common ground can be found here. Both sides do hold a set of common beliefs. Both, for example, have extolled the virtues of openness. For Leavers, Britain’s membership of the EU was a barrier to being a globally connected and accessible country, for Remainers it was a means to facilitate that.

Both sides have also argued that Britain is an important country in global terms. While Remainers say this is, in part, due to membership of the EU which serves to amplify Britain’s voice in the world, Leavers say it’s despite the country being inside the union, and that Britain’s importance may even be enhanced by leaving. The commonalities here reflect elements of the overarching identities such as Britishness that cross both groups.

The downside is that these concepts might not be firm bases upon which to bring the country together. This can play out in two ways. Either neither side will recognise the other as truly sharing the value that they proclaim. Openness is a good example here. Both sides proclaim that they value openness, but that the other is in favour of being closed off from the world – either because they seek to detach the UK from the EU, or because they seek to keep the UK inside the club.

The other possibility is that, when a common ground issue is used to try and build a consensus, it is co-opted by one side or another, and so the bridge to common ground is lost.

Either way, British politicians will need to try and reunite the country. Indeed, the newly appointed prime minister made it the second point of his campaign list – but only after delivering Brexit. Electorally, it will be difficult for him, or any party leader, to get a majority in a general election in a country that is so divided on what has become such a central issue.

When it comes to building public support for policies to tackle the myriad crises facing Britain – from immigration policy to regional devolution – the same problem persists: policies can be perceived radically differently by the two identity groups. Seeking to bridge that gap will be hard.

The way forward should centre on speaking to the common ground that does exist, but also spending more time discussing trade offs and compromise. Johnson does not appear to have adopted this strategy – the immediate reaction to his government appointments has been to colour it as a more, not less, divisive government, and his rhetoric on Brexit has not shown much sign of compromise.

Public figures from both sides of the Leave and Remain divide will have to discover more overt enthusiasm for compromising if they want to draw the venom out of the Brexit identity clash. Otherwise, governing the UK will continue to be far more challenging that it was before 2016 for some time to come. 
 
(Timothy Oliver is Lecturer in British Politics and Public Policy, University of Manchester)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/boris-johnson-now-leads-a-country-mired-in-a-brexit-identity-crisis-heres-how-he-could-reunite-it-114458">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

By Timothy Oliver As Boris Johnson begins his term as British prime minister, he takes charge of a country facing a series of overlapping crises. Alongside the constitutional and political crises provoked by the Brexit process, are wider social and economic problems of homelessness and poor productivity.

By Timothy Oliver As Boris Johnson begins his term as British prime minister, he takes charge of a country facing a series of overlapping crises. Alongside the constitutional and political crises provoked by the Brexit process, are wider social and economic problems of homelessness and poor productivity. But one of the most significant challenges he faces is the UK’s current identity crisis. Countries, like people, have identities, and that’s remained true of Britain since the EU referendum of 2016, regardless of the divisions that have hardened since. Precisely identifying what a country’s identity is can be a difficult process, but Britain certainly imagines itself to be a major international player, focused on upholding the rules-based international order. Under that overarching identity, there are a host of other identities at play – some of them longstanding, but two of significant importance that have only emerged since that referendum: Leave, and Remain. Research on Brexit identities published by the UK in a Changing Europe research group in January 2019, found that while Remain as an identity appeared later than Leave during the referendum campaign, they are now roughly of equal strength. Roughly equal numbers of people adhere to both Remain and Leave identities, with about equivalent strength. These identities are also more powerful than other existing political identities, such as party identity. While one in five British people don’t report a party identity, only one in 16 doesn’t report either a Remain or Leave identity. The electorate are therefore broadly divided between two powerful identity blocs, of roughly equal size. As we saw in the European parliamentary elections, they are strongly polarised – the two parties that finished top of that ballot, the Brexit Party and the Liberal Democrats, represent the clearest articulation of each side of this divide. These identities are deeply and sincerely held on both sides. They are defined in part by a rejection of the other identity, but also by what positive vision they hold for the future. This poses a significant challenge for politicians and civil servants seeking to lead the UK through the process of leaving the EU, and through a host of related policy issues around trade, immigration, and so on. The polarisation between Leave and Remain is often commented on in dark tones. Many have said that the UK is irreparably divided and therefore dysfunctional to the point of impeding the ability of anyone party to govern it effectively. Others claim that the referendum and then Brexit itself created and then embedded unbridgeable divides between these two large groups of voters. This gap will be near impossible to surmount, particularly as research shows these voters interpret the same economic data differently. Looking for Common Ground But there is also reason to believe that some common ground can be found here. Both sides do hold a set of common beliefs. Both, for example, have extolled the virtues of openness. For Leavers, Britain’s membership of the EU was a barrier to being a globally connected and accessible country, for Remainers it was a means to facilitate that. Both sides have also argued that Britain is an important country in global terms. While Remainers say this is, in part, due to membership of the EU which serves to amplify Britain’s voice in the world, Leavers say it’s despite the country being inside the union, and that Britain’s importance may even be enhanced by leaving. The commonalities here reflect elements of the overarching identities such as Britishness that cross both groups. The downside is that these concepts might not be firm bases upon which to bring the country together. This can play out in two ways. Either neither side will recognise the other as truly sharing the value that they proclaim. Openness is a good example here. Both sides proclaim that they value openness, but that the other is in favour of being closed off from the world – either because they seek to detach the UK from the EU, or because they seek to keep the UK inside the club. The other possibility is that, when a common ground issue is used to try and build a consensus, it is co-opted by one side or another, and so the bridge to common ground is lost. Either way, British politicians will need to try and reunite the country. Indeed, the newly appointed prime minister made it the second point of his campaign list – but only after delivering Brexit. Electorally, it will be difficult for him, or any party leader, to get a majority in a general election in a country that is so divided on what has become such a central issue. When it comes to building public support for policies to tackle the myriad crises facing Britain – from immigration policy to regional devolution – the same problem persists: policies can be perceived radically differently by the two identity groups. Seeking to bridge that gap will be hard. The way forward should centre on speaking to the common ground that does exist, but also spending more time discussing trade offs and compromise. Johnson does not appear to have adopted this strategy – the immediate reaction to his government appointments has been to colour it as a more, not less, divisive government, and his rhetoric on Brexit has not shown much sign of compromise. Public figures from both sides of the Leave and Remain divide will have to discover more overt enthusiasm for compromising if they want to draw the venom out of the Brexit identity clash. Otherwise, governing the UK will continue to be far more challenging that it was before 2016 for some time to come. (Timothy Oliver is Lecturer in British Politics and Public Policy, University of Manchester) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Here's how Boris Johnson can unite a country mired in a Brexit identity crisis

Theresa May: A legacy sunk by Brexit

The two candidates vying to become Britain's next prime minister both said Friday they believe the EU will agree to a Brexit deal this year without the controversial "backstop" provision for the Irish border.

Ex-London mayor Boris Johnson, the favourite over foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt to replace outgoing premier Theresa May, predicted the European Union would instead negotiate the issue during post-Brexit free trade talks.

"We will get a deal by October 31st," Johnson told the BBC during highly-anticipated separate interviews with the leadership rivals, referring to the latest delayed deadline for Britain's departure from the bloc.

"They (the EU) need to take... the Irish backstop and they need basically to remit it, to remove it, to delete it," he added.

Johnson said it was "manifestly in the interests of both sides" to reach a new deal, noting "the EU has a very substantial net balance of trade with us".

"They will want to continue to see those goods flowing," he added.

European leaders have consistently insisted however that the backstop must remain in any withdrawal agreement.

It would keep open the post-Brexit border between British-ruled Northern Ireland and EU member the Republic of Ireland whatever the outcome of negotiations over the future relationship between London and Brussels.

But vehement opposition to the proposal from ardent pro-Brexit Tory MPs led them to repeatedly reject the divorce deal struck by May and European leaders, forcing her to step aside.

Conservative members are this month in the process of selecting a new party leader -- who will almost certainly become prime minister -- with the winner to be announced on July 23.

Johnson's rival Hunt reiterated in his half-hour BBC interview that he had received encouragement from European leaders that they would be willing to abandon the backstop to strike a new deal -- claims Berlin has previously pushed back on.

"Chancellor Merkel had said to me that if a new British prime minister came forward with a different plan for the Northern Irish border, of course, they would look at the package," he said.

However, Hunt refused to commit to Britain's departure from the EU by the end of the year, saying only that he "expects" the country will have left by then.

"Prime ministers should only make promises they know they can deliver," he added.

Meanwhile, outgoing leader May admitted in her own interview Friday that she had underestimated the "entrenched positions" in Parliament over Brexit.

She told the BBC she would leave Downing Street after three years in power with a mixture of pride and disappointment.

"I've always done what I believe to be in the national interest," May said.

The two candidates vying to become Britain's next prime minister both said Friday they believe the EU will agree to a Brexit deal this year without the controversial "backstop" provision for the Irish border.

The two candidates vying to become Britain's next prime minister both said Friday they believe the EU will agree to a Brexit deal this year without the controversial "backstop" provision for the Irish border. Ex-London mayor Boris Johnson, the favourite over foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt to replace outgoing premier Theresa May, predicted the European Union would instead negotiate the issue during post-Brexit free trade talks. "We will get a deal by October 31st," Johnson told the BBC during highly-anticipated separate interviews with the leadership rivals, referring to the latest delayed deadline for Britain's departure from the bloc. "They (the EU) need to take... the Irish backstop and they need basically to remit it, to remove it, to delete it," he added. Johnson said it was "manifestly in the interests of both sides" to reach a new deal, noting "the EU has a very substantial net balance of trade with us". "They will want to continue to see those goods flowing," he added. European leaders have consistently insisted however that the backstop must remain in any withdrawal agreement. It would keep open the post-Brexit border between British-ruled Northern Ireland and EU member the Republic of Ireland whatever the outcome of negotiations over the future relationship between London and Brussels. But vehement opposition to the proposal from ardent pro-Brexit Tory MPs led them to repeatedly reject the divorce deal struck by May and European leaders, forcing her to step aside. Conservative members are this month in the process of selecting a new party leader -- who will almost certainly become prime minister -- with the winner to be announced on July 23. Johnson's rival Hunt reiterated in his half-hour BBC interview that he had received encouragement from European leaders that they would be willing to abandon the backstop to strike a new deal -- claims Berlin has previously pushed back on. "Chancellor Merkel had said to me that if a new British prime minister came forward with a different plan for the Northern Irish border, of course, they would look at the package," he said. However, Hunt refused to commit to Britain's departure from the EU by the end of the year, saying only that he "expects" the country will have left by then. "Prime ministers should only make promises they know they can deliver," he added. Meanwhile, outgoing leader May admitted in her own interview Friday that she had underestimated the "entrenched positions" in Parliament over Brexit. She told the BBC she would leave Downing Street after three years in power with a mixture of pride and disappointment. "I've always done what I believe to be in the national interest," May said.

UK PM contenders say European Union will drop Irish backstop for Brexit deal

Britain's government is committed to doing whatever it can to keep its financial sector globally competitive after Brexit, financial services minister John Glen said on Tuesday.

Britain is due to leave the European Union on October 31 but it has yet to secure a divorce settlement with the bloc, the UK financial sector`s single biggest customer.

Uncertainty for finance has increased as a new British prime minister is being selected.

Glen said there must be a "clear plan" to maintain the UK financial sector`s global success as it cannot be taken for granted. 
 
"It would be a tragedy if we lost our competitive advantage by accident," Glen told a TheCityUK conference.

He knew the financial sector, known in Britain as the City, wanted an end to the 'Brexit impasse'.

Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam, Luxembourg and Dublin have been vying to attract new hubs being opened by UK-based financial companies needing an EU base after Brexit.

Bankers see the shift of some jobs and activities from the City to the EU as inevitable and one-way, whatever the future UK trading deal with Brussels.

But Glen said none of those rival financial centres in the EU can match all that London has to offer.

TheCityUK`s new chair, Mark Tucker, said the financial sector was Britain`s most successful economic sector bar none and has a comparative advantage over other countries in that it is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate.

"It's the envy of other nations," said Tucker, who also chairs HSBC bank.

Finance needed to recover the public`s trust and have a "coherent and united front" so that it becomes more than the sum of its parts to demonstrate the benefits that finance brings to the economy and communities, Tucker said.&nbsp;

Britain's government is committed to doing whatever it can to keep its financial sector globally competitive after Brexit, financial services minister John Glen said on Tuesday.

Britain's government is committed to doing whatever it can to keep its financial sector globally competitive after Brexit, financial services minister John Glen said on Tuesday. Britain is due to leave the European Union on October 31 but it has yet to secure a divorce settlement with the bloc, the UK financial sector`s single biggest customer. Uncertainty for finance has increased as a new British prime minister is being selected. Glen said there must be a "clear plan" to maintain the UK financial sector`s global success as it cannot be taken for granted. "It would be a tragedy if we lost our competitive advantage by accident," Glen told a TheCityUK conference. He knew the financial sector, known in Britain as the City, wanted an end to the 'Brexit impasse'. Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam, Luxembourg and Dublin have been vying to attract new hubs being opened by UK-based financial companies needing an EU base after Brexit. Bankers see the shift of some jobs and activities from the City to the EU as inevitable and one-way, whatever the future UK trading deal with Brussels. But Glen said none of those rival financial centres in the EU can match all that London has to offer. TheCityUK`s new chair, Mark Tucker, said the financial sector was Britain`s most successful economic sector bar none and has a comparative advantage over other countries in that it is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate. "It's the envy of other nations," said Tucker, who also chairs HSBC bank. Finance needed to recover the public`s trust and have a "coherent and united front" so that it becomes more than the sum of its parts to demonstrate the benefits that finance brings to the economy and communities, Tucker said.

Britain says it will do everything to keep finance competitive after Brexit

Ireland will not allow the Northern Ireland "backstop" clause in Britain's EU withdrawal agreement to be dropped because doing so would be as big a threat to the country as Britain leaving without a deal, Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said on Saturday.

While it is "alarming" that leading contenders to replace Theresa May as Britain's Prime Minister are increasingly threatening a no-deal Brexit, Ireland was 100 per cent certain the European Union would not allow the backstop to go, he said.

Leadership contenders, including front-runner Boris Johnson, have called for the controversial Irish clause that is designed to avoid border checks between Ireland and Northern Ireland to be changed or scrapped. They have said Britain would be prepared to leave without a deal if there was no compromise.

"To me, no backstop is effectively the same as no-deal because what the backstop is is ... a legally operable guarantee that we will never see a hard border emerge again," Varadkar told RTE radio. "If we don't have that, that is no deal."

How to manage the land border between EU-member Ireland and British-run Northern Ireland - including an emergency "backstop" solution to prevent the return of extensive frontier controls - has proven the most contentious element of Britain's planned exit from the European Union.

Varadkar again rejected a proposal for a time limit on the Northern Ireland clause, saying a backstop with a time limit is "not a backstop."

He said that Ireland remained open to the possibility of alternative arrangements that would allow an open border with Northern Ireland while protecting the European Union's single market - something Johnson has suggested may offer a solution.

But Varadkar said that would only be a possibility once the technologies required had been demonstrated to work effectively.

"What people are saying is give up the backstop, which we know will work legally and operationally in return for something that doesn't yet exist but might exist in the future ... I can't do that to the border communities," Varadkar said.

Varadkar said he was looking forward to sitting down with May's replacement, but said the next prime minister should not expect a better Brexit deal.

"The fact that the failure of the House Of Commons to ratify the withdrawal agreement somehow means they are going to get a better deal, that is just not how the European Union works," he said.

Ireland will not allow the Northern Ireland "backstop" clause in Britain's EU withdrawal agreement to be dropped because doing so would be as big a threat to the country as Britain leaving without a deal, Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said on Saturday.

Ireland will not allow the Northern Ireland "backstop" clause in Britain's EU withdrawal agreement to be dropped because doing so would be as big a threat to the country as Britain leaving without a deal, Prime Minister Leo Varadkar said on Saturday. While it is "alarming" that leading contenders to replace Theresa May as Britain's Prime Minister are increasingly threatening a no-deal Brexit, Ireland was 100 per cent certain the European Union would not allow the backstop to go, he said. Leadership contenders, including front-runner Boris Johnson, have called for the controversial Irish clause that is designed to avoid border checks between Ireland and Northern Ireland to be changed or scrapped. They have said Britain would be prepared to leave without a deal if there was no compromise. "To me, no backstop is effectively the same as no-deal because what the backstop is is ... a legally operable guarantee that we will never see a hard border emerge again," Varadkar told RTE radio. "If we don't have that, that is no deal." How to manage the land border between EU-member Ireland and British-run Northern Ireland - including an emergency "backstop" solution to prevent the return of extensive frontier controls - has proven the most contentious element of Britain's planned exit from the European Union. Varadkar again rejected a proposal for a time limit on the Northern Ireland clause, saying a backstop with a time limit is "not a backstop." He said that Ireland remained open to the possibility of alternative arrangements that would allow an open border with Northern Ireland while protecting the European Union's single market - something Johnson has suggested may offer a solution. But Varadkar said that would only be a possibility once the technologies required had been demonstrated to work effectively. "What people are saying is give up the backstop, which we know will work legally and operationally in return for something that doesn't yet exist but might exist in the future ... I can't do that to the border communities," Varadkar said. Varadkar said he was looking forward to sitting down with May's replacement, but said the next prime minister should not expect a better Brexit deal. "The fact that the failure of the House Of Commons to ratify the withdrawal agreement somehow means they are going to get a better deal, that is just not how the European Union works," he said.

Brexit: Irish PM says no backstop as bad for Ireland as no deal

Britain's two main parties promised on Monday to work to resolve the deadlock over Brexit, hoping to win back voters who abandoned them for a new movement led by eurosceptic Nigel Farage at European elections.

After a punishing night when Britain's deepening <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-ever-more-polarised-as-brexit-party-storms-to-eu-vote-win-221974">Brexit divisions </a>were on show, the governing Conservatives said the results were a demand for the country to follow through on plans to exit the European Union no matter what.

Taking a different tack, the opposition Labour Party described a public vote - a new national election or second referendum - as a way to reunite the country.

With Farage's Brexit Party capturing the greatest number of votes for seats in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/blow-for-president-emmanuel-macron-as-le-pen-tops-european-union-election-in-france-221915">European Parliament</a>, followed by a group of fervently pro-EU parties, Conservatives and Labour were under pressure to commit clearly to either side of the debate.

Almost three years since Britain voted narrowly to leave the EU and just under two months after the originally planned departure date, lawmakers are still arguing over how, when or even whether the country will leave the club it joined in 1973.

For the Conservatives, who will appoint a new leader by the end of July, many of the contenders will see the European vote outcome as proof that they must seek a cleaner break with the EU. For Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, pressure will mount to embrace a second referendum without qualification.

But what is clear for both from a vote which many used as a protest, Brexit, which has already forced Prime Minister Theresa May to say she will resign on June 7 over her failure to deliver Brexit, risks shattering their election prospects.

Britain's interior minister Sajid Javid, one of several Conservatives who hope to replace May, described his party's performance in the election as "hugely disappointing".

"This is a verdict on our delivery of Brexit," Javid said on Twitter. "There's a clear lesson: people want us to get on with it."

Labour's finance chief, John McDonnell, also said it was time to unite but offered a different solution - a "public vote" to help pin down where most Britons stood on the way forward.

He caused a short-lived sensation in seeming to signal a shift in Labour policy to unequivocally back a second referendum on Britain's membership of the EU.

McDonnell later clarified that his, and his party's, first priority was to try to force a new election.

"Can't hide from hit we took last night. Bringing people together when there's such a divide was never going to be easy," he said on Twitter.

"Now we face the prospect of Brexiteer extremist as Tory (Conservative) leader (replacing May) and threat of no deal, we must unite our party and country by taking issue back to people in a public vote."

No deal?

After May announced on Friday that she was stepping down after failing three times to secure parliamentary approval of her EU withdrawal plan, many of her would-be successors have said they wanted Britain to leave the EU with or without a transition deal on the new exit date of Oct. 31. [nL8N2320QM]

The response seemed to be a direct challenge to Farage, a former commodities broker whose campaigning helped force May's predecessor, David Cameron, to stage the 2016 referendum.

After the Brexit Party came out tops with 31.6% of the vote, the 55-year-old Farage said on Monday he wanted to be included in any new negotiation to leave the EU.&nbsp;

"If we don't leave on Oct. 31 then the score that you have seen for the Brexit Party today will be repeated in a general election and we are getting ready for it," Farage said in Southampton, southern England.

But while the Brexit Party came first, three emphatically pro-EU parties - the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Change UK - also performed well, combining for more than 30% of the vote.

In total, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland elects 73 MEPs (members of the European Parliament) to the 751-seat assembly. They will not contribute directly to British policymaking on domestic issues like Brexit, but will have a say in EU-wide policy as long as they remain in the assembly.

Pro-Europeans fear Brexit will make them poorer, undermine London's position as a global financial capital and weaken the West as it grapples with Donald Trump's unpredictable U.S. presidency and growing assertiveness from Russia and China.

The Liberal Democrats, who campaigned under the slogan "Bollocks to Brexit", oppose Brexit and want a second referendum to stop it.

Supporters of Brexit admit there may be some short-term pain for the UK’s $2.9 trillion economy but say that long-term it will prosper when cut free from the EU, which they describe as a failing German-dominated experiment in European integration.

"Far from providing a clear verdict, the result simply underlined how difficult it is likely to be to find any outcome to the Brexit process that satisfies a clear majority of voters," said John Curtice, a leading polling expert.

Britain's two main parties promised on Monday to work to resolve the deadlock over Brexit, hoping to win back voters who abandoned them for a new movement led by eurosceptic Nigel Farage at European elections.

Britain's two main parties promised on Monday to work to resolve the deadlock over Brexit, hoping to win back voters who abandoned them for a new movement led by eurosceptic Nigel Farage at European elections. After a punishing night when Britain's deepening Brexit divisions were on show, the governing Conservatives said the results were a demand for the country to follow through on plans to exit the European Union no matter what. Taking a different tack, the opposition Labour Party described a public vote - a new national election or second referendum - as a way to reunite the country. With Farage's Brexit Party capturing the greatest number of votes for seats in the European Parliament, followed by a group of fervently pro-EU parties, Conservatives and Labour were under pressure to commit clearly to either side of the debate. Almost three years since Britain voted narrowly to leave the EU and just under two months after the originally planned departure date, lawmakers are still arguing over how, when or even whether the country will leave the club it joined in 1973. For the Conservatives, who will appoint a new leader by the end of July, many of the contenders will see the European vote outcome as proof that they must seek a cleaner break with the EU. For Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, pressure will mount to embrace a second referendum without qualification. But what is clear for both from a vote which many used as a protest, Brexit, which has already forced Prime Minister Theresa May to say she will resign on June 7 over her failure to deliver Brexit, risks shattering their election prospects. Britain's interior minister Sajid Javid, one of several Conservatives who hope to replace May, described his party's performance in the election as "hugely disappointing". "This is a verdict on our delivery of Brexit," Javid said on Twitter. "There's a clear lesson: people want us to get on with it." Labour's finance chief, John McDonnell, also said it was time to unite but offered a different solution - a "public vote" to help pin down where most Britons stood on the way forward. He caused a short-lived sensation in seeming to signal a shift in Labour policy to unequivocally back a second referendum on Britain's membership of the EU. McDonnell later clarified that his, and his party's, first priority was to try to force a new election. "Can't hide from hit we took last night. Bringing people together when there's such a divide was never going to be easy," he said on Twitter. "Now we face the prospect of Brexiteer extremist as Tory (Conservative) leader (replacing May) and threat of no deal, we must unite our party and country by taking issue back to people in a public vote." No deal? After May announced on Friday that she was stepping down after failing three times to secure parliamentary approval of her EU withdrawal plan, many of her would-be successors have said they wanted Britain to leave the EU with or without a transition deal on the new exit date of Oct. 31. [nL8N2320QM] The response seemed to be a direct challenge to Farage, a former commodities broker whose campaigning helped force May's predecessor, David Cameron, to stage the 2016 referendum. After the Brexit Party came out tops with 31.6% of the vote, the 55-year-old Farage said on Monday he wanted to be included in any new negotiation to leave the EU. "If we don't leave on Oct. 31 then the score that you have seen for the Brexit Party today will be repeated in a general election and we are getting ready for it," Farage said in Southampton, southern England. But while the Brexit Party came first, three emphatically pro-EU parties - the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Change UK - also performed well, combining for more than 30% of the vote. In total, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland elects 73 MEPs (members of the European Parliament) to the 751-seat assembly. They will not contribute directly to British policymaking on domestic issues like Brexit, but will have a say in EU-wide policy as long as they remain in the assembly. Pro-Europeans fear Brexit will make them poorer, undermine London's position as a global financial capital and weaken the West as it grapples with Donald Trump's unpredictable U.S. presidency and growing assertiveness from Russia and China. The Liberal Democrats, who campaigned under the slogan "Bollocks to Brexit", oppose Brexit and want a second referendum to stop it. Supporters of Brexit admit there may be some short-term pain for the UK’s $2.9 trillion economy but say that long-term it will prosper when cut free from the EU, which they describe as a failing German-dominated experiment in European integration. "Far from providing a clear verdict, the result simply underlined how difficult it is likely to be to find any outcome to the Brexit process that satisfies a clear majority of voters," said John Curtice, a leading polling expert.

After European election disaster, Britain's main parties to offer Brexit clarity

By Nicholas Allen

Europe has claimed the career of yet another Conservative prime minister. After less than three years in office, Theresa May has suffered a catastrophic loss of confidence in her leadership among MPs and cabinet ministers. She has finally faced up to the demands from within her party and announced her resignation.

Indicating her intention to step down, May said she had tried her best to deliver Brexit but accepted that she had not managed to get MPs to agree. She said she was leaving with no ill will, only “gratitude”.

She will depart from Downing Street on June 7 and the competition to replace her will formally begin the following week – though in reality, it has been underway for some time.

Indeed, May’s departure has been a long time coming. Many speculated that she couldn’t remain long in office after losing her party’s majority in the 2017 general election. In December, when facing a vote of no confidence among her MPs, she promised not to lead her party into the next general election. In March this year, in a bid to persuade more MPs to back the Brexit withdrawal agreement, she promised to leave sooner rather than later.

May’s resilience has been remarkable. But it is also finite. Leaders can only lead when they have followers and too few Tories are now prepared to follow May any longer.

May’s premiership was brief but eventful. She fought a general election, faced down an internal party vote of no confidence and won a parliamentary vote of no confidence. She also lost the services of more than 30 ministers, many of whom resigned over Brexit disagreements.

Brexit means …

Much of the drama of course has been fuelled by Brexit. It launched May’s premiership in July 2016, when she succeeded David Cameron. It has been the source of most of her woes. And it has finally wrecked her premiership.

May was elected Tory leader in part because she seemed to offer a safe pair of hands for delivering the referendum result after Cameron jumped ship. Brexit would mean Brexit, she told her party; and if no one was clear on what she meant, most thought she would deliver.

So where did it go wrong? Three points in time are worth considering, if only because they focus attention on the challenges she has faced.

The first is of course the decision that ultimately forced May’s hand. This came shortly before her resignation, when she presented a new set of “compromises” on her Brexit plans that would please precisely no one. She had been planning to present them for a parliamentary vote, despite already having lost three votes on her deal. The deal was now utterly toxic, and May’s intention to persist suggested a loss of judgement. Her stubbornness, once valued, was now a significant liability. Her party told her enough was enough.

But while this was the immediate trigger for her announcement, the seeds were sown long ago. The second point at which it all went wrong was the 2017 general election. The Conservatives gained votes but lost their parliamentary majority. May lost much of her personal authority as a result.

At the start of that election campaign, May had looked set to win a commanding majority. But even if she had won big, securing support for a withdrawal agreement would not have been simple. Her authority would have been greater, to be sure, and she would have had more MPs to support her, but it is unlikely that the withdrawal agreement would have looked much different. Many of the fundamentalist Brexiteers in her party could well have opposed it.

Which perhaps suggests that her demise was written into her story from the very moment she decided to run for the leadership in June 2016.

It was always going to be a monumental task to keep her party united as she sought to deliver on the Brexit referendum. Moderates in her party would have opposed a very hard Brexit. Anything less than a very hard Brexit would have been resisted by fundamentalists on the Tory benches.

May has made many mistakes along the way. Her suggestion early on that “no deal is better than a bad deal” was always a hostage to fortune. She might also have offered reassurance to Remainers and talked of the need for compromise, even as she pursued her vision. But this assumes that people in her party and parliament would have been willing to accept compromise.

Brexit has rapidly become a touchstone issue for political identity, akin to abortion and gun control in the US. In the circumstances the window for compromise was always small and fleeting.

As she confirmed that she was giving up, May sent a signal to potential successors, speaking once again about compromise, revealing that the late British humanitarian Nicholas Winton once told her: “Never forget that compromise is not a dirty word. Life depends on compromise.”

 
(Nicholas Allen is Leader in Politics, Royal Holloway)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/theresa-may-resigns-as-british-prime-minister-heres-where-it-all-went-wrong-117763">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Nicholas Allen Europe has claimed the career of yet another Conservative prime minister. After less than three years in office, Theresa May has suffered a catastrophic loss of confidence in her leadership among MPs and cabinet ministers.

By Nicholas Allen Europe has claimed the career of yet another Conservative prime minister. After less than three years in office, Theresa May has suffered a catastrophic loss of confidence in her leadership among MPs and cabinet ministers. She has finally faced up to the demands from within her party and announced her resignation. Indicating her intention to step down, May said she had tried her best to deliver Brexit but accepted that she had not managed to get MPs to agree. She said she was leaving with no ill will, only “gratitude”. She will depart from Downing Street on June 7 and the competition to replace her will formally begin the following week – though in reality, it has been underway for some time. Indeed, May’s departure has been a long time coming. Many speculated that she couldn’t remain long in office after losing her party’s majority in the 2017 general election. In December, when facing a vote of no confidence among her MPs, she promised not to lead her party into the next general election. In March this year, in a bid to persuade more MPs to back the Brexit withdrawal agreement, she promised to leave sooner rather than later. May’s resilience has been remarkable. But it is also finite. Leaders can only lead when they have followers and too few Tories are now prepared to follow May any longer. May’s premiership was brief but eventful. She fought a general election, faced down an internal party vote of no confidence and won a parliamentary vote of no confidence. She also lost the services of more than 30 ministers, many of whom resigned over Brexit disagreements. Brexit means … Much of the drama of course has been fuelled by Brexit. It launched May’s premiership in July 2016, when she succeeded David Cameron. It has been the source of most of her woes. And it has finally wrecked her premiership. May was elected Tory leader in part because she seemed to offer a safe pair of hands for delivering the referendum result after Cameron jumped ship. Brexit would mean Brexit, she told her party; and if no one was clear on what she meant, most thought she would deliver. So where did it go wrong? Three points in time are worth considering, if only because they focus attention on the challenges she has faced. The first is of course the decision that ultimately forced May’s hand. This came shortly before her resignation, when she presented a new set of “compromises” on her Brexit plans that would please precisely no one. She had been planning to present them for a parliamentary vote, despite already having lost three votes on her deal. The deal was now utterly toxic, and May’s intention to persist suggested a loss of judgement. Her stubbornness, once valued, was now a significant liability. Her party told her enough was enough. But while this was the immediate trigger for her announcement, the seeds were sown long ago. The second point at which it all went wrong was the 2017 general election. The Conservatives gained votes but lost their parliamentary majority. May lost much of her personal authority as a result. At the start of that election campaign, May had looked set to win a commanding majority. But even if she had won big, securing support for a withdrawal agreement would not have been simple. Her authority would have been greater, to be sure, and she would have had more MPs to support her, but it is unlikely that the withdrawal agreement would have looked much different. Many of the fundamentalist Brexiteers in her party could well have opposed it. Which perhaps suggests that her demise was written into her story from the very moment she decided to run for the leadership in June 2016. It was always going to be a monumental task to keep her party united as she sought to deliver on the Brexit referendum. Moderates in her party would have opposed a very hard Brexit. Anything less than a very hard Brexit would have been resisted by fundamentalists on the Tory benches. May has made many mistakes along the way. Her suggestion early on that “no deal is better than a bad deal” was always a hostage to fortune. She might also have offered reassurance to Remainers and talked of the need for compromise, even as she pursued her vision. But this assumes that people in her party and parliament would have been willing to accept compromise. Brexit has rapidly become a touchstone issue for political identity, akin to abortion and gun control in the US. In the circumstances the window for compromise was always small and fleeting. As she confirmed that she was giving up, May sent a signal to potential successors, speaking once again about compromise, revealing that the late British humanitarian Nicholas Winton once told her: “Never forget that compromise is not a dirty word. Life depends on compromise.” (Nicholas Allen is Leader in Politics, Royal Holloway) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Theresa May resigns as British prime minister – here’s where it all went wrong

British Prime Minister Theresa May was barely able to finish her <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/british-pm-theresa-may-annouces-resignation-over-brexit-deal-221263">resignation </a>speech on Friday, her voice breaking as she fought back tears when describing her "enduring gratitude to have had the opportunity to serve the country I love".

In a seven minute speech, May said she would stand down on June 7, acknowledging that the support of her Conservative lawmakers had disappeared after her <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/british-mps-vote-against-all-alternative-brexit-options-206122">failure to deliver on Britain's 2016 vote</a> to leave the European Union.

Trying to shape a legacy which will more likely be defined by her failed negotiation with the EU, she listed some of the things she said she had achieved during her time in power, including tackling race relations and the gender pay gap.

But it was at the end of her speech, when the usually composed prime minister, dubbed the "Maybot" by some for her robotic performances, almost broke down.

"I will shortly leave the job that has been the honour of my life to hold," she told reporters outside her Downing Street official residence.

"The second female prime minister, but certainly not the last. I do so with no ill will but with enormous and enduring gratitude to have had the opportunity to serve the country I love."

Watch: British PM May resigns, paving way for Brexit confrontation with EU

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/british-pm-may-resigns-paving-way-for-brexit-confrontation-with-eu-221278/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

British Prime Minister Theresa May was barely able to finish her resignation speech on Friday, her voice breaking as she fought back tears when describing her "enduring gratitude to have had the opportunity to serve the country I love".

British Prime Minister Theresa May was barely able to finish her resignation speech on Friday, her voice breaking as she fought back tears when describing her "enduring gratitude to have had the opportunity to serve the country I love". In a seven minute speech, May said she would stand down on June 7, acknowledging that the support of her Conservative lawmakers had disappeared after her failure to deliver on Britain's 2016 vote to leave the European Union. Trying to shape a legacy which will more likely be defined by her failed negotiation with the EU, she listed some of the things she said she had achieved during her time in power, including tackling race relations and the gender pay gap. But it was at the end of her speech, when the usually composed prime minister, dubbed the "Maybot" by some for her robotic performances, almost broke down. "I will shortly leave the job that has been the honour of my life to hold," she told reporters outside her Downing Street official residence. "The second female prime minister, but certainly not the last. I do so with no ill will but with enormous and enduring gratitude to have had the opportunity to serve the country I love." Watch: British PM May resigns, paving way for Brexit confrontation with EU ×

Choking back tears, Britain's Theresa May says goodbye to Downing Street

The British government on Thursday postponed a crucial Brexit vote scheduled for the first week of June, following an outcry from hardline Brexiteers over <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/time-to-resign-uk-pm-mays-final-brexit-gambit-bombs-220672">concessions</a> made by <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/theresa-mays-last-attempt-to-salvage-brexit-deal-at-risk-220596">Prime Minister Theresa May</a>.

The beleaguered premier is in the last throes of a tumultuous period in power focused all-but exclusively on guiding her fractured country out of the European Union.

"We will update the house on the publication and introduction of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill on our return from the Whitsun recess" on June 4, government official Mark Spencer told MPs.

Spencer said the government had planned to hold the vote on a landmark piece of legislation to implement Brexit on June 7 but had not been able to fix this date.

May is under intense pressure to resign after holding out the prospect of a parliamentary vote on a second referendum to try and persuade MPs to support the divorce deal she has struck with EU leaders.

The deal has already been rejected three times in parliament, forcing a delay to the planned date of Brexit on March 29, and still faces strong cross-party opposition.

'Brexit fiasco'

Meanwhile, there are already several leading Conservatives, including members of her own cabinet, who are campaigning to take over from May when she quits.

The prime minister's woes were made worse on Wednesday when Andrea Leadsom -- one of cabinet's strongest Brexit backers -- resigned from her post as the government's representative in parliament over her handling of the slowly-unfolding crisis.

"I no longer believe that our approach will deliver on the (2016) referendum results," Leadsom said in her resignation letter.

In her response May thanked Leadsom for her "passion, drive and sincerity", but took issue with her assessment of the government's Brexit strategy.

"I do not agree with you that the deal which we have negotiated with the European Union means that the United Kingdom will not become a sovereign country," May said.

Many of Thursday's newspaper front pages pictured May leaving Downing Street late on Wednesday apparently with tears in her eyes. "May set to go after Brexit fiasco," said The Sun tabloid.

Thursday's European elections are being interpreted in Britain as a referendum on Brexit and on May's ability to get the job done. They make grim reading for the government team, with Nigel Farage's Brexit Party well ahead in the polls.

The current deadline for Brexit set by EU leaders is October 31.

The Brexit Party and leading Conservatives are calling for Britain to leave the EU on that date without an overall deal but businesses fear this could cause severe disruption.

The British government on Thursday postponed a crucial Brexit vote scheduled for the first week of June, following an outcry from hardline Brexiteers over concessions made by Prime Minister Theresa May.

The British government on Thursday postponed a crucial Brexit vote scheduled for the first week of June, following an outcry from hardline Brexiteers over concessions made by Prime Minister Theresa May. The beleaguered premier is in the last throes of a tumultuous period in power focused all-but exclusively on guiding her fractured country out of the European Union. "We will update the house on the publication and introduction of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill on our return from the Whitsun recess" on June 4, government official Mark Spencer told MPs. Spencer said the government had planned to hold the vote on a landmark piece of legislation to implement Brexit on June 7 but had not been able to fix this date. May is under intense pressure to resign after holding out the prospect of a parliamentary vote on a second referendum to try and persuade MPs to support the divorce deal she has struck with EU leaders. The deal has already been rejected three times in parliament, forcing a delay to the planned date of Brexit on March 29, and still faces strong cross-party opposition. 'Brexit fiasco' Meanwhile, there are already several leading Conservatives, including members of her own cabinet, who are campaigning to take over from May when she quits. The prime minister's woes were made worse on Wednesday when Andrea Leadsom -- one of cabinet's strongest Brexit backers -- resigned from her post as the government's representative in parliament over her handling of the slowly-unfolding crisis. "I no longer believe that our approach will deliver on the (2016) referendum results," Leadsom said in her resignation letter. In her response May thanked Leadsom for her "passion, drive and sincerity", but took issue with her assessment of the government's Brexit strategy. "I do not agree with you that the deal which we have negotiated with the European Union means that the United Kingdom will not become a sovereign country," May said. Many of Thursday's newspaper front pages pictured May leaving Downing Street late on Wednesday apparently with tears in her eyes. "May set to go after Brexit fiasco," said The Sun tabloid. Thursday's European elections are being interpreted in Britain as a referendum on Brexit and on May's ability to get the job done. They make grim reading for the government team, with Nigel Farage's Brexit Party well ahead in the polls. The current deadline for Brexit set by EU leaders is October 31. The Brexit Party and leading Conservatives are calling for Britain to leave the EU on that date without an overall deal but businesses fear this could cause severe disruption.

British government postpones Brexit vote: Official

British Prime Minister Theresa May was under growing pressure to resign on Wednesday after her final <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/theresa-mays-last-attempt-to-salvage-brexit-deal-at-risk-220596">Brexit gambit</a> was rejected across the board by lawmakers and even criticised by some of her own ministers.

May's future, which she herself had curtailed by offering to resign to get her deal through parliament, was hanging by a thread after she softened her position on a second Brexit referendum and customs arrangements with the European Union.

The calls for her resignation further deepened Britain's Brexit crisis. Almost three years since Britain voted to leave the EU and just under two months after the scheduled departure, it is not clear when, how or even if Brexit will happen.

In her last pitch on Tuesday to get her divorce deal approved by Britain's deeply divided parliament, she offered lawmakers 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 in future as incentives.

But the backlash was swift and fierce.

Both ruling Conservative and opposition Labour lawmakers criticised May's Withdrawal Agreement Bill, or WAB, legislation which implements the terms of Britain's twice-delayed departure.

"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.

May's latest offer has enraged eurosceptics opposed to a second referendum, and fails to go far enough for those who want to give the public another say in the hope of stopping Brexit altogether.

Even some of her ministers criticised the pitch, one source close to the cabinet said, explaining that they felt the concessions had gone much further than they had agreed at a meeting on Tuesday. Another source said May had cancelled meetings with senior cabinet colleagues on Wednesday evening.

STANDING FIRM

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.

"In time another prime minister will be standing at this despatch box," May said, acknowledging that her leadership was drawing to a close.

"But while I am here, I have a duty to be clear with the House (of Commons) about the facts. If we are going to deliver Brexit in this parliament we are going to have to pass a Withdrawal Agreement Bill," she told MPs.

May has so far fended off attempts to oust her by promising to set out a departure timetable once parliament has had a chance to vote on the legislation.

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."

"GOT TO GO"

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.

There were some signs of support for May in parliament, but swathes of empty Conservative benches during Wednesday's debate underlined the fact that many of her fiercest critics had decided to stay away.

"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."

More Conservative lawmakers handed over letters to the 1922 Committee, a Conservative group that can make or break party leaders, to demand a no-confidence vote in May.

Asked about the pressure to resign, her spokesman said,"The PM is focused on the job in hand and what the last 24 hours or so have proved, it is a big one." 
&nbsp;

British Prime Minister Theresa May was under growing pressure to resign on Wednesday after her final Brexit gambit was rejected across the board by lawmakers and even criticised by some of her own ministers.

British Prime Minister Theresa May was under growing pressure to resign on Wednesday after her final Brexit gambit was rejected across the board by lawmakers and even criticised by some of her own ministers. May's future, which she herself had curtailed by offering to resign to get her deal through parliament, was hanging by a thread after she softened her position on a second Brexit referendum and customs arrangements with the European Union. The calls for her resignation further deepened Britain's Brexit crisis. Almost three years since Britain voted to leave the EU and just under two months after the scheduled departure, it is not clear when, how or even if Brexit will happen. In her last pitch on Tuesday to get her divorce deal approved by Britain's deeply divided parliament, she offered lawmakers 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 in future as incentives. But the backlash was swift and fierce. Both ruling Conservative and opposition Labour lawmakers criticised May's Withdrawal Agreement Bill, or WAB, legislation which implements the terms of Britain's twice-delayed departure. "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. May's latest offer has enraged eurosceptics opposed to a second referendum, and fails to go far enough for those who want to give the public another say in the hope of stopping Brexit altogether. Even some of her ministers criticised the pitch, one source close to the cabinet said, explaining that they felt the concessions had gone much further than they had agreed at a meeting on Tuesday. Another source said May had cancelled meetings with senior cabinet colleagues on Wednesday evening. STANDING FIRM 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. "In time another prime minister will be standing at this despatch box," May said, acknowledging that her leadership was drawing to a close. "But while I am here, I have a duty to be clear with the House (of Commons) about the facts. If we are going to deliver Brexit in this parliament we are going to have to pass a Withdrawal Agreement Bill," she told MPs. May has so far fended off attempts to oust her by promising to set out a departure timetable once parliament has had a chance to vote on the legislation. 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." "GOT TO GO" 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. There were some signs of support for May in parliament, but swathes of empty Conservative benches during Wednesday's debate underlined the fact that many of her fiercest critics had decided to stay away. "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." More Conservative lawmakers handed over letters to the 1922 Committee, a Conservative group that can make or break party leaders, to demand a no-confidence vote in May. Asked about the pressure to resign, her spokesman said,"The PM is focused on the job in hand and what the last 24 hours or so have proved, it is a big one."

Time to resign? UK PM Theresa May's final Brexit gambit bombs

brexit-deal

Brexit Deal, News on Brexit Deal, stories on Brexit Deal, articles on Brexit Deal, Brexit Deal stories at Wion, Brexit Deal news, Brexit Deal latest news

brexit deal