I am so happy to see so many on the Right calling for the Lords to go. It is an absolute anachronism. Can anyone imagine if it did not exist and someone proposed setting it up?
I'm delighted and relieved that the Remainers in the Lords have made their first stand on this issue. It should cement the foundations (? metaphor) of public opinion in favour of brexit nicely.
And when the bill returns to the commons, the Government amends the clause and adds "subject to the same deal being granted to UK citizens in the EU27"
If the Lords attempted to remove that clause, then after the Lords queued to enter the lobby, they can queue up for the guillotine.
I'm delighted and relieved that the Remainers in the Lords have made their first stand on this issue. It should cement the foundations (? metaphor) of public opinion in favour of brexit nicely.
And Lords abolition. And calls for an early GE.
Dream on or give your money to charity you can not be a betting man.
Neither will happen though in time in this Parliament I expect Theresa May will lay out reform of the HOL in time for the 2020 manifesto
I can't wait for somebody to poll the public's reaction to this.
I can, as I struggle to see how it would be useful - parliamentary ping pong is normal, at this stage, and issues around the Lords generally need resolving in ways other than the public noticing for once we have an unelected chamber which occasionally tries to amend things and getting angry, with unscrupulous people potentially then advocating sudden change off the back of the fervour.
I have to admit I was deeply sceptical at first, and indeed do still hold some reservations about May. I find her to be, at times, oddly nervous, stuttery and prone to making some odd slips of the tongue, especially at PMQs. She still gives Corbyn far too easier a ride, although he defeats himself far better than any PM could.
However, she has grown into her position, and with Brexit (like independence supporters for the SNP), she seems to have the support of the majority of the public.
There is an historic opportunity here for the Tories, which is why they have to call an early election. Even if they lose the odd seat to the Liberals, they would surely rip the heart out of Labour's marginal seats.
Labour won't always be this dreadful, even with the current crop of rubbish inhabiting their benches.
I am so happy to see so many on the Right calling for the Lords to go. It is an absolute anachronism. Can anyone imagine if it did not exist and someone proposed setting it up?
No I wish the right would abolish the house of lord's but will never happen .To much patronage involved .
I can't wait for somebody to poll the public's reaction to this.
I can, as I struggle to see how it would be useful - parliamentary ping pong is normal, at this stage, and issues around the Lords generally need resolving in ways other than the public noticing for once we have an unelected chamber which occasionally tries to amend things and getting angry, with unscrupulous people potentially then advocating sudden change off the back of the fervour.
The triggering of Article 50 is normal? I salute your froideur!
We created this mess, by voting to leave. Now we have to limit the damage and create stability. Posturing about the lives of 3m Europeans is not a good way of doing that.
Heavy losses in May, (excuse the pun), county elections, primarily to the Lib Dems, a couple of major by election defeats to the Lib Dems, seat like Bath for example, Brexit hitting still waters and the public mood inevitably changing. Two years she may well be a liability, not elected to the post and very vulnerable to a Tory left coup. She can only go downhill from here. It is the swing of the pendulum.
We created this mess, by voting to leave. Now we have to limit the damage and create stability. Posturing about the lives of 3m Europeans is not a good way of doing that.
Morris/Richard
'Foreigners' or European citizens? You choose.
I notice no guarantee is forthcoming from our EU partners.
Is an election on 4th May still feasible in terms of time?
How can she fight a general election campaign when she has just invoked Article 50 at the end of March and her diary is dominated by the beginning of the Brexit talks?
Excellent article Tissue Price. As Helmut Kohl observed 'I have profited much by being underestimated by others'
On the Lords - from the Government's White Paper:
The Government would have liked to resolve this issue ahead of the formal negotiations. And although many EU Member States favour such an agreement, this has not proven possible. The UK remains ready to give people the certainty they want and reach a reciprocal deal with our European partners at the earliest opportunity. It is the right and fair thing to do.
It also points out that there are (excluding Ireland) 2.8 million EU citizens resident in the UK and about a million UK citizens resident in the EU......
Gisela Stuart says that the HOL's debate was excellent but she says the debate was on the wrong bill. Seems the labour rebels will join the conservatives in rejecting the amendment. With the DUP supporting the Government it would seem that a large conservative rebellion would be needed to defeat the Government. Significant that Anna Soubry supports the Government. Gisela Stuart expects the bill to be passed unamended
But we've already gone to them and said "This is unreasonable. Let's just agree this minor point and take it off the table" and we're slapped down (even though that is the likely outcome).
It's not a minor point but a major point because to agree it is to agree that free movement of labour will not apply in the future. That is something that cannot be detached from negotiations about the nature of our access to the single market.
May's attempted slight of hand was rightly slapped down by Merkel, although other EU leaders may have been naive enough to fall for it.
Just to clarify - are you saying that by the Lords amendment the Lords have conceded that free movement of labour is off the table and membership of the single market - and if so have they shot themselves in the foot - genuine question and looking forward to your answer
Potentially. The wording of the amendment is quite loose and doesn't bind the government to anything more than bringing forward proposals, but it does refer to people resident in the UK 'on the day the Act is passed', which rather invites the government to treat that as the line in the sand.
I am so happy to see so many on the Right calling for the Lords to go. It is an absolute anachronism. Can anyone imagine if it did not exist and someone proposed setting it up?
Something like it, yes, although obviously it wouldn't be called the Lords without the historic reasoning (personally I am reasonably supportive of a subordinate, appointed revising chamber, and feel leaving it named as House of Lords would be a nod to its original purpose and reframing of the role)
On the politics of this vote, I'm not at all convinced that Labour and the LibDems favouring the rights of foreigners over British citizens will be seen as fair by voters. Fairness is all about reciprocity - this is a political mistake (and a really odd issue to choose to oppose the government on), as well as being a negotiating blunder if allowed to stand.
Absolutely. I said last night that people's feelings on this matter seem to largely come down to sticking up for their friends and family. Some people know many more EU immigrants, some know many more ex-pats. But the former are vastly better represented in politics and the media.
Thanks to all for the kind comments below; I was half the world away when OGH published it.
And they care far more about the cultured Europeans they share their offices with that the tattooed Chaz and Dave living out in Benidorm.
Which is of course perfectly rational and reasonble, given they don't know Chaz and Dave.
I am so happy to see so many on the Right calling for the Lords to go. It is an absolute anachronism. Can anyone imagine if it did not exist and someone proposed setting it up?
Something like it, yes, although obviously it wouldn't be called the Lords without the historic reasoning (personally I am reasonably supportive of a subordinate, appointed revising chamber, and feel leaving it named as House of Lords would be a nod to its original purpose and reframing of the role)
HoL would be fine if it wasn't stuffed with political appointees.
Gisela Stuart says that the HOL's debate was excellent but she says the debate was on the wrong bill. Seems the labour rebels will join the conservatives in rejecting the amendment. With the DUP supporting the Government it would seem that a large conservative rebellion would be needed to defeat the Government. Significant that Anna Soubry supports the Government. Gisela Stuart expects the bill to be passed unamended
Hard for the lords to trying adding it back if that is so.
Heavy losses in May, (excuse the pun), county elections, primarily to the Lib Dems, a couple of major by election defeats to the Lib Dems, seat like Bath for example, Brexit hitting still waters and the public mood inevitably changing. Two years she may well be a liability, not elected to the post and very vulnerable to a Tory left coup. She can only go downhill from here. It is the swing of the pendulum.
The Tories will almost certainly win the May elections even if they lose some seats, she has just won a by election from the opposition which no PM has managed since Thatcher and Tory voters and members back hard Brexit in every poll. In the unlikely event May is replaced it will be by a rightwing Brexiteer because she is seen as having been too soft in the Brexit talks, certainly not a Tory Cameroon or Osbornite
I have to admit I was deeply sceptical at first, and indeed do still hold some reservations about May. I find her to be, at times, oddly nervous, stuttery and prone to making some odd slips of the tongue, especially at PMQs. She still gives Corbyn far too easier a ride, although he defeats himself far better than any PM could.
However, she has grown into her position, and with Brexit (like independence supporters for the SNP), she seems to have the support of the majority of the public.
There is an historic opportunity here for the Tories, which is why they have to call an early election. Even if they lose the odd seat to the Liberals, they would surely rip the heart out of Labour's marginal seats.
Labour won't always be this dreadful, even with the current crop of rubbish inhabiting their benches.
People seem to really rather like May. In a way I can only compare to the first year of John Major's premiership, or possibly Hague (amongst a minority) after he left office as LoTO.
There aren't many others. You'd have to go back to someone like Eden (pre Suez) or Alex Douglas-Hume to find a comparison.
It's her greatest advantage. Combining it with a "tough" image, a la Ken Clarke's comments? Even better.
But we've already gone to them and said "This is unreasonable. Let's just agree this minor point and take it off the table" and we're slapped down (even though that is the likely outcome).
It's not a minor point but a major point because to agree it is to agree that free movement of labour will not apply in the future. That is something that cannot be detached from negotiations about the nature of our access to the single market.
May's attempted slight of hand was rightly slapped down by Merkel, although other EU leaders may have been naive enough to fall for it.
Just to clarify - are you saying that by the Lords amendment the Lords have conceded that free movement of labour is off the table and membership of the single market - and if so have they shot themselves in the foot - genuine question and looking forward to your answer
Potentially. The wording of the amendment is quite loose and doesn't bind the government to anything more than bringing forward proposals, but it does refer to people resident in the UK 'on the day the Act is passed', which rather invites the government to treat that as the line in the sand.
I am so happy to see so many on the Right calling for the Lords to go. It is an absolute anachronism. Can anyone imagine if it did not exist and someone proposed setting it up?
Something like it, yes, although obviously it wouldn't be called the Lords without the historic reasoning (personally I am reasonably supportive of a subordinate, appointed revising chamber, and feel leaving it named as House of Lords would be a nod to its original purpose and reframing of the role)
HoL would be fine if it wasn't stuffed with political appointees.
The exact process of appointment is a difficult question, althogh of course switching to an elected chamber entirely would require significant changes in purpose. I could see it being the case that no-one could go straight from the commons to the lords, or that that there must be categories of appointees (academic, military etc) and limit to a set period eg 15 years, and no more could be placed in a particular category until there is a vacancy, limiting how many purely 'reward' political appointments there could be.
Honours are for political rewards (in part), peerages should be in expectation of involvement and therefore some form of expertise.
"I don't see how it makes the vote (I assume you mean the by election) invalid."
But haven't some Remainers been claiming that a second referendum is needed if voters change their minds? Surely they're not being total hypocrites? Ask Tony.
This is something that is causing a lot of heartache to EU27 residents in Britain, as I know from personal conversations. They're genuinely very concerned that they're going to be thrown out of the UK.
So, no doubt, are UK citizens living in EU27 countries. Unilaterally and unconditionally closing the issue will simply mean they are left till last. What possible incentive would our EU friends then have to expedite the matter?
It's a risk, I agree. There is also, however, the possibility, that a unilateral gesture of this type would be received as an olive branch and responded to in kind, buying the UK government some badly needed goodwill at a time when there's precious little of the stuff going around.
Since Britain is almost certainly going to concede on the point eventually (as, for that matter are the EU27), there's a lot to be said for seeing what we can get for it by trying the unexpected gambit of being nice.
I think you are being naive unfortunately.
Perhaps if there was no history on this point your strategy would work.
But we've already gone to them and said "This is unreasonable. Let's just agree this minor point and take it off the table" and we're slapped down (even though that is the likely outcome).
If we go back now and say "ok we'll give you the point anyway" it will just be taken as weakness, not niceness.
That's a fair point actually. It illustrates the drawbacks of Theresa May's ponderous style. Too slow, too late and an opportunity goes begging.
"I don't see how it makes the vote (I assume you mean the by election) invalid."
But haven't some Remainers been claiming that a second referendum is needed if voters change their minds? Surely they're not being total hypocrites? Ask Tony.
People haven't changed their minds though, as the polls on this issue show.
Gisela Stuart says that the HOL's debate was excellent but she says the debate was on the wrong bill. Seems the labour rebels will join the conservatives in rejecting the amendment. With the DUP supporting the Government it would seem that a large conservative rebellion would be needed to defeat the Government. Significant that Anna Soubry supports the Government. Gisela Stuart expects the bill to be passed unamended
Hard for the lords to trying adding it back if that is so.
Seems Gisela thought that they HOL would not reinsert the amendments but would approve the bill
Whether it helps or hinders her does not seem like it shoul be of much concern to them, they're trying to be funny. The authors are not fans of May, or Brexit, but I find them to be generally pretty funny, and go after left and right. Presumably they are centrish, metropolitan types.
But we've already gone to them and said "This is unreasonable. Let's just agree this minor point and take it off the table" and we're slapped down (even though that is the likely outcome).
It's not a minor point but a major point because to agree it is to agree that free movement of labour will not apply in the future. That is something that cannot be detached from negotiations about the nature of our access to the single market.
May's attempted slight of hand was rightly slapped down by Merkel, although other EU leaders may have been naive enough to fall for it.
Just to clarify - are you saying that by the Lords amendment the Lords have conceded that free movement of labour is off the table and membership of the single market - and if so have they shot themselves in the foot - genuine question and looking forward to your answer
If it's a major point, it certainly shouldn't be conceded before the negotiations start.
I am so happy to see so many on the Right calling for the Lords to go. It is an absolute anachronism. Can anyone imagine if it did not exist and someone proposed setting it up?
Something like it, yes, although obviously it wouldn't be called the Lords without the historic reasoning (personally I am reasonably supportive of a subordinate, appointed revising chamber, and feel leaving it named as House of Lords would be a nod to its original purpose and reframing of the role)
HoL would be fine if it wasn't stuffed with political appointees.
And Bishops of one Christian sect. I know there are historical reasons for this, but they are historic. There is nothing in principle wrong with an appointed revising chamber, but it needs to be drawn much wider, younger and more representative of the rest of the country. And not appointed solely by Party leaders.
So now we have Letwin, C4 News, openly admitting that we may pay more to the EU without it than within it. Gisela Stuart responds by saying "we are taking back control of that money". Words fail me.
"I favour reforming the Lords as a House of Virtue with primary responsibility for responding to facebook pages, twitter and online petitions."
Now that's a good idea.
I see Mrs May's grand strategy is working. Refuse the amendment saying it takes away one of our negotiating points and weakens our bargaining unless it is reciprocated in Europe (which won't happen as it would take them three years to wipe their arses). Tempt Labour to support the HoL.
Gisela Stuart says that the HOL's debate was excellent but she says the debate was on the wrong bill. Seems the labour rebels will join the conservatives in rejecting the amendment. With the DUP supporting the Government it would seem that a large conservative rebellion would be needed to defeat the Government. Significant that Anna Soubry supports the Government. Gisela Stuart expects the bill to be passed unamended
Hard for the lords to trying adding it back if that is so.
Seems Gisela thought that they HOL would not reinsert the amendments but would approve the bill
As far as I was aware a lot of lords want some kind of reform, in appropriately measured and considered fashion, and take seriously the primary of the commons, so provoking reactive ill thought out reform by denying the primacy of the commons would seem too much for most, for all they are entitled and expected to attempt to mould legislation and ask the commons to have another think. So I expect she is right.
But we've already gone to them and said "This is unreasonable. Let's just agree this minor point and take it off the table" and we're slapped down (even though that is the likely outcome).
It's not a minor point but a major point because to agree it is to agree that free movement of labour will not apply in the future. That is something that cannot be detached from negotiations about the nature of our access to the single market.
May's attempted slight of hand was rightly slapped down by Merkel, although other EU leaders may have been naive enough to fall for it.
Just to clarify - are you saying that by the Lords amendment the Lords have conceded that free movement of labour is off the table and membership of the single market - and if so have they shot themselves in the foot - genuine question and looking forward to your answer
If it's a major point, it certainly shouldn't be conceded before the negotiations start.
If I understand williamglenn correctly that looks like the unintended consequence of the HOL's amendment
On topic, as others have said, an excellent piece. At the moment Theresa May is lacking alternatives inside or outside her party. It seems that she is a slow thinker but she is evidently a thinker.
What are her weaknesses? She's slow to make her mind up and her government has been caught flatfooted more than once already when speed was required. She has given flashes of a charmless intolerance of different approaches to life - "citizens of nowhere" and baiting Emily Thornberry about not taking her husband's name were entirely avoidable. It's far from clear that her plans for Brexit will survive first contact with reality. And time is not a quantity that she has in abundance, particularly in relation to Brexit where she is about to start negotiations with a group that are out to do her few favours and where she has made no serious attempt to gain any goodwill at all.
But until Britain has a functioning opposition other than the SNP, she will govern unchallenged.
This is the view that right now I have the most sympathy with.
It is odd that someone who is a self-proclaimed feminist would bait another woman about not taking her hubsand's surname. It is entirely the right of Emily Thronberry to keep her maiden name. It should not be an obligation that one should have to give up their maiden name when getting married. I certainly intend to keep my maiden name if I get married.
I think the whole Trump state visit thing was a miscalculation too.
May will keep riding high for this single reason: she is the only half decent political leader on offer right now. Corbyn, Farron, and Nuttall are all terrible. Until this changes, May's government will determine political narratives, and there will be nothing her detractors can do about it.
But we've already gone to them and said "This is unreasonable. Let's just agree this minor point and take it off the table" and we're slapped down (even though that is the likely outcome).
It's not a minor point but a major point because to agree it is to agree that free movement of labour will not apply in the future. That is something that cannot be detached from negotiations about the nature of our access to the single market.
May's attempted slight of hand was rightly slapped down by Merkel, although other EU leaders may have been naive enough to fall for it.
Just to clarify - are you saying that by the Lords amendment the Lords have conceded that free movement of labour is off the table and membership of the single market - and if so have they shot themselves in the foot - genuine question and looking forward to your answer
If it's a major point, it certainly shouldn't be conceded before the negotiations start.
We're the ones asking for a concession on ending free movement. If that is not on offer given the level of integration with the single market that we are asking for, then any guarantees are superfluous unless we really do want to walk off a cliff edge, in which case we'll need all immigrants on deck.
Heavy losses in May, (excuse the pun), county elections, primarily to the Lib Dems, a couple of major by election defeats to the Lib Dems, seat like Bath for example, Brexit hitting still waters and the public mood inevitably changing. Two years she may well be a liability, not elected to the post and very vulnerable to a Tory left coup. She can only go downhill from here. It is the swing of the pendulum.
I expect the Conservatives will make a net gain May. The rest is wishful thinking.
On topic, as others have said, an excellent piece. At the moment Theresa May is lacking alternatives inside or outside her party. It seems that she is a slow thinker but she is evidently a thinker.
What are her weaknesses? She's slow to make her mind up and her government has been caught flatfooted more than once already when speed was required. She has given flashes of a charmless intolerance of different approaches to life - "citizens of nowhere" and baiting Emily Thornberry about not taking her husband's name were entirely avoidable. It's far from clear that her plans for Brexit will survive first contact with reality. And time is not a quantity that she has in abundance, particularly in relation to Brexit where she is about to start negotiations with a group that are out to do her few favours and where she has made no serious attempt to gain any goodwill at all.
But until Britain has a functioning opposition other than the SNP, she will govern unchallenged.
This is the view that right now I have the most sympathy with.
It is odd that someone who is a self-proclaimed feminist would bait another woman about not taking her hubsand's surname. It is entirely the right of Emily Thronberry to keep her maiden name. It should not be an obligation that one should have to give up their maiden name when getting married. I certainly intend to keep my maiden name if I get married.
I think the whole Trump state visit thing was a miscalculation too.
May will keep riding high for this single reason: she is the only half decent political leader on offer right now. Corbyn, Farron, and Nuttall are all terrible. Until this changes, May and government will determine political narratives, and there will be nothing her detractors can do about it.
I agree with this assessment. I have always seen May as the last sane option.
I am so happy to see so many on the Right calling for the Lords to go. It is an absolute anachronism. Can anyone imagine if it did not exist and someone proposed setting it up?
I imagine there are those on the right who are happy to see the Lords go because it is no longer enough of an anachronism. The rot set in with the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876.
So now we have Letwin, C4 News, openly admitting that we may pay more to the EU without it than within it. Gisela Stuart responds by saying "we are taking back control of that money". Words fail me.
"may" is one of those words like "could" which give off a funny smell when uttered by a politicians or read in a newspaper headline.
What did you expect a dripping wet europhile cameroon like Letwin to say anyway ?
I am so happy to see so many on the Right calling for the Lords to go. It is an absolute anachronism. Can anyone imagine if it did not exist and someone proposed setting it up?
Something like it, yes, although obviously it wouldn't be called the Lords without the historic reasoning (personally I am reasonably supportive of a subordinate, appointed revising chamber, and feel leaving it named as House of Lords would be a nod to its original purpose and reframing of the role)
HoL would be fine if it wasn't stuffed with political appointees.
And Bishops of one Christian sect. I know there are historical reasons for this, but they are historic. There is nothing in principle wrong with an appointed revising chamber, but it needs to be drawn much wider, younger and more representative of the rest of the country. And not appointed solely by Party leaders.
If faith representatives are to be retained, I do think there should be others in there, although if they are to be included at all is a thorny issue. As for younger and more representative, I don't personally see how that helps make the scrutiny of legislation better. While not arguing for a gerontocracy, a certain level of proven experience within certain fields seems appropriate for a revising chamber.
It's a discussion that needs having really, and given we are undergoing Brexit it almost feels too much to be having it now, along with issues of the devolution arrangements of our own union and federalisation, but really I suppose we might as well get it all done at once.
But we've already gone to them and said "This is unreasonable. Let's just agree this minor point and take it off the table" and we're slapped down (even though that is the likely outcome).
It's not a minor point but a major point because to agree it is to agree that free movement of labour will not apply in the future. That is something that cannot be detached from negotiations about the nature of our access to the single market.
May's attempted slight of hand was rightly slapped down by Merkel, although other EU leaders may have been naive enough to fall for it.
Just to clarify - are you saying that by the Lords amendment the Lords have conceded that free movement of labour is off the table and membership of the single market - and if so have they shot themselves in the foot - genuine question and looking forward to your answer
If it's a major point, it certainly shouldn't be conceded before the negotiations start.
If I understand williamglenn correctly that looks like the unintended consequence of the HOL's amendment
On topic, as others have said, an excellent piece. At the moment Theresa May is lacking alternatives inside or outside her party. It seems that she is a slow thinker but she is evidently a thinker.
What are her weaknesses? She's slow to make her mind up and her government has been caught flatfooted more than once already when speed was required. She has given flashes of a charmless intolerance of different approaches to life - "citizens of nowhere" and baiting Emily Thornberry about not taking her husband's name were entirely avoidable. It's far from clear that her plans for Brexit will survive first contact with reality. And time is not a quantity that she has in abundance, particularly in relation to Brexit where she is about to start negotiations with a group that are out to do her few favours and where she has made no serious attempt to gain any goodwill at all.
But until Britain has a functioning opposition other than the SNP, she will govern unchallenged.
This is the view that right now I have the most sympathy with.
It is odd that someone who is a self-proclaimed feminist would bait another woman about not taking her hubsand's surname. It is entirely the right of Emily Thronberry to keep her maiden name. It should not be an obligation that one should have to give up their maiden name when getting married. I certainly intend to keep my maiden name if I get married.
I think the whole Trump state visit thing was a miscalculation too.
May will keep riding high for this single reason: she is the only half decent political leader on offer right now. Corbyn, Farron, and Nuttall are all terrible. Until this changes, May and government will determine political narratives, and there will be nothing her detractors can do about it.
I've always thought that sharing a family name is a key feature of a marriage - it has traditionally been the man's name, but I'm not bothered who's name (or even a new name) is used.
If you chose to keep your name and your spouse doesn't change name either, and you decide to have children, what name will they take?
On topic, as others have said, an excellent piece. At the moment Theresa May is lacking alternatives inside or outside her party. It seems that she is a slow thinker but she is evidently a thinker.
What are her weaknesses? She's slow to make her mind up and her government has been caught flatfooted more than once already when speed was required. She has given flashes of a charmless intolerance of different approaches to life - "citizens of nowhere" and baiting Emily Thornberry about not taking her husband's name were entirely avoidable. It's far from clear that her plans for Brexit will survive first contact with reality. And time is not a quantity that she has in abundance, particularly in relation to Brexit where she is about to start negotiations with a group that are out to do her few favours and where she has made no serious attempt to gain any goodwill at all.
But until Britain has a functioning opposition other than the SNP, she will govern unchallenged.
It is odd that someone who is a self-proclaimed feminist would bait another woman about not taking her hubsand's surname.
Surely the point was that 'Emily 'woman of the people' Thornberry is quite a lot grander than she likes people to think?
So now we have Letwin, C4 News, openly admitting that we may pay more to the EU without it than within it. Gisela Stuart responds by saying "we are taking back control of that money". Words fail me.
If only Arlene Foster had thought of that line to rebut the cash for ash scandal...
So now we have Letwin, C4 News, openly admitting that we may pay more to the EU without it than within it. Gisela Stuart responds by saying "we are taking back control of that money". Words fail me.
"may" is one of those words like "could" which give off a funny smell when uttered by a politicians or read in a newspaper headline.
What did you expect a dripping wet europhile cameroon like Letwin to say anyway ?
Now what was that about playing the man and not the ball...?
But we've already gone to them and said "This is unreasonable. Let's just agree this minor point and take it off the table" and we're slapped down (even though that is the likely outcome).
It's not a minor point but a major point because to agree it is to agree that free movement of labour will not apply in the future. That is something that cannot be detached from negotiations about the nature of our access to the single market.
May's attempted slight of hand was rightly slapped down by Merkel, although other EU leaders may have been naive enough to fall for it.
Just to clarify - are you saying that by the Lords amendment the Lords have conceded that free movement of labour is off the table and membership of the single market - and if so have they shot themselves in the foot - genuine question and looking forward to your answer
If it's a major point, it certainly shouldn't be conceded before the negotiations start.
If I understand williamglenn correctly that looks like the unintended consequence of the HOL's amendment
anything can be revisited in the negotiations
If the amendment is accepted the rights of EU citizens take priority over UK ex pats irrespective of negotiations
@isam Did you have the same opinion about Tony Blair in 1997 when the country was 'united around its leader' ?
The central premise that the country is united round its leader is the comfort blanket of rightwing fantasy. May's support is a mile wide and an inch deep, for the reasons you outline eloquently above.
I am so happy to see so many on the Right calling for the Lords to go. It is an absolute anachronism. Can anyone imagine if it did not exist and someone proposed setting it up?
I imagine there are those on the right who are happy to see the Lords go because it is no longer enough of an anachronism. The rot set in with the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876.
They're in a position to say to the Commons: 'stop and think; don't be so stupid'. They can't have their career damaged for this when the 'elected dictatorship' gets out of hand. It did with Blair and Thatcher.
When a hereditary peer dies, the elections held are farcical, because only aristocrats with a title and a stately home can stand. FFS. But what other 2nd. chamber has several hundred retired experts on tap for £300 per day? I'd reform it bit by bit and be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It feels quite nice to live in a country united around it's leader I think
A sensible Tory in charge with a crackpot Labour opposition is how things should be.. maybe I am just regressing to childhood!
The government is more crackpot, sadly.
EDIT than previous incarnations of Tory governments.
To me, England is a place that prefers quietly efficient politicians to slick PR men. May is popular with people I know in a way Blair and Cameron never were. Maybe it's my prejudice, but I always thought they were trying to have me over, whereas May seems genuine and honest
On topic, as others have said, an excellent piece. At the moment Theresa May is lacking alternatives inside or outside her party. It seems that she is a slow thinker but she is evidently a thinker.
What are her weaknesses? She's slow to make her mind up and her government has been caught flatfooted more than once already when speed was required. She has given flashes of a charmless intolerance of different approaches to life - "citizens of nowhere" and baiting Emily Thornberry about not taking her husband's name were entirely avoidable. It's far from clear that her plans for Brexit will survive first contact with reality. And time is not a quantity that she has in abundance, particularly in relation to Brexit where she is about to start negotiations with a group that are out to do her few favours and where she has made no serious attempt to gain any goodwill at all.
But until Britain has a functioning opposition other than the SNP, she will govern unchallenged.
This is the view that right now I have the most sympathy with.
It is odd that someone who is a self-proclaimed feminist would bait another woman about not taking her hubsand's surname. It is entirely the right of Emily Thronberry to keep her maiden name. It should not be an obligation that one should have to give up their maiden name when getting married. I certainly intend to keep my maiden name if I get married.
I think the whole Trump state visit thing was a miscalculation too.
May will keep riding high for this single reason: she is the only half decent political leader on offer right now. Corbyn, Farron, and Nuttall are all terrible. Until this changes, May and government will determine political narratives, and there will be nothing her detractors can do about it.
I've always thought that sharing a family name is a key feature of a marriage - it has traditionally been the man's name, but I'm not bothered who's name (or even a new name) is used.
If you chose to keep your name and your spouse doesn't change name either, and you decide to have children, what name will they take?
Double barrelled surnames could be the answer (in regard to what name the kids would take).
There are some men out there that really would not want to take their fiancee's name. I remember talking to a few male friends about this, and they told me that it would be emasculating
@isam Did you have the same opinion about Tony Blair in 1997 when the country was 'united around its leader' ?
The central premise that the country is united round its leader is the comfort blanket of rightwing fantasy. May's support is a mile wide and an inch deep, for the reasons you outline eloquently above.
But Corbyn's support is a mile deep and an inch wide !!
On topic, as others have said, an excellent piece. At the moment Theresa May is lacking alternatives inside or outside her party. It seems that she is a slow thinker but she is evidently a thinker.
What are her weaknesses? She's slow to make her mind up and her government has been caught flatfooted more than once already when speed was required. She has given flashes of a charmless intolerance of different approaches to life - "citizens of nowhere" and baiting Emily Thornberry about not taking her husband's name were entirely avoidable. It's far from clear that her plans for Brexit will survive first contact with reality. And time is not a quantity that she has in abundance, particularly in relation to Brexit where she is about to start negotiations with a group that are out to do her few favours and where she has made no serious attempt to gain any goodwill at all.
But until Britain has a functioning opposition other than the SNP, she will govern unchallenged.
This is the view that right now I have the most sympathy with.
It is odd that someone who is a self-proclaimed feminist would bait another woman about not taking her hubsand's surname. It is entirely the right of Emily Thronberry to keep her maiden name. It should not be an obligation that one should have to give up their maiden name when getting married. I certainly intend to keep my maiden name if I get married.
I think the whole Trump state visit thing was a miscalculation too.
May will keep riding high for this single reason: she is the only half decent political leader on offer right now. Corbyn, Farron, and Nuttall are all terrible. Until this changes, May and government will determine political narratives, and there will be nothing her detractors can do about it.
I've always thought that sharing a family name is a key feature of a marriage - it has traditionally been the man's name, but I'm not bothered who's name (or even a new name) is used.
If you chose to keep your name and your spouse doesn't change name either, and you decide to have children, what name will they take?
Families known to me in this situation have combined both surnames for their children. That works OK for the children, but what about the next generation? Will we get school registers filling up with the likes of Jack & Jill May-Corbyn-Sturgeon-Farage?
I don't think they help TMay but they are cringingly unfunny. The Daily Mash has (not uniquely) lost much of its wits since Brexit. It's written by a bunch of posho centre-right Remainers, so they have become the losers they like to satirise. A mentally difficult position.
It's both. They make her look tough/hard-as-nails and also embarrass the writers with their awfulness.
On topic, as others have said, an excellent piece. At the moment Theresa May is lacking alternatives inside or outside her party. It seems that she is a slow thinker but she is evidently a thinker.
What are her weaknesses? She's slow to make her mind up and her government has been caught flatfooted more than once already when speed was required. She has given flashes of a charmless intolerance of different approaches to life - "citizens of nowhere" and baiting Emily Thornberry about not taking her husband's name were entirely avoidable. It's far from clear that her plans for Brexit will survive first contact with reality. And time is not a quantity that she has in abundance, particularly in relation to Brexit where she is about to start negotiations with a group that are out to do her few favours and where she has made no serious attempt to gain any goodwill at all.
But until Britain has a functioning opposition other than the SNP, she will govern unchallenged.
It is odd that someone who is a self-proclaimed feminist would bait another woman about not taking her hubsand's surname. It is entirely the right of Emily Thronberry to keep her maiden name. It should not be an obligation that one should have to give up their maiden name when getting married. I certainly intend to keep my maiden name if I get married.
It's not odd if you think of it as May overreacting to what she might have felt was an implicit criticism of those who did take their husband's surname, by objecting so vociferously to it. That might not have been Thornberry's intention of course, nor was May's response necessarily fair to others' eyes, but if she thought Thornberry was acting offended at the idea anyone would take their husband's name, rather than just that she had not, that could be seen as provocative.
@isam Did you have the same opinion about Tony Blair in 1997 when the country was 'united around its leader' ?
I voted for Blair (my first vote at a GE) hoping that underneath his slightly Tory veneer lay a radical socialist! I am still not sure which one he was, and am pretty sure I had no idea what I was on about either! No change there then I hear you say
Gisela Stuart says that the HOL's debate was excellent but she says the debate was on the wrong bill. Seems the labour rebels will join the conservatives in rejecting the amendment. With the DUP supporting the Government it would seem that a large conservative rebellion would be needed to defeat the Government. Significant that Anna Soubry supports the Government. Gisela Stuart expects the bill to be passed unamended
Hard for the lords to trying adding it back if that is so.
Seems Gisela thought that they HOL would not reinsert the amendments but would approve the bill
As far as I was aware a lot of lords want some kind of reform, in appropriately measured and considered fashion, and take seriously the primary of the commons, so provoking reactive ill thought out reform by denying the primacy of the commons would seem too much for most, for all they are entitled and expected to attempt to mould legislation and ask the commons to have another think. So I expect she is right.
The simplest change would just be to neuter their ability to delay legislation. Allow laws to be read and scrutinised in the Lords as now, but after the changes are agreed or rejected by the Commons, the bill moves on to the next stage. Basically just remove the ping-pong. If necessary this can be balanced by allowing the Lord more time to make a detailed examination of the legislation, and expand their powers to call in outside expert advice, eg. amicus concilium.
I don't think they help TMay but they are cringingly unfunny. The Daily Mash has (not uniquely) lost much of its wits since Brexit. It's written by a bunch of posho centre-right Remainers, so they have become the losers they like to satirise. A mentally difficult position.
Some of their bits are unfunny, particularly on Brexit which can boil down to 'idiots surprised by bad news' over and over. The Carswell Farage one today was very good, and in general I think their stuff is good. I liked the one about 'best places to live are shit'.
On the politics of this vote, I'm not at all convinced that Labour and the LibDems favouring the rights of foreigners over British citizens will be seen as fair by voters. Fairness is all about reciprocity - this is a political mistake (and a really odd issue to choose to oppose the government on), as well as being a negotiating blunder if allowed to stand.
Absolutely. I said last night that people's feelings on this matter seem to largely come down to sticking up for their friends and family. Some people know many more EU immigrants, some know many more ex-pats. But the former are vastly better represented in politics and the media.
Thanks to all for the kind comments below; I was half the world away when OGH published it.
And they care far more about the cultured Europeans they share their offices with that the tattooed Chaz and Dave living out in Benidorm.
Which is of course perfectly rational and reasonble, given they don't know Chaz and Dave.
It is perfectly reasonable for Parliamentarians and the media to care far more about the elites they know than other citizens they don't? Are you sure about that?
@isam Did you have the same opinion about Tony Blair in 1997 when the country was 'united around its leader' ?
The central premise that the country is united round its leader is the comfort blanket of rightwing fantasy. May's support is a mile wide and an inch deep, for the reasons you outline eloquently above.
I keep hearing this line but it's surely only an inch deep in places, as is the nature of all political support. Of course, it is precarious precisely because of Brexit, but if that goes "well" (quote marks because we probably won't really know for a generation) her pool will probably get wider and deeper. There's no iron law against polling 50%.
I am so happy to see so many on the Right calling for the Lords to go. It is an absolute anachronism. Can anyone imagine if it did not exist and someone proposed setting it up?
Something like it, yes, although obviously it wouldn't be called the Lords without the historic reasoning (personally I am reasonably supportive of a subordinate, appointed revising chamber, and feel leaving it named as House of Lords would be a nod to its original purpose and reframing of the role)
HoL would be fine if it wasn't stuffed with political appointees.
And Bishops of one Christian sect. I know there are historical reasons for this, but they are historic. There is nothing in principle wrong with an appointed revising chamber, but it needs to be drawn much wider, younger and more representative of the rest of the country. And not appointed solely by Party leaders.
If faith representatives are to be retained, I do think there should be others in there, although if they are to be included at all is a thorny issue. As for younger and more representative, I don't personally see how that helps make the scrutiny of legislation better. While not arguing for a gerontocracy, a certain level of proven experience within certain fields seems appropriate for a revising chamber.
It's a discussion that needs having really, and given we are undergoing Brexit it almost feels too much to be having it now, along with issues of the devolution arrangements of our own union and federalisation, but really I suppose we might as well get it all done at once.
Agree with most of this. Should clarify by more representative I meant of different areas of the country. By its nature most of the members live and work/ed in London or SE. At least MPs have to leave the Metropolis to tend to their constituencies. How many Lords know about Barnsley, Blyth or Rutherglen?
On topic, as others have said, an excellent piece. At the moment Theresa May is lacking alternatives inside or outside her party. It seems that she is a slow thinker but she is evidently a thinker.
What are her weaknesses? She's slow to make her mind up and her government has been caught flatfooted more than once already when speed was required. She has given flashes of a charmless intolerance of different approaches to life - "citizens of nowhere" and baiting Emily Thornberry about not taking her husband's name were entirely avoidable. It's far from clear that her plans for Brexit will survive first contact with reality. And time is not a quantity that she has in abundance, particularly in relation to Brexit where she is about to start negotiations with a group that are out to do her few favours and where she has made no serious attempt to gain any goodwill at all.
But until Britain has a functioning opposition other than the SNP, she will govern unchallenged.
It is odd that someone who is a self-proclaimed feminist would bait another woman about not taking her hubsand's surname.
Surely the point was that 'Emily 'woman of the people' Thornberry is quite a lot grander than she likes people to think?
The comment about her husband's name was made after Lady Nugee complained to the Speaker, in response to that complaint, and referred to herself....
What does that have to do with the point I was making? I wasn't defending Emily Thronberry's whole character, but stating simply in that instance she shouldn't have been criticised for keeping her maiden name.
You can make the point that Emily Thronberry is a lot grander than 'she likes people to think' in a way that does not imply that she should take her husband's name. I'm also unclear as why Thronberry complaining to speaker somehow justifies May baiting Thronberry about keeping her maiden name. There are plenty of other ways to go at Thronberry.
On topic, as others have said, an excellent piece. At the moment Theresa May is lacking alternatives inside or outside her party. It seems that she is a slow thinker but she is evidently a thinker.
What are her weaknesses? She's slow to make her mind up and her government has been caught flatfooted more than once already when speed was required. She has given flashes of a charmless intolerance of different approaches to life - "citizens of nowhere" and baiting Emily Thornberry about not taking her husband's name were entirely avoidable. It's far from clear that her plans for Brexit will survive first contact with reality. And time is not a quantity that she has in abundance, particularly in relation to Brexit where she is about to start negotiations with a group that are out to do her few favours and where she has made no serious attempt to gain any goodwill at all.
But until Britain has a functioning opposition other than the SNP, she will govern unchallenged.
This is the view that right now I have the most sympathy with.
It is odd that someone who is a self-proclaimed feminist would bait another woman about not taking her hubsand's surname. It is entirely the right of Emily Thronberry to keep her maiden name. It should not be an obligation that one should have to give up their maiden name when getting married. I certainly intend to keep my maiden name if I get married.
I think the whole Trump state visit thing was a miscalculation too.
May will keep riding high for this single reason: she is the only half decent political leader on offer right now. Corbyn, Farron, and Nuttall are all terrible. Until this changes, May and government will determine political narratives, and there will be nothing her detractors can do about it.
I've always thought that sharing a family name is a key feature of a marriage - it has traditionally been the man's name, but I'm not bothered who's name (or even a new name) is used.
If you chose to keep your name and your spouse doesn't change name either, and you decide to have children, what name will they take?
Double barrel? But then in a few generations we'll have 4 and 6 barrelled names!
I'm sure some families are opting to make up an entirely new surname for married life. Flip a coin and go one family name then the other for each new child?
Long, unwieldy name aside, some foreign naming traditions including both would help avoid this issue of course.
The Ben Tre Brexiteers are out again after the House of Lords rebuff to the government, I see. There is no aspect of civic society that they aren't prepared to destroy in order to secure Leave in exactly the way they want.
We're the ones asking for a concession on ending free movement. If that is not on offer given the level of integration with the single market that we are asking for, then any guarantees are superfluous unless we really do want to walk off a cliff edge, in which case we'll need all immigrants on deck.
Freedom of movement is not the issue here and nobody is asking for UK citizens to be able to flit around the EU as they can now.
It's about retained residence rights.
Residence rights relating to non EU citizens (as we will be) are the perogative of each individual nation.
On topic, as others have said, an excellent piece. At the moment Theresa May is lacking alternatives inside or outside her party. It seems that she is a slow thinker but she is evidently a thinker.
What are her weaknesses? She's slow to make her mind up and her government has been caught flatfooted more than once already when speed was required. She has given flashes of a charmless intolerance of different approaches to life - "citizens of nowhere" and baiting Emily Thornberry about not taking her husband's name were entirely avoidable. It's far from clear that her plans for Brexit will survive first contact with reality. And time is not a quantity that she has in abundance, particularly in relation to Brexit where she is about to start negotiations with a group that are out to do her few favours and where she has made no serious attempt to gain any goodwill at all.
But until Britain has a functioning opposition other than the SNP, she will govern unchallenged.
It is odd that someone who is a self-proclaimed feminist would bait another woman about not taking her hubsand's surname.
Surely the point was that 'Emily 'woman of the people' Thornberry is quite a lot grander than she likes people to think?
The comment about her husband's name was made after Lady Nugee complained to the Speaker, in response to that complaint, and referred to herself....
What does that have to do with the point I was making? I wasn't defending Emily Thronberry's whole character, but stating simply in that instance she shouldn't have been criticised for keeping her maiden name.
You can make the point that Emily Thronberry is a lot grander than 'she likes people to think' in a way that does not imply that she should take her husband's name. I'm also unclear as why Thronberry complaining to speaker somehow justifies May baiting Thronberry about keeping her maiden name. There are plenty of other ways to go at Thronberry.
Well, it would be good to talk about options, although I think it is a little dismissive.
Did Sunil submit it, given the reference to its size? I'm still unclear on why the size is a particular issue. Obviously most chambers are not so large, particularly upper chambers, but that doesn't mean larger cannot be better.
Personally I think limiting a bit so you can fit most of them in the room at once would be an idea (though I believe you cannot get all MPs in the commons comfortably)
I don't think they help TMay but they are cringingly unfunny. The Daily Mash has (not uniquely) lost much of its wits since Brexit. It's written by a bunch of posho centre-right Remainers, so they have become the losers they like to satirise. A mentally difficult position.
Some of their bits are unfunny, particularly on Brexit which can boil down to 'idiots surprised by bad news' over and over. The Carswell Farage one today was very good, and in general I think their stuff is good.
Meh. They have the occasional very funny piece, but it's not a patch on The Onion.
At its best (admittedly now past) the Onion was hysterically funny. My bro once gave me a book which was the Onion reimagining itself, as if it had existed from 1900. It made me laugh so hard I nearly burst a significant bloodvessel. This is it. Do please buy it. It will make you wet yourself all over:
On the topic of EU citizen rights, I reluctantly agree with the governments position. I want nothing more than to secure the rights of EU citizens here, but this has to be on the basis that the rights of our own citizens are guaranteed within the EU.
The whole debate somewhat misses the real issue though. And that is because the principle of free movement is so enshrined in our immigration system for EEA citizens, the paths to permanent residency and citizenship for EEA citizens are not obvious and fraught with risk, complexity and cost. As such, people who have sought to use the existing channels to confirm their status have found their applications rejected due to technicalities like not having private healthcare insurance, not being able to produce their travel records for x years, being out of the country for more than 90 days in a year, etc. The human cost of this is enormous with families feeling genuine fear that they will be forced apart.
The government could do a lot more to defuse this situation without going to the lengths of giving unilateral guarantees to all EU citizens. They could for instance create a streamlined 'permanent resident' route for EEA citizens who have settled here for say three years with minimal cost and information requirements (should be pretty easy to prove). The government sound like they don't really give a fuck. I suspect the truth is that they just don't have time.
@isam Did you have the same opinion about Tony Blair in 1997 when the country was 'united around its leader' ?
I voted for Blair (my first vote at a GE) hoping that underneath his slightly Tory veneer lay a radical socialist! I am still not sure which one he was, and am pretty sure I had no idea what I was on about either! No change there then I hear you say
IMO, Tony Blair is many things, but a socialist is not one of them. The last time he was probably close to being one was in the late 1970s. Apparently back then, he was a huge fan of Michael Foot. I think Blair in some respects has actually gotten more right wing over time. When you at his positions on fox-hunting, foreign policy (being a neo-conservative and all), pro private involvement in public services. His adoration of Thatcher. On the other hand, Blair isn't as much of socialist, as he is a liberal on certain issues like immigration and the EU.
On topic, as others have said, an excellent piece. At the moment Theresa May is lacking alternatives inside or outside her party. It seems that she is a slow thinker but she is evidently a thinker.
What are her weaknesses? She's slow to make her mind up and her government has been caught flatfooted more than once already when speed was required. She has given flashes of a charmless intolerance of different approaches to life - "citizens of nowhere" and baiting Emily Thornberry about not taking her husband's name were entirely avoidable. It's far from clear that her plans for Brexit will survive first contact with reality. And time is not a quantity that she has in abundance, particularly in relation to Brexit where she is about to start negotiations with a group that are out to do her few favours and where she has made no serious attempt to gain any goodwill at all.
But until Britain has a functioning opposition other than the SNP, she will govern unchallenged.
It is odd that someone who is a self-proclaimed feminist would bait another woman about not taking her hubsand's surname.
Surely the point was that 'Emily 'woman of the people' Thornberry is quite a lot grander than she likes people to think?
The comment about her husband's name was made after Lady Nugee complained to the Speaker, in response to that complaint, and referred to herself....
she shouldn't have been criticised for keeping her maiden name.
Thornberry wasn't criticised for keeping her maiden name:
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, is it in order for the Prime Minister to refer to a Member of this House not by her own name, but by the name of her husband? Secondly, for the record, I have never been a lady, and it will take a great deal more than being married to a knight of the realm to make me one.
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May) Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not in any way intend to be disorderly in this House, and if the hon. Lady is concerned about the reference that I made to her, then of course I will apologise for that. I have to say to her, though, that for the last 36 years I have been referred to by my husband’s name. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker Order. No sedentary shrieking from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is required.
The Ben Tre Brexiteers are out again after the House of Lords rebuff to the government, I see. There is no aspect of civic society that they aren't prepared to destroy in order to secure Leave in exactly the way they want.
The fact a Remain PM is so popular with Leavers gives lie to this meme
On the politics of this vote, I'm not at all convinced that Labour and the LibDems favouring the rights of foreigners over British citizens will be seen as fair by voters. Fairness is all about reciprocity - this is a political mistake (and a really odd issue to choose to oppose the government on), as well as being a negotiating blunder if allowed to stand.
Absolutely. I said last night that people's feelings on this matter seem to largely come down to sticking up for their friends and family. Some people know many more EU immigrants, some know many more ex-pats. But the former are vastly better represented in politics and the media.
Thanks to all for the kind comments below; I was half the world away when OGH published it.
And they care far more about the cultured Europeans they share their offices with that the tattooed Chaz and Dave living out in Benidorm.
Which is of course perfectly rational and reasonble, given they don't know Chaz and Dave.
It is perfectly reasonable for Parliamentarians and the media to care far more about the elites they know than other citizens they don't? Are you sure about that?
Well, he suggested downthread that national policy should be determined by its effect on 30% of his daughter's classmates, so probably yes.
On the politics of this vote, I'm not at all convinced that Labour and the LibDems favouring the rights of foreigners over British citizens will be seen as fair by voters. Fairness is all about reciprocity - this is a political mistake (and a really odd issue to choose to oppose the government on), as well as being a negotiating blunder if allowed to stand.
Absolutely. I said last night that people's feelings on this matter seem to largely come down to sticking up for their friends and family. Some people know many more EU immigrants, some know many more ex-pats. But the former are vastly better represented in politics and the media.
Thanks to all for the kind comments below; I was half the world away when OGH published it.
And they care far more about the cultured Europeans they share their offices with that the tattooed Chaz and Dave living out in Benidorm.
Which is of course perfectly rational and reasonble, given they don't know Chaz and Dave.
It is perfectly reasonable for Parliamentarians and the media to care far more about the elites they know than other citizens they don't? Are you sure about that?
There are THREE MILLION non-British EU nationals in the UK most of whom are of working age. Hence it's obvious that more people live and work with them then the one million UK emigrants. It's sod all about the bloody "elites". These people work in our offices, are our children's schoolmates, are our neighbours.
The Ben Tre Brexiteers are out again after the House of Lords rebuff to the government, I see. There is no aspect of civic society that they aren't prepared to destroy in order to secure Leave in exactly the way they want.
Ben tre?
On this though, I reluctantly do agree with Mr Meeks - there are some leaves, though not nearly as many as he thinks, I would hope, who do seem to prioritise absolute everything to the goal of achieving Brexit, when we are perfectly capable of achieving it without, for instance, suggesting judges should not have decided a case even when the government itself said it was a justifiable question.
The Ben Tre Brexiteers are out again after the House of Lords rebuff to the government, I see. There is no aspect of civic society that they aren't prepared to destroy in order to secure Leave in exactly the way they want.
Funny, because since 1973 those in favour of the EU and all it stands for were (and still are) happy to destroy our society in order to secure their dream vision exactly the way they want.
On the politics of this vote, I'm not at all convinced that Labour and the LibDems favouring the rights of foreigners over British citizens will be seen as fair by voters. Fairness is all about reciprocity - this is a political mistake (and a really odd issue to choose to oppose the government on), as well as being a negotiating blunder if allowed to stand.
Absolutely. I said last night that people's feelings on this matter seem to largely come down to sticking up for their friends and family. Some people know many more EU immigrants, some know many more ex-pats. But the former are vastly better represented in politics and the media.
Thanks to all for the kind comments below; I was half the world away when OGH published it.
And they care far more about the cultured Europeans they share their offices with that the tattooed Chaz and Dave living out in Benidorm.
Which is of course perfectly rational and reasonble, given they don't know Chaz and Dave.
It is perfectly reasonable for Parliamentarians and the media to care far more about the elites they know than other citizens they don't? Are you sure about that?
Well, he suggested downthread that national policy should be determined by its effect on 30% of his daughter's classmates, so probably yes.
Given that I don't have a daughter I think you might have that wrong, guv.
Thornberry wasn't criticised for keeping her maiden name:
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, is it in order for the Prime Minister to refer to a Member of this House not by her own name, but by the name of her husband? Secondly, for the record, I have never been a lady, and it will take a great deal more than being married to a knight of the realm to make me one.
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May) Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not in any way intend to be disorderly in this House, and if the hon. Lady is concerned about the reference that I made to her, then of course I will apologise for that. I have to say to her, though, that for the last 36 years I have been referred to by my husband’s name. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker Order. No sedentary shrieking from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is required.
@isam Did you have the same opinion about Tony Blair in 1997 when the country was 'united around its leader' ?
The central premise that the country is united round its leader is the comfort blanket of rightwing fantasy. May's support is a mile wide and an inch deep, for the reasons you outline eloquently above.
But Corbyn's support is a mile deep and an inch wide !!
Yes. Ideally we can reduce that to being an inch deep and an inch wide.
@isam Did you have the same opinion about Tony Blair in 1997 when the country was 'united around its leader' ?
I voted for Blair (my first vote at a GE) hoping that underneath his slightly Tory veneer lay a radical socialist! I am still not sure which one he was, and am pretty sure I had no idea what I was on about either! No change there then I hear you say
IMO, Tony Blair is many things, but a socialist is not one of them. The last time he was probably close to being one was in the late 1970s. Apparently back then, he was a huge fan of Michael Foot. I think Blair in some respects has actually gotten more right wing over time. When you at his positions on fox-hunting, foreign policy (being a neo-conservative and all), pro private involvement in public services. His adoration of Thatcher. On the other hand, Blair isn't as much of socialist, as he is a liberal on certain issues like immigration and the EU.
A fair few important Blairites were communists, you don't get much more socialist than that!
@isam Did you have the same opinion about Tony Blair in 1997 when the country was 'united around its leader' ?
The central premise that the country is united round its leader is the comfort blanket of rightwing fantasy. May's support is a mile wide and an inch deep, for the reasons you outline eloquently above.
But Corbyn's support is a mile deep and an inch wide !!
Yes. Ideally we can reduce that to being an inch deep and an inch wide.
@isam Did you have the same opinion about Tony Blair in 1997 when the country was 'united around its leader' ?
The central premise that the country is united round its leader is the comfort blanket of rightwing fantasy. May's support is a mile wide and an inch deep, for the reasons you outline eloquently above.
But Corbyn's support is a mile deep and an inch wide !!
Seems a good analogy. Does Corbyn actually have ANY support though? All the Momentum crowd are just supporting the idea of Corbyn. Some of the (few) MP supporters like the idea of 'not anyone else but Corbyn'. McDonnell likes an opportunity for revenge. Corbyn has zero support - that's what makes him hard to get rid of.
Comments
If the Lords attempted to remove that clause, then after the Lords queued to enter the lobby, they can queue up for the guillotine.
However, she has grown into her position, and with Brexit (like independence supporters for the SNP), she seems to have the support of the majority of the public.
There is an historic opportunity here for the Tories, which is why they have to call an early election. Even if they lose the odd seat to the Liberals, they would surely rip the heart out of Labour's marginal seats.
Labour won't always be this dreadful, even with the current crop of rubbish inhabiting their benches.
We created this mess, by voting to leave. Now we have to limit the damage and create stability. Posturing about the lives of 3m Europeans is not a good way of doing that.
Morris/Richard
'Foreigners' or European citizens? You choose.
On the Lords - from the Government's White Paper:
The Government would have liked to resolve this issue ahead of the formal negotiations. And although many EU Member States favour such an agreement, this has not proven possible. The UK remains ready to give people the certainty they want and reach a reciprocal deal with our European partners at the earliest opportunity. It is the right and fair thing to do.
It also points out that there are (excluding Ireland) 2.8 million EU citizens resident in the UK and about a million UK citizens resident in the EU......
There aren't many others. You'd have to go back to someone like Eden (pre Suez) or Alex Douglas-Hume to find a comparison.
It's her greatest advantage. Combining it with a "tough" image, a la Ken Clarke's comments? Even better.
Honours are for political rewards (in part), peerages should be in expectation of involvement and therefore some form of expertise.
"I don't see how it makes the vote (I assume you mean the by election) invalid."
But haven't some Remainers been claiming that a second referendum is needed if voters change their minds? Surely they're not being total hypocrites? Ask Tony.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/may-gives-up-eating-live-mice-for-lent-20170301123043
A sensible Tory in charge with a crackpot Labour opposition is how things should be.. maybe I am just regressing to childhood!
Now that's a good idea.
I see Mrs May's grand strategy is working. Refuse the amendment saying it takes away one of our negotiating points and weakens our bargaining unless it is reciprocated in Europe (which won't happen as it would take them three years to wipe their arses). Tempt Labour to support the HoL.
Bingo! A May election and a wipe-out for Labour.
It is odd that someone who is a self-proclaimed feminist would bait another woman about not taking her hubsand's surname. It is entirely the right of Emily Thronberry to keep her maiden name. It should not be an obligation that one should have to give up their maiden name when getting married. I certainly intend to keep my maiden name if I get married.
I think the whole Trump state visit thing was a miscalculation too.
May will keep riding high for this single reason: she is the only half decent political leader on offer right now. Corbyn, Farron, and Nuttall are all terrible. Until this changes, May's government will determine political narratives, and there will be nothing her detractors can do about it.
EDIT than previous incarnations of Tory governments.
"People haven't changed their minds though, as the polls on this issue show."
Agreed, but I suspect the same may not be true of the Stoke electorate once they see the Peers playing silly buggers with Brexit.
What did you expect a dripping wet europhile cameroon like Letwin to say anyway ?
It's a discussion that needs having really, and given we are undergoing Brexit it almost feels too much to be having it now, along with issues of the devolution arrangements of our own union and federalisation, but really I suppose we might as well get it all done at once.
If you chose to keep your name and your spouse doesn't change name either, and you decide to have children, what name will they take?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2844806/Champagne-socialist-s-property-empire-Emily-Thornberry-lives-lives-wildest-dreams-working-class-voters-purports-represent.html
The comment about her husband's name was made after Lady Nugee complained to the Speaker, in response to that complaint, and referred to herself....
They're in a position to say to the Commons: 'stop and think; don't be so stupid'. They can't have their career damaged for this when the 'elected dictatorship' gets out of hand. It did with Blair and Thatcher.
When a hereditary peer dies, the elections held are farcical, because only aristocrats with a title and a stately home can stand. FFS. But what other 2nd. chamber has several hundred retired experts on tap for £300 per day? I'd reform it bit by bit and be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
There are some men out there that really would not want to take their fiancee's name. I remember talking to a few male friends about this, and they told me that it would be emasculating
You can make the point that Emily Thronberry is a lot grander than 'she likes people to think' in a way that does not imply that she should take her husband's name. I'm also unclear as why Thronberry complaining to speaker somehow justifies May baiting Thronberry about keeping her maiden name. There are plenty of other ways to go at Thronberry.
I'm sure some families are opting to make up an entirely new surname for married life.
Flip a coin and go one family name then the other for each new child?
Long, unwieldy name aside, some foreign naming traditions including both would help avoid this issue of course.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/170686
It's about retained residence rights.
Residence rights relating to non EU citizens (as we will be) are the perogative of each individual nation.
Did Sunil submit it, given the reference to its size? I'm still unclear on why the size is a particular issue. Obviously most chambers are not so large, particularly upper chambers, but that doesn't mean larger cannot be better.
Personally I think limiting a bit so you can fit most of them in the room at once would be an idea (though I believe you cannot get all MPs in the commons comfortably)
The whole debate somewhat misses the real issue though. And that is because the principle of free movement is so enshrined in our immigration system for EEA citizens, the paths to permanent residency and citizenship for EEA citizens are not obvious and fraught with risk, complexity and cost. As such, people who have sought to use the existing channels to confirm their status have found their applications rejected due to technicalities like not having private healthcare insurance, not being able to produce their travel records for x years, being out of the country for more than 90 days in a year, etc. The human cost of this is enormous with families feeling genuine fear that they will be forced apart.
The government could do a lot more to defuse this situation without going to the lengths of giving unilateral guarantees to all EU citizens. They could for instance create a streamlined 'permanent resident' route for EEA citizens who have settled here for say three years with minimal cost and information requirements (should be pretty easy to prove). The government sound like they don't really give a fuck. I suspect the truth is that they just don't have time.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, is it in order for the Prime Minister to refer to a Member of this House not by her own name, but by the name of her husband? Secondly, for the record, I have never been a lady, and it will take a great deal more than being married to a knight of the realm to make me one.
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not in any way intend to be disorderly in this House, and if the hon. Lady is concerned about the reference that I made to her, then of course I will apologise for that. I have to say to her, though, that for the last 36 years I have been referred to by my husband’s name. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. No sedentary shrieking from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is required.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-02-06/debates/CC567854-7E26-41BF-9E70-9F65645BE461/PointsOfOrder
"I can't remember when I last chuckled, or even properly smiled, at Private Eye."
Be fair, the cartoons are still good. But that's about all. I lost a lot of faith in it when they persisted with the MMR bollocks.
On this though, I reluctantly do agree with Mr Meeks - there are some leaves, though not nearly as many as he thinks, I would hope, who do seem to prioritise absolute everything to the goal of achieving Brexit, when we are perfectly capable of achieving it without, for instance, suggesting judges should not have decided a case even when the government itself said it was a justifiable question.