Serves him right. He has behaved like an absolute fool. His idea that the Brexit deal can be changed later is a total, self-serving lie.
Any deal can be changed, altered or canned if HM elected government decides and legislation goes through the HOC and HOL, especially if it is a manifesto commitment of a party elected at a GE. Indeed I expect that sometime in the future there will be a move to rejoin but of course once we have left that does become far more difficult. Indeed that is why those wanting a second referendum are getting increasingly alarmed and panicked
This was discussed yesterday and your conclusion is wrong. Under the Vienna convention it is not permissible to unilaterally denounce an international treaty (such as the withdrawal agreement) unless the treaty grants that right - and the EU wll not agree to this. So the backstop, for example, which would stop a proper FTA agreement later can be held over the UK indefinitely. Gove is meant to be smart so he should know this.
Serves him right. He has behaved like an absolute fool. His idea that the Brexit deal can be changed later is a total, self-serving lie.
Any deal can be changed, altered or canned if HM elected government decides and legislation goes through the HOC and HOL, especially if it is a manifesto commitment of a party elected at a GE. Indeed I expect that sometime in the future there will be a move to rejoin but of course once we have left that does become far more difficult. Indeed that is why those wanting a second referendum are getting increasingly alarmed and panicked
This was discussed yesterday and your conclusion is wrong. Under the Vienna convention it is not permissible to unilaterally denounce an international treaty (such as the withdrawal agreement) unless the treaty grants that right - and the EU wll not agree to this. So the backstop, for example, which would stop a proper FTA agreement later can be held over the UK indefinitely. Gove is meant to be smart so he should know this.
Perhaps that's his aim I would be amazed if any of the Brexiters remembered why they wanted to Brexit in the first place.
A safe space for white people returning from the Imperial possessions.
Serves him right. He has behaved like an absolute fool. His idea that the Brexit deal can be changed later is a total, self-serving lie.
Any deal can be changed, altered or canned if HM elected government decides and legislation goes through the HOC and HOL, especially if it is a manifesto commitment of a party elected at a GE. Indeed I expect that sometime in the future there will be a move to rejoin but of course once we have left that does become far more difficult. Indeed that is why those wanting a second referendum are getting increasingly alarmed and panicked
This was discussed yesterday and your conclusion is wrong. Under the Vienna convention it is not permissible to unilaterally denounce an international treaty (such as the withdrawal agreement) unless the treaty grants that right - and the EU wll not agree to this. So the backstop, for example, which would stop a proper FTA agreement later can be held over the UK indefinitely. Gove is meant to be smart so he should know this.
Perhaps that's his aim I would be amazed if any of the Brexiters remembered why they wanted to Brexit in the first place.
It was something about Cameron being sent away with a flea in his ear, wasn’t it?
Serves him right. He has behaved like an absolute fool. His idea that the Brexit deal can be changed later is a total, self-serving lie.
Any deal can be changed, altered or canned if HM elected government decides and legislation goes through the HOC and HOL, especially if it is a manifesto commitment of a party elected at a GE. Indeed I expect that sometime in the future there will be a move to rejoin but of course once we have left that does become far more difficult. Indeed that is why those wanting a second referendum are getting increasingly alarmed and panicked
This was discussed yesterday and your conclusion is wrong. Under the Vienna convention it is not permissible to unilaterally denounce an international treaty (such as the withdrawal agreement) unless the treaty grants that right - and the EU wll not agree to this. So the backstop, for example, which would stop a proper FTA agreement later can be held over the UK indefinitely. Gove is meant to be smart so he should know this.
Perhaps that's his aim I would be amazed if any of the Brexiters remembered why they wanted to Brexit in the first place.
A safe space for white people returning from the Imperial possessions.
The country desperately needs a voice of reason in our time zone.
A point not brought out explicitly in the article is that very few Labour people are entirely motivated by the issue itself. Brexit - for or against - is simply not seen by most Labour MPs as quite the cataclysmic decision point that Tory MPs seem to. The pro-referendum MPs are generally also influenced by being Corbynsceptics, the pro-Brexiteers are a tiny minority, and in between there are a lot of MPs, including the leadership, who simply don't feel that strongly. In that, they reflect a very large portion of Labour voters. It's really not that Labour MPs are being told by their voters they must vote for Brexit, but that they're being told to get on with the issues that people care about more.
That IMO is why the LibDems are not breaking through - their message is not "Vote for us as the sensible centrists" but "vote for us as the EU fanatics". There are EU fanatics in the electorate, more or less including me, but there aren't enough who only care about that to make it a winning line.
Yes, it's a very good article indeed.
On the LibDems, they risk trashing their brand as sensible centrists - what's sensibly centrist about trying to vote down a sensible compromise?
Of course. The new offer is exactly the same as the original in legal form, but dressed up to look nicer. Didn’t stop some on here proclaiming that a deal had already been done.
May is going to tell the EU that the NI backstop will not get past the DUP. Will they listen? I doubt it.
Can anyone give me an example of where a virtual border exists elsewhere and how it works?
It is not just the DUP that will vote against a border in the Irish Sea I cannot see the Scot Tories being prepared to accept a move against unionism in Ireland. They depend on the orange vote which is surprisingly strong still.
If Chequers (modified) were voted down, and May said 'alright, it really is NO DEAL' then I think a successful VONC could be possible. Note what the likes of Dominic Grieve are hinting in their absolute opposition to a crash-out.
Personally I think the only realistic response to the failure of Chequers would be to move to EFTA/EEA and see if we can sort things out from there without all the absurd deadlines etc. EFTA/EEA I think would pass the Commons with a sigh of relief. May could even remain PM if she had sufficient brass neck.
It will probably not be EFTA/EEA in actuality but very close to it nonetheless during the transition period with a work permit and study place on arrival requirement
I still don’t think you understand.
If the withdrawal agreement is signed, there will be NO CHANGE during the transition. There will be full free movement until we end the transition.
That depends, Barnier has made no statement of concern about a work permit on arrival requirement (similar to the transition controls we could have had in 2004) his main concern has been more alignment on services is needed compared to Chequers
It really doesn’t ‘depend’. The transition is no change. The discussions you refer to/are fixated on relate to post transition arrangements.
Dozens of Labour MPs are expected to stay away from party's annual conference
MPs are set to shun Labour conference amid anger over the anti-Semitism crisis and efforts to deselect them.
Moderates are vowing to stay away from the gathering in Liverpool, which kicks off this weekend, saying the atmosphere in the party is ‘sickening’.
Other politicians told MailOnline they were not prepared to be treated as ‘second class’ members after the leadership barred them from accessing the conference floor.
Shrug - I've been going to Labour conferences for 20 years, and the number of MPs attending beyond the front benches has always been less than half. Party conferences are fascinating the first time you go, as there are dozens of opportunities to hear the most interesting and well-known figures up close and ask them questions, but when you've done a few many feel that the charm fades. As an NGO participant at Tory conferences, it's not my impression that they're very different.
Serves him right. He has behaved like an absolute fool. His idea that the Brexit deal can be changed later is a total, self-serving lie.
Any deal can be changed, altered or canned if HM elected government decides and legislation goes through the HOC and HOL, especially if it is a manifesto commitment of a party elected at a GE. Indeed I expect that sometime in the future there will be a move to rejoin but of course once we have left that does become far more difficult. Indeed that is why those wanting a second referendum are getting increasingly alarmed and panicked
This was discussed yesterday and your conclusion is wrong. Under the Vienna convention it is not permissible to unilaterally denounce an international treaty (such as the withdrawal agreement) unless the treaty grants that right - and the EU wll not agree to this. So the backstop, for example, which would stop a proper FTA agreement later can be held over the UK indefinitely. Gove is meant to be smart so he should know this.
Where there's a joint will there's a way, but you're right that interest in reopening the package for the next N years will be MINIMAL.
Of course. The new offer is exactly the same as the original in legal form, but dressed up to look nicer. Didn’t stop some on here proclaiming that a deal had already been done.
May is going to tell the EU that the NI backstop will not get past the DUP. Will they listen? I doubt it.
Can anyone give me an example of where a virtual border exists elsewhere and how it works?
It is not just the DUP that will vote against a border in the Irish Sea I cannot see the Scot Tories being prepared to accept a move against unionism in Ireland. They depend on the orange vote which is surprisingly strong still.
The government's situation is quite complicated. They need to signal Deal-or-Car-Crash to the EU to get concessions for a good deal, but Deal-or-Remain to the ERG to prevent them from trying to burn the deal down.
I think the upshot is that you shouldn't take anything they say seriously as a predictor of what they'd actually do, except to the extent that saying something actually boxes them in to doing it.
Very true. We're at the Spin Drama stage of EU negotiations. We will soon have a Total Breakdown stage, and then a Last Desperate Effort stage, and then... a fudge.
I'm slightly amazed that the Brexiteers aren't rubbishing the "No Deal Means Starvation" stuff a bit more - it's perfectly obvious that the Government are preparing the ground for absolutely any deal, including Chequers minus minus, being accepted by a terrified public. In reality, an actual failure to reach agreement would be accompanied by transitional measures to prevent some of the more lurid consequences from coming to pass. It'd still be a really crap outcome, but we shouldn't exaggerate.
I should have thought it pretty obvious that the choice is between Some Deal and No Deal. Those are literally the only possible options, other than Remain (which is unacceptable to the government and its MPs, so not practically possible). And the only option for Some Deal will be the one on the table because it'll be the only one the EU28 have agreed.
Once there is a deal, No Deal is no longer tenable as a potential real-world option. The only choices in reality will be the deal or Remain.
If you're going to assert that Remain is "unacceptable to the government and its MPs" it would help to put some numbers against that, because there are clearly Conservative MPs for whom it is acceptable.
Numbers. If May formally proposed Remain, Graham Brady have 48 letters of No Confidence within half an hour. May would then be voted out the following day with comfortably over 200 MPs against.
I'll believe the 48, not so convinced of the 200.
'.
.
If I accept that a majority of Tory MPs are now to a greater or lesser extent Brexiteers, even that they have enough to boot TMay out. The questions then are, will the deal keep the DUP onside and will there be any Tory MPs who would vote against the party or even leave it over the Brexit issue (or the party being led by Boris / Rees Mogg)? Also would Labour help the Tories out? It seems to me that there probably is no majority in parliament for No Deal, we don't know about Mrs May's deal but Chequers isn't universally popular and is liable to be watered down. Now add to that another question - would the EU agree an extension to A50 in the absence of a new referendum?
Extending A50 provides the EU with a problem, namely that the UK will participate in the next round of EU elections, and lots of Conservative and UKIP MEPs will be returned, to add the increased intake of populist MEPs from the rest of the EU.
My own view is there are about 295 MPs who can be guaranteed to vote against any deal that May puts before the Commons. Five Labour MPs have lost the whip, and others are likely to abstain, or vote with the government. I'd assume about 245 will vote against the government. Add 11 Lib Dems, 35 SNP, 3 Plaid, and 1 Green.
That leaves 345 or so MPs, most of whom will vote with the government, some of whom will abstain, and some possibly, vote against.
While I think the numbers will be tight, I think the government will prevail.
Serves him right. He has behaved like an absolute fool. His idea that the Brexit deal can be changed later is a total, self-serving lie.
Do treaties not get changed over time?
Of course they do and my recent response to him was a wind up.
Archer pontificates on his ultra hard Brexit view from the other side of the world perfectly happy to trash UK manufacturing and put in jeopardy the Union.
Fortunately he is one of a small minority that shouts loudly but saner voices will take the necessary action to stop an ultra hard Brexit. The ultras are not going to be allowed to threaten my families jobs. The HOC will in the end resolve the issue and precluding those who want our economy to collapse
Given how badly Article 50 was drafted - I take his view very much with a large pinch of salt.
A properly constructed exit procedure would have avoided so much effort, wrangling, shouting and bad feeling. But no-one would want to leave the EU - so why worry about putting a proper process in place ahead of time?
Given how badly Article 50 was drafted - I take his view very much with a large pinch of salt.
A properly constructed exit procedure would have avoided so much effort, wrangling, shouting and bad feeling. But no-one would want to leave the EU - so why worry about putting a proper process in place ahead of time?
Lord Kerr would not be the first non-lawyer to discover that the document which he drafted doesn't mean what he wants it to mean.
When MPs realise they can't figure their own way out of their own mess, they will punt it back to the public.
Leave aside that MPs can't just punt it back to the public (they would need an Act of Parliament - they don't just magically happen), and leave aside that there isn't time for MPs to punt it back to the public -
What exactly do you think a second referendum would achieve? Renewed membership and happily ever after - because that seems a tad optimistic.
The government's situation is quite complicated. They need to signal Deal-or-Car-Crash to the EU to get concessions for a good deal, but Deal-or-Remain to the ERG to prevent them from trying to burn the deal down.
...
Almost right, but they don't need to convince each side that their respective nightmares will happen in the event that any deal is voted down, only that they might happen.
Given how badly Article 50 was drafted - I take his view very much with a large pinch of salt.
A properly constructed exit procedure would have avoided so much effort, wrangling, shouting and bad feeling. But no-one would want to leave the EU - so why worry about putting a proper process in place ahead of time?
Lord Kerr would not be the first non-lawyer to discover that the document which he drafted doesn't mean what he wants it to mean.
To add to the other burning questions, is Thomas the Tank Engine a fascist, and is Postman Pat a racist?
Actually, it is easy to react with outrage to any modernisation of an old character, but the proposed changes to Thomas the Tank Engine seem fair enough to me. If your aim is to make a children's story relevant to the modern world, it would be quite poor to not have female/BAME characters. This was one example of the anti PC Worlder's reacting without thinking, in my opinion.
When MPs realise they can't figure their own way out of their own mess, they will punt it back to the public.
Leave aside that MPs can't just punt it back to the public (they would need an Act of Parliament - they don't just magically happen), and leave aside that there isn't time for MPs to punt it back to the public -
What exactly do you think a second referendum would achieve? Renewed membership and happily ever after - because that seems a tad optimistic.
What exactly do you think going ahead with a Brexit that nobody likes would achieve?
To add to the other burning questions, is Thomas the Tank Engine a fascist, and is Postman Pat a racist?
Actually, it is easy to react with outrage to any modernisation of an old character, but the proposed changes to Thomas the Tank Engine seem fair enough to me. If your aim is to make a children's story relevant to the modern world, it would be quite poor to not have female/BAME characters. This was one example of the anti PC Worlder's reacting without thinking, in my opinion.
Sure, but there are people who seriously believe that Thomas the Tank Engine promotes fascism.
Leave aside that MPs can't just punt it back to the public (they would need an Act of Parliament - they don't just magically happen), and leave aside that there isn't time for MPs to punt it back to the public -
Punting it back to the public is their only option if they can't, or won't, vote for any deal.
If they are incapable of making a decision, they will ask the public to do it.
Another referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only to avoid another referendum.
I may have to post this every day until the vote...
Given how badly Article 50 was drafted - I take his view very much with a large pinch of salt.
A properly constructed exit procedure would have avoided so much effort, wrangling, shouting and bad feeling. But no-one would want to leave the EU - so why worry about putting a proper process in place ahead of time?
The EU has both a written and an unwritten constitution that run in parallel and Lord Kerr is merely citing the latter. The unwritten one includes the provision that if your country has a referendum that produces the wrong answer, you are required to vote again until you get the right answer.
Leave aside that MPs can't just punt it back to the public (they would need an Act of Parliament - they don't just magically happen), and leave aside that there isn't time for MPs to punt it back to the public -
Punting it back to the public is their only option if they can't, or won't, vote for any deal.
If they are incapable of making a decision, they will ask the public to do it.
Another referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only to avoid another referendum.
I may have to post this every day until the vote...
Which is why they probably will vote through a deal.
To add to the other burning questions, is Thomas the Tank Engine a fascist, and is Postman Pat a racist?
Actually, it is easy to react with outrage to any modernisation of an old character, but the proposed changes to Thomas the Tank Engine seem fair enough to me. If your aim is to make a children's story relevant to the modern world, it would be quite poor to not have female/BAME characters. This was one example of the anti PC Worlder's reacting without thinking, in my opinion.
Sure, but there are people who seriously believe that Thomas the Tank Engine promotes fascism.
Of course. The new offer is exactly the same as the original in legal form, but dressed up to look nicer. Didn’t stop some on here proclaiming that a deal had already been done.
May is going to tell the EU that the NI backstop will not get past the DUP. Will they listen? I doubt it.
Can anyone give me an example of where a virtual border exists elsewhere and how it works?
It is not just the DUP that will vote against a border in the Irish Sea I cannot see the Scot Tories being prepared to accept a move against unionism in Ireland. They depend on the orange vote which is surprisingly strong still.
Bigots to the end, it is the Tory way.
The irony of that statement is obviously beyond your very limited intellect. Aside from that it is also very rich coming from an SNP supporter, the most bigoted party in the UK ( aside from their similar namesake, the BNP)
The problem with the EU's position is that if they don't abandon their red line and as a result there's no deal, then, err, they've just abandoned their red line.
To add to the other burning questions, is Thomas the Tank Engine a fascist, and is Postman Pat a racist?
Actually, it is easy to react with outrage to any modernisation of an old character, but the proposed changes to Thomas the Tank Engine seem fair enough to me. If your aim is to make a children's story relevant to the modern world, it would be quite poor to not have female/BAME characters. This was one example of the anti PC Worlder's reacting without thinking, in my opinion.
Sure, but there are people who seriously believe that Thomas the Tank Engine promotes fascism.
Of course. The new offer is exactly the same as the original in legal form, but dressed up to look nicer. Didn’t stop some on here proclaiming that a deal had already been done.
May is going to tell the EU that the NI backstop will not get past the DUP. Will they listen? I doubt it.
Can anyone give me an example of where a virtual border exists elsewhere and how it works?
It is not just the DUP that will vote against a border in the Irish Sea I cannot see the Scot Tories being prepared to accept a move against unionism in Ireland. They depend on the orange vote which is surprisingly strong still.
Bigots to the end, it is the Tory way.
The irony of that statement is obviously beyond your very limited intellect. Aside from that it is also very rich coming from an SNP supporter, the most bigoted party in the UK ( aside from their similar namesake, the BNP)
....and on that hand-grenade, my bigoted foe, I will do some work, so don't bother wasting your gammon breath, I won't see it
Leave aside that MPs can't just punt it back to the public (they would need an Act of Parliament - they don't just magically happen), and leave aside that there isn't time for MPs to punt it back to the public -
Punting it back to the public is their only option if they can't, or won't, vote for any deal.
If they are incapable of making a decision, they will ask the public to do it.
Another referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only to avoid another referendum.
I may have to post this every day until the vote...
That still won't make it right. If MPs don't vote for any deal, then we leave with no deal (possibly after a delay, but only one delay).
FWIW, I think it's quite likely that the Commons will vote for a deal if May comes back with one but you need to think about what you're suggesting, which is that parliament would be prepared to put at least two options - neither of which it accepts in isolation - to the country, with a firm commitment to enact whichever option it opposes the country chooses.
And you still haven't answered *how* MPs ask the public to vote for something, if the government is opposed - and it will be opposed.
The problem with the EU's position is that if they don't abandon their red line and as a result there's no deal, then, err, they've just abandoned their red line.
Precisely. The EU's position is predicated upon an assumption the UK will budge first, if it doesn't the EU has to.
The UK's position can actually survive a No Deal - but are the MPs and PM brave enough to go through with it?
When MPs realise they can't figure their own way out of their own mess, they will punt it back to the public.
Leave aside that MPs can't just punt it back to the public (they would need an Act of Parliament - they don't just magically happen), and leave aside that there isn't time for MPs to punt it back to the public -
What exactly do you think a second referendum would achieve? Renewed membership and happily ever after - because that seems a tad optimistic.
What exactly do you think going ahead with a Brexit that nobody likes would achieve?
It would fulfill the mandate from the referendum and allow the country to move on.
The problem with the EU's position is that if they don't abandon their red line and as a result there's no deal, then, err, they've just abandoned their red line.
Spot on, which TM should be shouting from the rooftops. The problem is she has no intention of doing no deal.
Tactically the best option for the UK now is to no deal. The NI border issue will vanish because it will become a defacto soft border the day after Brexit, At that point a backstop is moot and the UK could then agree CETA in very quick order.
Leave aside that MPs can't just punt it back to the public (they would need an Act of Parliament - they don't just magically happen), and leave aside that there isn't time for MPs to punt it back to the public -
Punting it back to the public is their only option if they can't, or won't, vote for any deal.
If they are incapable of making a decision, they will ask the public to do it.
Another referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only to avoid another referendum.
I may have to post this every day until the vote...
That still won't make it right. If MPs don't vote for any deal, then we leave with no deal (possibly after a delay, but only one delay).
FWIW, I think it's quite likely that the Commons will vote for a deal if May comes back with one but you need to think about what you're suggesting, which is that parliament would be prepared to put at least two options - neither of which it accepts in isolation - to the country, with a firm commitment to enact whichever option it opposes the country chooses.
And you still haven't answered *how* MPs ask the public to vote for something, if the government is opposed - and it will be opposed.
If Theresa May doesn't come back with a deal, her position looks pretty untenable, doesn't it? The non-cultists have no reason to prop her up and the ERG already detest her.
Of course. The new offer is exactly the same as the original in legal form, but dressed up to look nicer. Didn’t stop some on here proclaiming that a deal had already been done.
May is going to tell the EU that the NI backstop will not get past the DUP. Will they listen? I doubt it.
Can anyone give me an example of where a virtual border exists elsewhere and how it works?
It is not just the DUP that will vote against a border in the Irish Sea I cannot see the Scot Tories being prepared to accept a move against unionism in Ireland. They depend on the orange vote which is surprisingly strong still.
Bigots to the end, it is the Tory way.
The irony of that statement is obviously beyond your very limited intellect. Aside from that it is also very rich coming from an SNP supporter, the most bigoted party in the UK ( aside from their similar namesake, the BNP)
....and on that hand-grenade, my bigoted foe, I will do some work, so don't bother wasting your gammon breath, I won't see it
That really is about the most unpleasant post I have ever seen on PB, or indeed anywhere else.
Serves him right. He has behaved like an absolute fool. His idea that the Brexit deal can be changed later is a total, self-serving lie.
Do treaties not get changed over time?
Of course they do and my recent response to him was a wind up.
Archer pontificates on his ultra hard Brexit view from the other side of the world perfectly happy to trash UK manufacturing and put in jeopardy the Union.
Fortunately he is one of a small minority that shouts loudly but saner voices will take the necessary action to stop an ultra hard Brexit. The ultras are not going to be allowed to threaten my families jobs. The HOC will in the end resolve the issue and precluding those who want our economy to collapse
Treaties don’t get chnaged unilaterally.
I am not surprised you are getting a bit wound up - it was only yesterday I think you were telling us a deal was all but done - now it is obvious that basically no progress has been made, just as I was telling you.
I would prefer a CETA deal and would even be prepared to accept a short extension to achieve it. But, as I said in December, the NI backstop can never be agreed. May made a terrible mistake which you for one supported. It may well be now that the only way to resolve that error is for there to be no deal.
Leave aside that MPs can't just punt it back to the public (they would need an Act of Parliament - they don't just magically happen), and leave aside that there isn't time for MPs to punt it back to the public -
Punting it back to the public is their only option if they can't, or won't, vote for any deal.
If they are incapable of making a decision, they will ask the public to do it.
Another referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only to avoid another referendum.
I may have to post this every day until the vote...
That is a sure why of attracting ridicule or even 'just ignore'
When MPs realise they can't figure their own way out of their own mess, they will punt it back to the public.
Leave aside that MPs can't just punt it back to the public (they would need an Act of Parliament - they don't just magically happen), and leave aside that there isn't time for MPs to punt it back to the public -
What exactly do you think a second referendum would achieve? Renewed membership and happily ever after - because that seems a tad optimistic.
What exactly do you think going ahead with a Brexit that nobody likes would achieve?
It would fulfill the mandate from the referendum and allow the country to move on.
Now answer my earlier question.
If nobody likes the deal or if it just means we spend at least another few years negotiating then it absolutely will not allow the country to move on and it's delusional to think that it will.
The answer to your question is that a second referendum can be won in a crushing victory by Remain. Brexit has been tested to destruction over the last two years and it's time to consign it to history.
The problem with the EU's position is that if they don't abandon their red line and as a result there's no deal, then, err, they've just abandoned their red line.
When you’ve got a strong hand, bluffing that you have the nuts is absolutely bonkers. I suppose that is what having unelected officials in charge of a negotiation does...
A point not brought out explicitly in the article is that very few Labour people are entirely motivated by the issue itself. Brexit - for or against - is simply not seen by most Labour MPs as quite the cataclysmic decision point that Tory MPs seem to. The pro-referendum MPs are generally also influenced by being Corbynsceptics, the pro-Brexiteers are a tiny minority, and in between there are a lot of MPs, including the leadership, who simply don't feel that strongly. In that, they reflect a very large portion of Labour voters. It's really not that Labour MPs are being told by their voters they must vote for Brexit, but that they're being told to get on with the issues that people care about more.
That IMO is why the LibDems are not breaking through - their message is not "Vote for us as the sensible centrists" but "vote for us as the EU fanatics". There are EU fanatics in the electorate, more or less including me, but there aren't enough who only care about that to make it a winning line.
Yes, it's a very good article indeed. On the LibDems, they risk trashing their brand as sensible centrists - what's sensibly centrist about trying to vote down a sensible compromise?
When MPs realise they can't figure their own way out of their own mess, they will punt it back to the public.
Leave aside that MPs can't just punt it back to the public (they would need an Act of Parliament - they don't just magically happen), and leave aside that there isn't time for MPs to punt it back to the public -
What exactly do you think a second referendum would achieve? Renewed membership and happily ever after - because that seems a tad optimistic.
What exactly do you think going ahead with a Brexit that nobody likes would achieve?
It would fulfill the mandate from the referendum and allow the country to move on.
Now answer my earlier question.
If nobody likes the deal or if it just means we spend at least another few years negotiating then it absolutely will not allow the country to move on and it's delusional to think that it will.
The answer to your question is that a second referendum can be won in a crushing victory by Remain. Brexit has been tested to destruction over the last two years and it's time to consign it to history.
A second referendum is being sought because diehard Remainers think 50%+1 will vote against Brexit. That's would not be a crushing victory.
When MPs realise they can't figure their own way out of their own mess, they will punt it back to the public.
Leave aside that MPs can't just punt it back to the public (they would need an Act of Parliament - they don't just magically happen), and leave aside that there isn't time for MPs to punt it back to the public -
What exactly do you think a second referendum would achieve? Renewed membership and happily ever after - because that seems a tad optimistic.
What exactly do you think going ahead with a Brexit that nobody likes would achieve?
It would fulfill the mandate from the referendum and allow the country to move on.
Now answer my earlier question.
If nobody likes the deal or if it just means we spend at least another few years negotiating then it absolutely will not allow the country to move on and it's delusional to think that it will.
The answer to your question is that a second referendum can be won in a crushing victory by Remain. Brexit has been tested to destruction over the last two years and it's time to consign it to history.
You hope is to crush leave and think that will close the matter. You really aren't that naive are you.
The problem with the EU's position is that if they don't abandon their red line and as a result there's no deal, then, err, they've just abandoned their red line.
Could yu perhaps point that out to Laura? (And maybe also to Number 10?)
When MPs realise they can't figure their own way out of their own mess, they will punt it back to the public.
Leave aside that MPs can't just punt it back to the public (they would need an Act of Parliament - they don't just magically happen), and leave aside that there isn't time for MPs to punt it back to the public -
What exactly do you think a second referendum would achieve? Renewed membership and happily ever after - because that seems a tad optimistic.
What exactly do you think going ahead with a Brexit that nobody likes would achieve?
It would fulfill the mandate from the referendum and allow the country to move on.
Now answer my earlier question.
If nobody likes the deal or if it just means we spend at least another few years negotiating then it absolutely will not allow the country to move on and it's delusional to think that it will.
The answer to your question is that a second referendum can be won in a crushing victory by Remain. Brexit has been tested to destruction over the last two years and it's time to consign it to history.
A second referendum is being sought because diehard Remainers think 50%+1 will vote against Brexit. That's would not be a crushing victory.
When MPs realise they can't figure their own way out of their own mess, they will punt it back to the public.
Leave aside that MPs can't just punt it back to the public (they would need an Act of Parliament - they don't just magically happen), and leave aside that there isn't time for MPs to punt it back to the public -
What exactly do you think a second referendum would achieve? Renewed membership and happily ever after - because that seems a tad optimistic.
What exactly do you think going ahead with a Brexit that nobody likes would achieve?
It would fulfill the mandate from the referendum and allow the country to move on.
Now answer my earlier question.
If nobody likes the deal or if it just means we spend at least another few years negotiating then it absolutely will not allow the country to move on and it's delusional to think that it will.
The answer to your question is that a second referendum can be won in a crushing victory by Remain. Brexit has been tested to destruction over the last two years and it's time to consign it to history.
A second referendum is being sought because diehard Remainers think 50%+1 will vote against Brexit. That's would not be a crushing victory.
When MPs realise they can't figure their own way out of their own mess, they will punt it back to the public.
Leave aside that MPs can't just punt it back to the public (they would need an Act of Parliament - they don't just magically happen), and leave aside that there isn't time for MPs to punt it back to the public -
What exactly do you think a second referendum would achieve? Renewed membership and happily ever after - because that seems a tad optimistic.
What exactly do you think going ahead with a Brexit that nobody likes would achieve?
It would fulfill the mandate from the referendum and allow the country to move on.
Now answer my earlier question.
If nobody likes the deal or if it just means we spend at least another few years negotiating then it absolutely will not allow the country to move on and it's delusional to think that it will.
The answer to your question is that a second referendum can be won in a crushing victory by Remain. Brexit has been tested to destruction over the last two years and it's time to consign it to history.
A second referendum is being sought because diehard Remainers think 50%+1 will vote against Brexit. That's would not be a crushing victory.
To add to the other burning questions, is Thomas the Tank Engine a fascist, and is Postman Pat a racist?
Actually, it is easy to react with outrage to any modernisation of an old character, but the proposed changes to Thomas the Tank Engine seem fair enough to me. If your aim is to make a children's story relevant to the modern world, it would be quite poor to not have female/BAME characters. This was one example of the anti PC Worlder's reacting without thinking, in my opinion.
Sure, but there are people who seriously believe that Thomas the Tank Engine promotes fascism.
Don't forget that Paddington Bear is colonialist, and that the Calendar Girls are an evocation of ... er ... the Klu Klux Klan.
To add to the other burning questions, is Thomas the Tank Engine a fascist, and is Postman Pat a racist?
Actually, it is easy to react with outrage to any modernisation of an old character, but the proposed changes to Thomas the Tank Engine seem fair enough to me. If your aim is to make a children's story relevant to the modern world, it would be quite poor to not have female/BAME characters. This was one example of the anti PC Worlder's reacting without thinking, in my opinion.
Sure, but there are people who seriously believe that Thomas the Tank Engine promotes fascism.
When MPs realise they can't figure their own way out of their own mess, they will punt it back to the public.
Leave aside that MPs can't just punt it back to the public (they would need an Act of Parliament - they don't just magically happen), and leave aside that there isn't time for MPs to punt it back to the public -
What exactly do you think a second referendum would achieve? Renewed membership and happily ever after - because that seems a tad optimistic.
What exactly do you think going ahead with a Brexit that nobody likes would achieve?
It would fulfill the mandate from the referendum and allow the country to move on.
Now answer my earlier question.
If nobody likes the deal or if it just means we spend at least another few years negotiating then it absolutely will not allow the country to move on and it's delusional to think that it will.
The answer to your question is that a second referendum can be won in a crushing victory by Remain. Brexit has been tested to destruction over the last two years and it's time to consign it to history.
A second referendum is being sought because diehard Remainers think 50%+1 will vote against Brexit. That's would not be a crushing victory.
I think 60-65% is realistic.
you think 60% to 65% vote to remain in a second referendum?
When MPs realise they can't figure their own way out of their own mess, they will punt it back to the public.
Leave aside that MPs can't just punt it back to the public (they would need an Act of Parliament - they don't just magically happen), and leave aside that there isn't time for MPs to punt it back to the public -
What exactly do you think a second referendum would achieve? Renewed membership and happily ever after - because that seems a tad optimistic.
What exactly do you think going ahead with a Brexit that nobody likes would achieve?
It would fulfill the mandate from the referendum and allow the country to move on.
Now answer my earlier question.
If nobody likes the deal or if it just means we spend at least another few years negotiating then it absolutely will not allow the country to move on and it's delusional to think that it will.
The answer to your question is that a second referendum can be won in a crushing victory by Remain. Brexit has been tested to destruction over the last two years and it's time to consign it to history.
A second referendum is being sought because diehard Remainers think 50%+1 will vote against Brexit. That's would not be a crushing victory.
I think 60-65% is realistic.
you think 60% to 65% vote to remain in a second referendum?
The anger caused by asking again would be a sight to behold and very unpleasant
When MPs realise they can't figure their own way out of their own mess, they will punt it back to the public.
Leave aside that MPs can't just punt it back to the public (they would need an Act of Parliament - they don't just magically happen), and leave aside that there isn't time for MPs to punt it back to the public -
What exactly do you think a second referendum would achieve? Renewed membership and happily ever after - because that seems a tad optimistic.
What exactly do you think going ahead with a Brexit that nobody likes would achieve?
It would fulfill the mandate from the referendum and allow the country to move on.
Now answer my earlier question.
If nobody likes the deal or if it just means we spend at least another few years negotiating then it absolutely will not allow the country to move on and it's delusional to think that it will.
The answer to your question is that a second referendum can be won in a crushing victory by Remain. Brexit has been tested to destruction over the last two years and it's time to consign it to history.
A second referendum is being sought because diehard Remainers think 50%+1 will vote against Brexit. That's would not be a crushing victory.
I think 60-65% is realistic.
you think 60% to 65% vote to remain in a second referendum?
To add to the other burning questions, is Thomas the Tank Engine a fascist, and is Postman Pat a racist?
Actually, it is easy to react with outrage to any modernisation of an old character, but the proposed changes to Thomas the Tank Engine seem fair enough to me. If your aim is to make a children's story relevant to the modern world, it would be quite poor to not have female/BAME characters. This was one example of the anti PC Worlder's reacting without thinking, in my opinion.
Sure, but there are people who seriously believe that Thomas the Tank Engine promotes fascism.
When MPs realise they can't figure their own way out of their own mess, they will punt it back to the public.
Leave aside that MPs can't just punt it back to the public (they would need an Act of Parliament - they don't just magically happen), and leave aside that there isn't time for MPs to punt it back to the public -
What exactly do you think a second referendum would achieve? Renewed membership and happily ever after - because that seems a tad optimistic.
What exactly do you think going ahead with a Brexit that nobody likes would achieve?
It would fulfill the mandate from the referendum and allow the country to move on.
Now answer my earlier question.
If nobody likes the deal or if it just means we spend at least another few years negotiating then it absolutely will not allow the country to move on and it's delusional to think that it will.
The answer to your question is that a second referendum can be won in a crushing victory by Remain. Brexit has been tested to destruction over the last two years and it's time to consign it to history.
A second referendum is being sought because diehard Remainers think 50%+1 will vote against Brexit. That's would not be a crushing victory.
I think 60-65% is realistic.
You are in dreamland
Remain thought they would win by 65:35 when Cameron called the first referendum. Just shows they have learnt nothing.
The problem with the EU's position is that if they don't abandon their red line and as a result there's no deal, then, err, they've just abandoned their red line.
That's incorrect. The EU's red line relates to a negotiation, not a failure to agree. They would no doubt regret the practical effect, but it is its incorporation in an agreement that is particularly problematic for them, since it would involve their cooperation with this outcome rather than, as they would see it, being forced on them..
When MPs realise they can't figure their own way out of their own mess, they will punt it back to the public.
Leave aside that MPs can't just punt it back to the public (they would need an Act of Parliament - they don't just magically happen), and leave aside that there isn't time for MPs to punt it back to the public -
What exactly do you think a second referendum would achieve? Renewed membership and happily ever after - because that seems a tad optimistic.
What exactly do you think going ahead with a Brexit that nobody likes would achieve?
It would fulfill the mandate from the referendum and allow the country to move on.
Now answer my earlier question.
If nobody likes the deal or if it just means we spend at least another few years negotiating then it absolutely will not allow the country to move on and it's delusional to think that it will.
The answer to your question is that a second referendum can be won in a crushing victory by Remain. Brexit has been tested to destruction over the last two years and it's time to consign it to history.
A second referendum is being sought because diehard Remainers think 50%+1 will vote against Brexit. That's would not be a crushing victory.
I think 60-65% is realistic.
You are in dreamland
Remain thought they would win by 65:35 when Cameron called the first referendum. Just shows they have learnt nothing.
I didn't think that. It was Richard Nabavi who famously predicted a result in that range.
The problem with the EU's position is that if they don't abandon their red line and as a result there's no deal, then, err, they've just abandoned their red line.
That's incorrect. The EU's red line relates to a negotiation, not a failure to agree. They would no doubt regret the practical effect, but it is its incorporation in an agreement that is particularly problematic for them, since it would involve their cooperation with this outcome rather than, as they would see it, being forced on them..
Good pinhead-dancing, but somehow I don't think the Irish (for whose benefit the EU are making a fuss about this in the first place) would be quite so sanguine about the practical effect.
To add to the other burning questions, is Thomas the Tank Engine a fascist, and is Postman Pat a racist?
Actually, it is easy to react with outrage to any modernisation of an old character, but the proposed changes to Thomas the Tank Engine seem fair enough to me. If your aim is to make a children's story relevant to the modern world, it would be quite poor to not have female/BAME characters. This was one example of the anti PC Worlder's reacting without thinking, in my opinion.
Sure, but there are people who seriously believe that Thomas the Tank Engine promotes fascism.
When MPs realise they can't figure their own way out of their own mess, they will punt it back to the public.
Leave aside that MPs can't just punt it back to the public (they would need an Act of Parliament - they don't just magically happen), and leave aside that there isn't time for MPs to punt it back to the public -
What exactly do you think a second referendum would achieve? Renewed membership and happily ever after - because that seems a tad optimistic.
What exactly do you think going ahead with a Brexit that nobody likes would achieve?
It would fulfill the mandate from the referendum and allow the country to move on.
Now answer my earlier question.
If nobody likes the deal or if it just means we spend at least another few years negotiating then it absolutely will not allow the country to move on and it's delusional to think that it will.
The answer to your question is that a second referendum can be won in a crushing victory by Remain. Brexit has been tested to destruction over the last two years and it's time to consign it to history.
A second referendum is being sought because diehard Remainers think 50%+1 will vote against Brexit. That's would not be a crushing victory.
I think 60-65% is realistic.
You are in dreamland
Remain thought they would win by 65:35 when Cameron called the first referendum. Just shows they have learnt nothing.
I didn't think that. It was Richard Nabavi who famously predicted a result in that range.
To be fair, so do I. But once I saw Cameron’s renegotiation I started to think Leave would win. That is probably why I believe that when May’s deal is actually available, people will turn against it.
When MPs realise they can't figure their own way out of their own mess, they will punt it back to the public.
Leave aside that MPs can't just punt it back to the public (they would need an Act of Parliament - they don't just magically happen), and leave aside that there isn't time for MPs to punt it back to the public -
What exactly do you think a second referendum would achieve? Renewed membership and happily ever after - because that seems a tad optimistic.
What exactly do you think going ahead with a Brexit that nobody likes would achieve?
It would fulfill the mandate from the referendum and allow the country to move on.
Now answer my earlier question.
If nobody likes the deal or if it just means we spend at least another few years negotiating then it absolutely will not allow the country to move on and it's delusional to think that it will.
The answer to your question is that a second referendum can be won in a crushing victory by Remain. Brexit has been tested to destruction over the last two years and it's time to consign it to history.
A second referendum is being sought because diehard Remainers think 50%+1 will vote against Brexit. That's would not be a crushing victory.
I think 60-65% is realistic.
You are in dreamland
Remain thought they would win by 65:35 when Cameron called the first referendum. Just shows they have learnt nothing.
I didn't think that. It was Richard Nabavi who famously predicted a result in that range.
I think 60:40 was my prediction for most of the period between Cameron's pledge to hold the referendum until the campaign started , but IIRC there was a period when the Leave side were in utter disarray and it looked as though they'd struggle to make 40%.
To be fair, so do I. But once I saw Cameron’s renegotiation I started to think Leave would win. That is probably why I believe that when May’s deal is actually available, people will turn against it.
And there are only two ways you can turn against it. Either the nihilism of no deal, or the resignation of Remain. I think it will be a similar dynamic in reverse that will lead to a big bounce for Remain once the deal is on the table, and just imagine how toxic it will be if the government tries to impose a deal that everyone hates?
To add to the other burning questions, is Thomas the Tank Engine a fascist, and is Postman Pat a racist?
Actually, it is easy to react with outrage to any modernisation of an old character, but the proposed changes to Thomas the Tank Engine seem fair enough to me. If your aim is to make a children's story relevant to the modern world, it would be quite poor to not have female/BAME characters. This was one example of the anti PC Worlder's reacting without thinking, in my opinion.
Sure, but there are people who seriously believe that Thomas the Tank Engine promotes fascism.
To add to the other burning questions, is Thomas the Tank Engine a fascist, and is Postman Pat a racist?
Actually, it is easy to react with outrage to any modernisation of an old character, but the proposed changes to Thomas the Tank Engine seem fair enough to me. If your aim is to make a children's story relevant to the modern world, it would be quite poor to not have female/BAME characters. This was one example of the anti PC Worlder's reacting without thinking, in my opinion.
Sure, but there are people who seriously believe that Thomas the Tank Engine promotes fascism.
Let’s attack this from another angle. Only Chequers or some variation of it is now on the table.
So, how many people here would be prepared fo accept the NI backstop proposed by Barnier?
No-one, which is why it will be fudged.
Hell, if the EU can fudge the Northern Cyprus border, they can easily fudge a much easier problem in Ireland.
Is the border issue in NI easy? Won't the agreement have to be in legal language?
The current EU proposal is for minimal checks, and those to be carried out not at the border. That is precisely the UK's position, which the EU have previously said is impossible. The only remaining point of difference is whether these now-possible-but-previously-impossible non-checks take place at the mainland/NI crossing or the Irish land border.
Plenty of fudge room there, I think. The EU does have one sensible point, which is that transit by ship is intrinsically easier to manage administratively. I expect that will come into the final agreement in some way.
To be fair, so do I. But once I saw Cameron’s renegotiation I started to think Leave would win. That is probably why I believe that when May’s deal is actually available, people will turn against it.
And there are only two ways you can turn against it. Either the nihilism of no deal, or the resignation of Remain. I think it will be a similar dynamic in reverse that will lead to a big bounce for Remain once the deal is on the table, and just imagine how toxic it will be if the government tries to impose a deal that everyone hates?
Try explaining to the British people that if they Remain, they must accept the EU telling us to grasp our ankles - and take whatever is heading our way. Because it is a better thing than Brexit.
Try making that case in person in Mansfield. Stoke. Hartlepool.
Comments
A safe space for white people returning from the Imperial possessions.
On the LibDems, they risk trashing their brand as sensible centrists - what's sensibly centrist about trying to vote down a sensible compromise?
It is not just the DUP that will vote against a border in the Irish Sea I cannot see the Scot Tories being prepared to accept a move against unionism in Ireland. They depend on the orange vote which is surprisingly strong still.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m-nmKNKD1U
I'm slightly amazed that the Brexiteers aren't rubbishing the "No Deal Means Starvation" stuff a bit more - it's perfectly obvious that the Government are preparing the ground for absolutely any deal, including Chequers minus minus, being accepted by a terrified public. In reality, an actual failure to reach agreement would be accompanied by transitional measures to prevent some of the more lurid consequences from coming to pass. It'd still be a really crap outcome, but we shouldn't exaggerate.
My own view is there are about 295 MPs who can be guaranteed to vote against any deal that May puts before the Commons. Five Labour MPs have lost the whip, and others are likely to abstain, or vote with the government. I'd assume about 245 will vote against the government. Add 11 Lib Dems, 35 SNP, 3 Plaid, and 1 Green.
That leaves 345 or so MPs, most of whom will vote with the government, some of whom will abstain, and some possibly, vote against.
While I think the numbers will be tight, I think the government will prevail.
Sesame Workshop says Bert and Ernie are 'best friends' and not gay
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45566451
Archer pontificates on his ultra hard Brexit view from the other side of the world perfectly happy to trash UK manufacturing and put in jeopardy the Union.
Fortunately he is one of a small minority that shouts loudly but saner voices will take the necessary action to stop an ultra hard Brexit. The ultras are not going to be allowed to threaten my families jobs. The HOC will in the end resolve the issue and precluding those who want our economy to collapse
A properly constructed exit procedure would have avoided so much effort, wrangling, shouting and bad feeling. But no-one would want to leave the EU - so why worry about putting a proper process in place ahead of time?
What exactly do you think a second referendum would achieve? Renewed membership and happily ever after - because that seems a tad optimistic.
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/474/2217/20170726
Though the northern end of any crossing would be built on Spanish territory.
If they are incapable of making a decision, they will ask the public to do it.
Another referendum is the only way to avoid a GE.
A GE is the only to avoid another referendum.
I may have to post this every day until the vote...
FWIW, I think it's quite likely that the Commons will vote for a deal if May comes back with one but you need to think about what you're suggesting, which is that parliament would be prepared to put at least two options - neither of which it accepts in isolation - to the country, with a firm commitment to enact whichever option it opposes the country chooses.
And you still haven't answered *how* MPs ask the public to vote for something, if the government is opposed - and it will be opposed.
The UK's position can actually survive a No Deal - but are the MPs and PM brave enough to go through with it?
Now answer my earlier question.
Tactically the best option for the UK now is to no deal. The NI border issue will vanish because it will become a defacto soft border the day after Brexit, At that point a backstop is moot and the UK could then agree CETA in very quick order.
I am not surprised you are getting a bit wound up - it was only yesterday I think you were telling us a deal was all but done - now it is obvious that basically no progress has been made, just as I was telling you.
I would prefer a CETA deal and would even be prepared to accept a short extension to achieve it. But, as I said in December, the NI backstop can never be agreed. May made a terrible mistake which you for one supported. It may well be now that the only way to resolve that error is for there to be no deal.
The answer to your question is that a second referendum can be won in a crushing victory by Remain. Brexit has been tested to destruction over the last two years and it's time to consign it to history.
http://www.theconmag.co.za/2016/02/01/hollywoods-racist-heart/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/22/thomas-the-tank-engine-children-parents
you think 60% to 65% vote to remain in a second referendum?
So, how many people here would be prepared fo accept the NI backstop proposed by Barnier?
Hell, if the EU can fudge the Northern Cyprus border, they can easily fudge a much easier problem in Ireland.
Won't the agreement have to be in legal language?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6184193/Trump-suggested-building-wall-SAHARA-Spains-foreign-minister-claims.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/19/upshot/facebook-county-friendships.html?mtrref=t.co
Plenty of fudge room there, I think. The EU does have one sensible point, which is that transit by ship is intrinsically easier to manage administratively. I expect that will come into the final agreement in some way.
Try making that case in person in Mansfield. Stoke. Hartlepool.