The DUP have calculated that a no-deal Brexit with no backstop kills the Good Friday Agreement. That is their goal and that explains their behaviour.
I’m not,doubting you, but do you have any evidence? Your implication is that the DUP want the GFA to fail and to return to the troubles that presceeded it. That’s a pretty serious charge.
Re DUP. Govt might as well take them at their word about “no divergence” and introduce votes on the floor of the HoC over abortion and the education system.
It's quite hard for a VoNC to pass the HoC, even with the DUP playing silly buggers.
It needs 323 MPS, not 326, as Sinn Fein don't take their seats. The Tories have 317 MPs plus the speaker.
Assuming all Tory MPs turn up and play ball, which they should, those last five or six MPs could be very interesting, particularly since there are several independent MPs right now, none of whom are fans of Corbyn and don't take a whip.
Despite what @HYUFD believes no sitting Tory MO will vote against the government, or abstain, in a VoNC
If May were toppled in a coup and replaced by a No Dealer (even if unlikely) I would not put it past Soubry, Wollaston, Grieve, Lee and Morgan to no confidence that hardline Brexiteer
Tory MPs are going around essentially calling each other traitors. The idea there's no chance a few of them might just say fuck it and vote against even at the cost of expulsion seems unwise. They are no longer a party they are a disorganised scrum at best.
Indeed, Soubry and Wollaston and Grieve are closer to the LDs than the ERG and the ERG closer to UKIP than Tory Remainers.
Why would Remainers vote for Corbyn after Brexit had taken effect ? Revenge.
That's my motivation. Spite.
I think May has that effect. I live in a Con held Con/Lab marginal. I didn't feel able to vote Labour in '17 but after the, and I don't use this word lightly, evil queue jumper comments I'd ram my Labour vote into the ballot box. And I'd like to think I understand the horrors of a Corbyn Government. But you just have to draw a line and take the head shot. Now I may calm down and May might go but... Hunt with EUSSR, Javid ( ! ) openly using Islamophobic tropes. The Tories have turned themselves into a machine to utterly unhinge social liberals. If we must have the ' Gammondammerung ' then we should do it properly. And that means the redemptive suffering of a Corbyn Government.
She was talking about the future.
In the past they were let to the front of the queue. Now they won’t be.
It’s a slightly perjorative choice of words but it’s ridiculous to describe them as “evil”.
Terrorism is evil. Murder is evil. The difference between “go to the front of the queue” and “jump the queue” is not.
However, this morning posters own expectations and hopes are expressed with a certainty that their version of events or political outcomes will prevail
Discussions on the second referendum and its wording reflect this with remainers wanting remain/deal, leavers deal - no deal, and many remain - deal - no deal.
Others maintain we will have a labour government under Corbyn; the DUP threaten an election in a way to change the conservative leader; the conservatives will be out of office for decades, etc etc
The truth is anything can happen and there are so many variables it is impossible to predict. Some of these expectations including a Corbyn government are of course possible as is the re-election of a conservative government but they are not the certainty some on here proclaim
Interesting Boris is addressing the DUP conference. He really should join UKIP who are more in tune with his views. It was interesting that yesterday poll showed TM enhancing her popularity while the ERG and DUP spiral downwards and are the main losers so far
No Deal leaves one word engraved on May's political tombstone: "Backstop".
And on Barnier's.
Surely ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ is her legacy.
She is about to discover that No Deal is a consequence of her Bad Deal......
Turn up to the signing. Strike through the Backstop provisions. Initial the change. Sign the deal. Get back on the plane with "Over to you, guys. It's all I can get approved...."
She'd be a legend.
A thought I had would be what if there was an amendment to the meaningful vote to the effect that they were rejecting it but that they would have accepted it if the backstop was struck out.
No Deal leaves one word engraved on May's political tombstone: "Backstop".
And on Barnier's.
Surely ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ is her legacy.
She is about to discover that No Deal is a consequence of her Bad Deal......
Turn up to the signing. Strike through the Backstop provisions. Initial the change. Sign the deal. Get back on the plane with "Over to you, guys. It's all I can get approved...."
She'd be a legend.
A thought I had would be what if there was an amendment to the meaningful vote to the effect that they were rejecting it but that they would have accepted it if the backstop was struck out.
Hmm EU migrants haven't jumped any queue, more they had a right not to queue so to speak. I don't think it's a particularly racist remark though, more xenophobic perhaps.
She is using the colloquial language of the everyday man or woman in provincial Britain.
No xenophobia is meant by it, nor by them either, and whilst it might make some painfully right-on urban professionals wince - who generally read far too much into language and look for motives that usually aren’t there - it is simply a British way of expressing the debate in terms of fair play.
EU nationals had an automatic right of free movement, others did not, so she simply wants to make it fair by applying the same rules to everyone.
Utter bollox , she was encouraging the xenophobic Little Englanders
To be fair and going by your posts, Little Scotlanders aren’t very different.
Given the "abject humiliation" of a UK negotiating with a body six times its size, one wonders how Scot Nats think its going to go when Scotland negotiates with a country twelve times its size.....
One would hope rUK would negotiate with more strategic vision and flexibility than the EU have.
The EU is not a single country. It is a rules-based organisation founded on the civil law, which is immensely inflexible. By contrast, the rUK - read England - is one country and the negotiation will be done within the context of the common law, which is very flexible. Put another way, Scottish independence negotiations would be less constrained by procedure and process than the Brexit ones are.
Mr. Meeks, well, if you want to lambast more than half the nation as racist, that's up to you. It doesn't make a debate very informative, though.
I lambast those that campaigned and fell in enthusiastically behind that campaign, but now complain that the campaign message has been prioritised.
One can imagine a very different Brexit that allowed for trade deals and no immigration controls. But that was not campaigned for.
The beauty about having control of your own immigration policy is that you can campaign for a change in the rules to allow for no immigration controls.
Re DUP. Govt might as well take them at their word about “no divergence” and introduce votes on the floor of the HoC over abortion and the education system.
It's quite hard for a VoNC to pass the HoC, even with the DUP playing silly buggers.
It needs 323 MPS, not 326, as Sinn Fein don't take their seats. The Tories have 317 MPs plus the speaker.
Assuming all Tory MPs turn up and play ball, which they should, those last five or six MPs could be very interesting, particularly since there are several independent MPs right now, none of whom are fans of Corbyn and don't take a whip.
Despite what @HYUFD believes no sitting Tory MO will vote against the government, or abstain, in a VoNC
If May were toppled in a coup and replaced by a No Dealer (even if unlikely) I would not put it past Soubry, Wollaston, Grieve, Lee and Morgan to no confidence that hardline Brexiteer
Tory MPs are going around essentially calling each other traitors. The idea there's no chance a few of them might just say fuck it and vote against even at the cost of expulsion seems unwise. They are no longer a party they are a disorganised scrum at best.
Indeed, Soubry and Wollaston and Grieve are closer to the LDs than the ERG and the ERG closer to UKIP than Tory Remainers.
Mind you Labour is not much more united
It has been suggested to me Cameron arranged for Wollaston to "change her mind" during the referendum in order to undermine the Leave campaign.
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
Yesterday on radio I heard Digby Jones speaking up for Leave. It struck me as so unusual to have the Leave camp represented by someone other than the Thatcheite rump that I wondered if they'd employed professional help.
There's no obligation on the media to give equal time anymore so the Remainers-Peoples Voters- have been given a pretty clear run. Affable businessmen ex politicians everyone's favourite pop band actors TV personalities Sportsmen and most national treasures are always going to trump what can only be deescribed as misfits and ex Thatcherites. So though pompous and arrogant adding Digby Jones to the roster did seem significant.
Could it be that the powers that be recognise that the Remain campaign which has quietly continued since te referendum is posing a real threat and public opinion is now reaching tipping point?
Hmm EU migrants haven't jumped any queue, more they had a right not to queue so to speak. I don't think it's a particularly racist remark though, more xenophobic perhaps.
She is using the colloquial language of the everyday man or woman in provincial Britain.
No xenophobia is meant by it, nor by them either, and whilst it might make some painfully right-on urban professionals wince - who generally read far too much into language and look for motives that usually aren’t there - it is simply a British way of expressing the debate in terms of fair play.
EU nationals had an automatic right of free movement, others did not, so she simply wants to make it fair by applying the same rules to everyone.
Queue jumpers are sneaks and cheats. She called EU migrants queue jumpers. That was not a dog-whistle, it was foghorn designed to be heard loud and clear by people who, like May, are inherently suspicious and disdainful of foreigners.
All EU migrants played fair when they came here. They did not cheat in any way whatsoever. You do not have to be a right-on urban professional to believe that.
It is not the British way to call people cheats when they have played by the rules, when they have made a commitment to this country and when this country needs them in order to function.
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
However, this morning posters own expectations and hopes are expressed with a certainty that their version of events or political outcomes will prevail
Discussions on the second referendum and its wording reflect this with remainers wanting remain/deal, leavers deal - no deal, and many remain - deal - no deal.
Others maintain we will have a labour government under Corbyn; the DUP threaten an election in a way to change the conservative leader; the conservatives will be out of office for decades, etc etc
The truth is anything can happen and there are so many variables it is impossible to predict. Some of these expectations including a Corbyn government are of course possible as is the re-election of a conservative government but they are not the certainty some on here proclaim
Interesting Boris is addressing the DUP conference. He really should join UKIP who are more in tune with his views. It was interesting that yesterday poll showed TM enhancing her popularity while the ERG and DUP spiral downwards and are the main losers so far
I've got no idea what's going to happen: there are just too many variables and too many people / groups with objectives and tactics but no strategies.
I'm even unsure what I want to happen: I know I don't want a disorganised forced hard Brexit, and I know I want a successful country, but have no idea how to avoid the former and obtain the latter.
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
No Deal leaves one word engraved on May's political tombstone: "Backstop".
And on Barnier's.
Surely ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ is her legacy.
She is about to discover that No Deal is a consequence of her Bad Deal......
Turn up to the signing. Strike through the Backstop provisions. Initial the change. Sign the deal. Get back on the plane with "Over to you, guys. It's all I can get approved...."
She'd be a legend.
A thought I had would be what if there was an amendment to the meaningful vote to the effect that they were rejecting it but that they would have accepted it if the backstop was struck out.
Would put Labour in an interesting spot. If they didn't back the amendment because their "better deal" was not about the backstop - then what was it? What suddenly changes May's Deal to make it OK to sign?
Interesting take on where the DUP are at as they go into their conference. It seems they are stuck with their pact with the Conservatives and don't know what to do about May's Deal.
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
Hmm EU migrants haven't jumped any queue, more they had a right not to queue so to speak. I don't think it's a particularly racist remark though, more xenophobic perhaps.
She is using the colloquial language of the everyday man or woman in provincial Britain.
No xenophobia is meant by it, nor by them either, and whilst it might make some painfully right-on urban professionals wince - who generally read far too much into language and look for motives that usually aren’t there - it is simply a British way of expressing the debate in terms of fair play.
EU nationals had an automatic right of free movement, others did not, so she simply wants to make it fair by applying the same rules to everyone.
Well quite - the hand wringers of the modern day really lack any ability to think critically so consumed are they by their guilt of being white, middle-aged and comfortably off.
So you are happy to be labelled a queue jumper then, Felix? Because what applies to sneaky EU immigrants into the UK obviously applies to sneaky UK immigrants who cheat their way to the front to get into the EU27 countries.
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
However, this morning posters own expectations and hopes are expressed with a certainty that their version of events or political outcomes will prevail
Discussions on the second referendum and its wording reflect this with remainers wanting remain/deal, leavers deal - no deal, and many remain - deal - no deal.
Others maintain we will have a labour government under Corbyn; the DUP threaten an election in a way to change the conservative leader; the conservatives will be out of office for decades, etc etc
The truth is anything can happen and there are so many variables it is impossible to predict. Some of these expectations including a Corbyn government are of course possible as is the re-election of a conservative government but they are not the certainty some on here proclaim
Interesting Boris is addressing the DUP conference. He really should join UKIP who are more in tune with his views. It was interesting that yesterday poll showed TM enhancing her popularity while the ERG and DUP spiral downwards and are the main losers so far
Big_G, I think a lot of people are exploring possible scenarios. Nobody has any certainty on how this will play out - and as has been mentioned today, many people don't even know how they want it to play out.
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
The DUP have calculated that a no-deal Brexit with no backstop kills the Good Friday Agreement. That is their goal and that explains their behaviour.
I’m not,doubting you, but do you have any evidence? Your implication is that the DUP want the GFA to fail and to return to the troubles that presceeded it. That’s a pretty serious charge.
No evidence other than an attempt to frame an objective which matches their actions. Oh, and their unique position as a party of having opposed the GFA when it was enacted.
Hmm EU migrants haven't jumped any queue, more they had a right not to queue so to speak. I don't think it's a particularly racist remark though, more xenophobic perhaps.
She is using the colloquial language of the everyday man or woman in provincial Britain.
No xenophobia is meant by it, nor by them either, and whilst it might make some painfully right-on urban professionals wince - who generally read far too much into language and look for motives that usually aren’t there - it is simply a British way of expressing the debate in terms of fair play.
EU nationals had an automatic right of free movement, others did not, so she simply wants to make it fair by applying the same rules to everyone.
Utter bollox , she was encouraging the xenophobic Little Englanders
To be fair and going by your posts, Little Scotlanders aren’t very different.
Is May stronger or weaker than she was on polling day 2017? I
Corbyn is probably in my estimations is about back where he was. The Liberals are against the odds weaker. That might help May.
In what way?
Cable is useless.
Yes but how does that help May much? I think the effect is negligible.
Cable and LDs really have struggled in the current climate, maybe it is the media (ie less on BBC QT) and maybe it is the party still reeling post 2015 but they need some magic and fast. I was hoping a byelelction may have perked things up but nothing doing,
They need a selling point and really need to get a grip on how it is sold
Interesting take on where the DUP are at as they go into their conference. It seems they are stuck with their pact with the Conservatives and don't know what to do about May's Deal.
I think Stormont should be reconvened and elections held, NI needs an elected administration and one that can actually speak with credibility rather than Arlene F huffing and puffing - plus the DUP need to account for their behaviour over the energy scandal...
Is May stronger or weaker than she was on polling day 2017? I
Corbyn is probably in my estimations is about back where he was. The Liberals are against the odds weaker. That might help May.
In what way?
Cable is useless.
Yes but how does that help May much? I think the effect is negligible.
Cable and LDs really have struggled in the current climate, maybe it is the media (ie less on BBC QT) and maybe it is the party still reeling post 2015 but they need some magic and fast. I was hoping a byelelction may have perked things up but nothing doing,
They need a selling point and really need to get a grip on how it is sold
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
Surely it also contravenes the Belfast Agreement which enshrined the principle of "no change without consent"?
All that means is that were the backstop looking likely to come into force the people of Northern Ireland would have to be asked whether they were happy for it to happen. That could be done either via the Assembly, if it is back up and running, or via a referendum. Before that, of course, the transition agreement could be extended - so this is a possible issue for 2022, not now.
Hmm EU migrants haven't jumped any queue, more they had a right not to queue so to speak. I don't think it's a particularly racist remark though, more xenophobic perhaps.
She is using the colloquial language of the everyday man or woman in provincial Britain.
No xenophobia is meant by it, nor by them either, and whilst it might make some painfully right-on urban professionals wince - who generally read far too much into language and look for motives that usually aren’t there - it is simply a British way of expressing the debate in terms of fair play.
EU nationals had an automatic right of free movement, others did not, so she simply wants to make it fair by applying the same rules to everyone.
Utter bollox , she was encouraging the xenophobic Little Englanders
To be fair and going by your posts, Little Scotlanders aren’t very different.
Given the "abject humiliation" of a UK negotiating with a body six times its size, one wonders how Scot Nats think its going to go when Scotland negotiates with a country twelve times its size.....
One would hope rUK would negotiate with more strategic vision and flexibility than the EU have.
The EU is not a single country. It is a rules-based organisation founded on the civil law, which is immensely inflexible. By contrast, the rUK - read England - is one country and the negotiation will be done within the context of the common law, which is very flexible. Put another way, Scottish independence negotiations would be less constrained by procedure and process than the Brexit ones are.
Nonetheless they would still be just as bitter and with even more damage potentially for the Scottish economy as over 60% of Scottish exports go to rUK and if the UK leaves the single market that damage increases
Is May stronger or weaker than she was on polling day 2017? I
Corbyn is probably in my estimations is about back where he was. The Liberals are against the odds weaker. That might help May.
In what way?
Cable is useless.
Yes but how does that help May much? I think the effect is negligible.
Cable and LDs really have struggled in the current climate, maybe it is the media (ie less on BBC QT) and maybe it is the party still reeling post 2015 but they need some magic and fast. I was hoping a byelelction may have perked things up but nothing doing,
They need a selling point and really need to get a grip on how it is sold
They need a new leader.
To be fair, these are unusual, to say the least, times as the entire political class is focused on Brexit and the split in the Tory party, which may be on a par with the Peelites in the end.
Difficult to get a word in when its Blue on Blue from dawn till dusk.
Hmm EU migrants haven't jumped any queue, more they had a right not to queue so to speak. I don't think it's a particularly racist remark though, more xenophobic perhaps.
She is using the colloquial language of the everyday man or woman in provincial Britain.
No xenophobia is meant by it, nor by them either, and whilst it might make some painfully right-on urban professionals wince - who generally read far too much into language and look for motives that usually aren’t there - it is simply a British way of expressing the debate in terms of fair play.
EU nationals had an automatic right of free movement, others did not, so she simply wants to make it fair by applying the same rules to everyone.
Well quite - the hand wringers of the modern day really lack any ability to think critically so consumed are they by their guilt of being white, middle-aged and comfortably off.
So you are happy to be labelled a queue jumper then, Felix? Because what applies to sneaky EU immigrants into the UK obviously applies to sneaky UK immigrants who cheat their way to the front to get into the EU27 countries.
All the hyperbole in the world won't make May's comment what you want it to mean. I am well aware that it was easier to move to Spain via the EU - hence my remain vote. May's point that the UK should have the same approach to all immigrants is also a valid position. Maybe one the EU should adopt. As it goes Spain is atm less popular for immigrants generally than the UK.
Hmm EU migrants haven't jumped any queue, more they had a right not to queue so to speak. I don't think it's a particularly racist remark though, more xenophobic perhaps.
She is using the colloquial language of the everyday man or woman in provincial Britain.
No xenophobia is meant by it, nor by them either, and whilst it might make some painfully right-on urban professionals wince - who generally read far too much into language and look for motives that usually aren’t there - it is simply a British way of expressing the debate in terms of fair play.
EU nationals had an automatic right of free movement, others did not, so she simply wants to make it fair by applying the same rules to everyone.
Utter bollox , she was encouraging the xenophobic Little Englanders
To be fair and going by your posts, Little Scotlanders aren’t very different.
Given the "abject humiliation" of a UK negotiating with a body six times its size, one wonders how Scot Nats think its going to go when Scotland negotiates with a country twelve times its size.....
One would hope rUK would negotiate with more strategic vision and flexibility than the EU have.
The EU is not a single country. It is a rules-based organisation founded on the civil law, which is immensely inflexible. By contrast, the rUK - read England - is one country and the negotiation will be done within the context of the common law, which is very flexible. Put another way, Scottish independence negotiations would be less constrained by procedure and process than the Brexit ones are.
Nonetheless they would still be just as bitter and with even more damage potentially for the Scottish economy as over 60% of Scottish exports go to rUK and if the UK leaves the single market that damage increases
I think that is probably right. Our Little Englanders are not known for their equanimity or consistency. My point is more that there there would be fewer rules constraining a negotiation about the break-up of the UK - and fewer interests to consider. Civil law is a very different beast to common law. It is far more flexible.
Is May stronger or weaker than she was on polling day 2017? I
Corbyn is probably in my estimations is about back where he was. The Liberals are against the odds weaker. That might help May.
In what way?
Cable is useless.
Yes but how does that help May much? I think the effect is negligible.
Cable and LDs really have struggled in the current climate, maybe it is the media (ie less on BBC QT) and maybe it is the party still reeling post 2015 but they need some magic and fast. I was hoping a byelelction may have perked things up but nothing doing,
They need a selling point and really need to get a grip on how it is sold
They need a new leader.
A new everything.
Not a new everything but a new leader with a new mission/slogan and new radical policies that support the mission.
For the Many not the Few Liberté, égalité, fraternité Strong and Stable
I just saw Barnesian's comment that "They need a new leader."
My first assumption was they meant the Tories. Or maybe Labour.
Then I clicked to expand the quotes, turns out it's the LDs.
The world we live in, eh.
I'm a Corbynista now (except for Corbyn's position on the EU). But my mission locally is to defeat Zac and the Tories and the only way is through the LibDems. For that the LibDems need a new leader.
Actually I suspect the LibDems can defeat Zac anyway. Maybe I should help in a Tory/Labour marginal when the GE comes.
Yesterday on radio I heard Digby Jones speaking up for Leave. It struck me as so unusual to have the Leave camp represented by someone other than the Thatcheite rump that I wondered if they'd employed professional help.
There's no obligation on the media to give equal time anymore so the Remainers-Peoples Voters- have been given a pretty clear run. Affable businessmen ex politicians everyone's favourite pop band actors TV personalities Sportsmen and most national treasures are always going to trump what can only be deescribed as misfits and ex Thatcherites. So though pompous and arrogant adding Digby Jones to the roster did seem significant.
Could it be that the powers that be recognise that the Remain campaign which has quietly continued since te referendum is posing a real threat and public opinion is now reaching tipping point?
Digby Jones has made his career by by being confused with John Harvey Jones. The reference to national treasures makes me suspect you’re doing it too.
Is May stronger or weaker than she was on polling day 2017? I
Corbyn is probably in my estimations is about back where he was. The Liberals are against the odds weaker. That might help May.
In what way?
Cable is useless.
Yes but how does that help May much? I think the effect is negligible.
Cable and LDs really have struggled in the current climate, maybe it is the media (ie less on BBC QT) and maybe it is the party still reeling post 2015 but they need some magic and fast. I was hoping a byelelction may have perked things up but nothing doing,
They need a selling point and really need to get a grip on how it is sold
They need a new leader.
A new everything.
Wouldn't be good for the country but I wonder if one of the ERG crew taking over the Conservative party would be good for them. Any remain centrist types then still voting Tory would be tempted to switch. Without a big change in the Tories or Labour (or Brexit) I think they will remain a little stuck though polling might improve a bit.
Is May stronger or weaker than she was on polling day 2017? I
Corbyn is probably in my estimations is about back where he was. The Liberals are against the odds weaker. That might help May.
In what way?
Cable is useless.
Yes but how does that help May much? I think the effect is negligible.
Cable and LDs really have struggled in the current climate, maybe it is the media (ie less on BBC QT) and maybe it is the party still reeling post 2015 but they need some magic and fast. I was hoping a byelelction may have perked things up but nothing doing,
They need a selling point and really need to get a grip on how it is sold
They need a new leader.
A new everything.
Not a new everything but a new leader with a new mission/slogan and new radical policies that support the mission.
For the Many not the Few Liberté, égalité, fraternité Strong and Stable
They can keep the bird of liberty.
Absolutely. In fact I think their biggest issue is with their own members, of whom they have a fair few. They need to keep them engaged or they will drift off to other parties. The voters are important, but they won't be taking too much notice for a while.
Aside from what the question should be, and how the voters would respond to different combinations of questions, has anybody set out a serious analysis of what the route to choosing a referendum question would actually involve? What are the political dynamics, and the most likely choice to be put to voters?
As David said, it's difficult enough to see how a referendum gets through Parliament in time. But I am unsure how any particular question would get approved, since each variant clearly favours a certain side (and therefore hits the same problem that no side controls the Commons), some questions seem purely hypothetical (e.g. if there is no defined route for the UK to stay in the EU, can "Remain" even be a referendum option?) and other questions risk being completely overtaken by events (David notes that the referendum campaign would result in a negotiations freeze but that doesn't mean the whole world freezes - presumably various No Deal prep for example will still be going on behind the scenes, and it's conceivable that options for the UK could either be put on or taken off the table e.g. by joint declaration of EU27 leaders).
Hmm EU migrants haven't jumped any queue, more they had a right not to queue so to speak. I don't think it's a particularly racist remark though, more xenophobic perhaps.
She is using the colloquial language of the everyday man or woman in provincial Britain.
No xenophobia is meant by it, nor by them either, and whilst it might make some painfully right-on urban professionals wince - who generally read far too much into language and look for motives that usually aren’t there - it is simply a British way of expressing the debate in terms of fair play.
EU nationals had an automatic right of free movement, others did not, so she simply wants to make it fair by applying the same rules to everyone.
Well quite - the hand wringers of the modern day really lack any ability to think critically so consumed are they by their guilt of being white, middle-aged and comfortably off.
So you are happy to be labelled a queue jumper then, Felix? Because what applies to sneaky EU immigrants into the UK obviously applies to sneaky UK immigrants who cheat their way to the front to get into the EU27 countries.
All the hyperbole in the world won't make May's comment what you want it to mean. I am well aware that it was easier to move to Spain via the EU - hence my remain vote. May's point that the UK should have the same approach to all immigrants is also a valid position. Maybe one the EU should adopt. As it goes Spain is atm less popular for immigrants generally than the UK.
If you're happy to be seen as a sneaky queue jumper rather than as someone who legally and blamelessly settled in Spain because you were perfectly entitled to do so, so be it. May could have made the point you made using the language you chose. But she didn't. She called EU immigrants queue jumpers. Of course, she could also have pointed out that the only reason Australian engineers and Indian software developers cannot come to live and work in the UK now is because her government will not let them. Put she chose not to make that point either.
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
I think this misunderstands the constitutional position after Brexit. The UK government sets the law for Northern Ireland. It is under treaty obligation to shadow the same laws as the EU. What happens in case of breach is determined bilaterally between the UK and the EU. Individuals in Northern Ireland aren't party to that treaty. They are governed by the UK government.
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details. Either parliament does that or the people do. If, as you say (and you're right) that the public should not be expected to opine on 600+ pages of text, then that implies that it's parliament's job to sort it out.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
I think this misunderstands the constitutional position after Brexit. The UK government sets the law for Northern Ireland. It is under treaty obligation to shadow the same laws as the EU. What happens in case of breach is determined bilaterally between the UK and the EU. Individuals in Northern Ireland aren't party to that treaty. They are governed by the UK government.
Yeah well it doesn't seem a strong point, but sinking in this whirlpool one can but clutch at straws.
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
I think this misunderstands the constitutional position after Brexit. The UK government sets the law for Northern Ireland. It is under treaty obligation to shadow the same laws as the EU. What happens in case of breach is determined bilaterally between the UK and the EU. Individuals in Northern Ireland aren't party to that treaty. They are governed by the UK government.
In the case of the backstop:
On Customs: "Legislation as defined in point (2) of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council shall apply to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland (not including the territorial waters of the United Kingdom)."
Agriculture: "The provisions of Union law listed in Annex 5 to this Protocol shall apply, under the conditions set out therein, to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland"
State aid: "1. The provisions of Union law listed in Annex 8 to this Protocol shall apply to the United Kingdom [insofar as the affect trade to NI]"
Sounds directly applicable to me, so objectors have a point.
I initially wrote off this argument, but there is at least some merit in it.
EDIT: the same arguments are not nearly so strong in respect of the transition, which is time limited, or the FP where the position is more like your post.
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
Surely it also contravenes the Belfast Agreement which enshrined the principle of "no change without consent"?
All that means is that were the backstop looking likely to come into force the people of Northern Ireland would have to be asked whether they were happy for it to happen. That could be done either via the Assembly, if it is back up and running, or via a referendum. Before that, of course, the transition agreement could be extended - so this is a possible issue for 2022, not now.
I think some form of referendum in Northern Ireland is both inevitable and desirable. In the end I think the question will have to be asked of them; do they wish to stay aligned with the UK with a border (soft, hard or whatever we have by that time) with Eire or do they wish to align with Eire and the EU with some form of border in the Irish Sea?
It seems reasonable to ask this question in the next couple of years prior to final trade agreements being settled with the EU.
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
I think this misunderstands the constitutional position after Brexit. The UK government sets the law for Northern Ireland. It is under treaty obligation to shadow the same laws as the EU. What happens in case of breach is determined bilaterally between the UK and the EU. Individuals in Northern Ireland aren't party to that treaty. They are governed by the UK government.
In the case of the backstop:
On Customs: "Legislation as defined in point (2) of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council shall apply to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland (not including the territorial waters of the United Kingdom)."
Agriculture: "The provisions of Union law listed in Annex 5 to this Protocol shall apply, under the conditions set out therein, to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland"
State aid: "1. The provisions of Union law listed in Annex 8 to this Protocol shall apply to the United Kingdom [insofar as the affect trade to NI]"
Sounds directly applicable to me, so objectors have a point.
I initially wrote off this argument, but there is at least some merit in it.
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details. Either parliament does that or the people do. If, as you say (and you're right) that the public should not be expected to opine on 600+ pages of text, then that implies that it's parliament's job to sort it out.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
My subjective impression is that the vast majority of referendum advocates (at least of those in the public sphere; I'm not sure I have any great insight into the views of ordinary voters who support a second referendum in opinion polls) see"the point" as finding a democratic way to endorse their original preference, and overturn the first referendum without triggering a constitutional crisis.
Regardless of the rights or wrongs, it strikes me that this, combined with the Labour leadership's view that any crisis should be fully exploited for the electoral opportunities it contains, would make it very hard indeed to get a referendum through the Commons.
EDIT: Though Alastair's views are interesting and thoughtful, I think they are not representative of what "People's Voters" are mostly after. If a proposed referendum did not contain a plausible pathway towards Remain, I doubt many MPs whose cards are marked as "referendum supporters" would actually support that form of it.
The LibDems need a new party. They've had new leaders and they don't change the public perception that they sold their souls to the devil and more loyally voted for Tory bills than the Tories did. It's possible they could recover in a generation - and the previous Liberal party did so over several generations - but if they want to recover quicker than that they need a new party with a new name so that they can point to the Clegg aberration and say "that wasn't us"
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
I think this misunderstands the constitutional position after Brexit. The UK government sets the law for Northern Ireland. It is under treaty obligation to shadow the same laws as the EU. What happens in case of breach is determined bilaterally between the UK and the EU. Individuals in Northern Ireland aren't party to that treaty. They are governed by the UK government.
In the case of the backstop:
On Customs: "Legislation as defined in point (2) of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council shall apply to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland (not including the territorial waters of the United Kingdom)."
Agriculture: "The provisions of Union law listed in Annex 5 to this Protocol shall apply, under the conditions set out therein, to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland"
State aid: "1. The provisions of Union law listed in Annex 8 to this Protocol shall apply to the United Kingdom [insofar as the affect trade to NI]"
Sounds directly applicable to me, so objectors have a point.
I initially wrote off this argument, but there is at least some merit in it.
There cannot be any merit to it until it happens.
It is certainly true that it is difficult to bring a case to the ECtHR prior to the infringement being alleged.
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
Surely it also contravenes the Belfast Agreement which enshrined the principle of "no change without consent"?
All that means is that were the backstop looking likely to come into force the people of Northern Ireland would have to be asked whether they were happy for it to happen. That could be done either via the Assembly, if it is back up and running, or via a referendum. Before that, of course, the transition agreement could be extended - so this is a possible issue for 2022, not now.
I think some form of referendum in Northern Ireland is both inevitable and desirable. In the end I think the question will have to be asked of them; do they wish to stay aligned with the UK with a border (soft, hard or whatever we have by that time) with Eire or do they wish to align with Eire and the EU with some form of border in the Irish Sea?
It seems reasonable to ask this question in the next couple of years prior to final trade agreements being settled with the EU.
The point about the free trade agreement that May wants to do is that it will avoid the back stop by finding a solution to the hard border problem and being applicable across the whole UK. The danger of a referendum - which may be unavoidable, I agree - is that it becomes a de facto border poll.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
My subjective impression is that the vast majority of referendum advocates (at least of those in the public sphere; I'm not sure I have any great insight into the views of ordinary voters who support a second referendum in opinion polls) see"the point" as finding a democratic way to endorse their original preference, and overturn the first referendum without triggering a constitutional crisis.
Regardless of the rights or wrongs, it strikes me that this, combined with the Labour leadership's view that any crisis should be fully exploited for the electoral opportunities it contains, would make it very hard indeed to get a referendum through the Commons.
EDIT: Though Alastair's views are interesting and thoughtful, I think they are not representative of what "People's Voters" are mostly after. If a proposed referendum did not contain a plausible pathway towards Remain, I doubt many MPs whose cards are marked as "referendum supporters" would actually support that form of it.
I cannot see the Labour leadership backing a referendum. A lot of Labour MPs might, but not enough to get it through the Commons. The most likely scenario from here is that at some point MPs will be faced with a May Deal or No Deal choice. At that point May's deal gets through.
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details. Either parliament does that or the people do. If, as you say (and you're right) that the public should not be expected to opine on 600+ pages of text, then that implies that it's parliament's job to sort it out.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
There is a deal. The question is what we as a nation do with it. Parliament is not capable of making that decision because of the legacy of the 2016 mandate, so we need the people to make that decision in a binary referendum. Either we ratify the withdrawal agreement and leave the EU, or we revoke notification and Remain.
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
I think this misunderstands the constitutional position after Brexit. The UK government sets the law for Northern Ireland. It is under treaty obligation to shadow the same laws as the EU. What happens in case of breach is determined bilaterally between the UK and the EU. Individuals in Northern Ireland aren't party to that treaty. They are governed by the UK government.
Surely that only applies until such times as devolution starts again. At that point many of the matters that are covered by the backstop are actually devolved issues to be decided by the Assembly. So you cannot then claim that they are governed by the UK government and nor can the concerns about representation be ignored. Geoff's point stands.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
My subjective impression is that the vast majority of referendum advocates (at least of those in the public sphere; I'm not sure I have any great insight into the views of ordinary voters who support a second referendum in opinion polls) see"the point" as finding a democratic way to endorse their original preference, and overturn the first referendum without triggering a constitutional crisis.
Regardless of the rights or wrongs, it strikes me that this, combined with the Labour leadership's view that any crisis should be fully exploited for the electoral opportunities it contains, would make it very hard indeed to get a referendum through the Commons.
EDIT: Though Alastair's views are interesting and thoughtful, I think they are not representative of what "People's Voters" are mostly after. If a proposed referendum did not contain a plausible pathway towards Remain, I doubt many MPs whose cards are marked as "referendum supporters" would actually support that form of it.
I cannot see the Labour leadership backing a referendum. A lot of Labour MPs might, but not enough to get it through the Commons. The most likely scenario from here is that at some point MPs will be faced with a May Deal or No Deal choice. At that point May's deal gets through.
My MP has been championing a people's vote long before it became a respectable idea. It is only something you would deploy when the political system has failed - when we have a government incapable of passing laws but incapable of being removed.
Corbyn has his eyes on the prize - a General Election. But he is a prisoner of the membership, and having ruthlessly torn through the party process by writ of the membership he can hardly now ignore the membership demanding a fresh vote, especially on such a key issue.
For my 2,500th post can I query the process that allows HMG to publicly hand out gongs in exchange for votes? In what way is this remotely allowable by convention?
I cannot see the Labour leadership backing a referendum. A lot of Labour MPs might, but not enough to get it through the Commons. The most likely scenario from here is [not a referendum]
In present circumstances, 100% agreed.
(a) Could someone who thinks that there is going to be a referendum, or at least that it is feasible/plausible/likely, explain why they think SO and I are wrong?
(b) Even if SO and I are correct that the referendum is not a likely outcome from this point, we are indeed facing a set of implausible outcomes of which one must happen, so let's just say it turns out there is a referendum. What needs to change between now and then for this to occur? Given we are in the hypothetical world where a referendum takes place, what form of wording is most likely to get through the Commons? Who would conceivably back each set of question options? Because I'm having such a difficulty even imagining a referendum taking place at all, I don't feel I have any handle whatsoever on which variants of a referendum scenario are more likely than others.
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details. Either parliament does that or the people do. If, as you say (and you're right) that the public should not be expected to opine on 600+ pages of text, then that implies that it's parliament's job to sort it out.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
There is a deal. The question is what we as a nation do with it. Parliament is not capable of making that decision because of the legacy of the 2016 mandate, so we need the people to make that decision in a binary referendum. Either we ratify the withdrawal agreement and leave the EU, or we revoke notification and Remain.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
My subjective impression is that the vast majority of referendum advocates (at least of those in the public sphere; I'm not sure I have any great insight into the views of ordinary voters who support a second referendum in opinion polls) see"the point" as finding a democratic way to endorse their original preference, and overturn the first referendum without triggering a constitutional crisis.
Regardless of the rights or wrongs, it strikes me that this, combined with the Labour leadership's view that any crisis should be fully exploited for the electoral opportunities it contains, would make it very hard indeed to get a referendum through the Commons.
EDIT: Though Alastair's views are interesting and thoughtful, I think they are not representative of what "People's Voters" are mostly after. If a proposed referendum did not contain a plausible pathway towards Remain, I doubt many MPs whose cards are marked as "referendum supporters" would actually support that form of it.
I cannot see the Labour leadership backing a referendum. A lot of Labour MPs might, but not enough to get it through the Commons. The most likely scenario from here is that at some point MPs will be faced with a May Deal or No Deal choice. At that point May's deal gets through.
My MP has been championing a people's vote long before it became a respectable idea. It is only something you would deploy when the political system has failed - when we have a government incapable of passing laws but incapable of being removed.
Corbyn has his eyes on the prize - a General Election. But he is a prisoner of the membership, and having ruthlessly torn through the party process by writ of the membership he can hardly now ignore the membership demanding a fresh vote, especially on such a key issue.
Of course he can. The membership will forgive him anything this side of a general election. He had better win it when it happens though.
For my 2,500th post can I query the process that allows HMG to publicly hand out gongs in exchange for votes? In what way is this remotely allowable by convention?
Agreed. It is a ridiculous situation. I am in favour of gongs/awards etc for service to the country in many different forms but it should be entirely independent of Government or even Parliament.
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
That could be a turn up for the books for Theresa. Would certainly help her position if the backstop was illegal and the EU had to drop it at the last minute.
Hmm EU migrants haven't jumped any queue, more they had a right not to queue so to speak. I don't think it's a particularly racist remark though, more xenophobic perhaps.
She is using the colloquial language of the everyday man or woman in provincial Britain.
No xenophobia is meant by it, nor by them either, and whilst it might make some painfully right-on urban professionals wince - who generally read far too much into language and look for motives that usually aren’t there - it is simply a British way of expressing the debate in terms of fair play.
EU nationals had an automatic right of free movement, others did not, so she simply wants to make it fair by applying the same rules to everyone.
Utter bollox , she was encouraging the xenophobic Little Englanders
To be fair and going by your posts, Little Scotlanders aren’t very different.
Given the "abject humiliation" of a UK negotiating with a body six times its size, one wonders how Scot Nats think its going to go when Scotland negotiates with a country twelve times its size.....
A lot better than the Tory turkeys have managed for sure, SNP have at least some competent people, they don't just use toffs and oxford/Cambridge PPE's
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details. Either parliament does that or the people do. If, as you say (and you're right) that the public should not be expected to opine on 600+ pages of text, then that implies that it's parliament's job to sort it out.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
There is a deal. The question is what we as a nation do with it. Parliament is not capable of making that decision because of the legacy of the 2016 mandate, so we need the people to make that decision in a binary referendum. Either we ratify the withdrawal agreement and leave the EU, or we revoke notification and Remain.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
Yesterday on radio I heard Digby Jones speaking up for Leave. It struck me as so unusual to have the Leave camp represented by someone other than the Thatcheite rump that I wondered if they'd employed professional help.
There's no obligation on the media to give equal time anymore so the Remainers-Peoples Voters- have been given a pretty clear run. Affable businessmen ex politicians everyone's favourite pop band actors TV personalities Sportsmen and most national treasures are always going to trump what can only be deescribed as misfits and ex Thatcherites. So though pompous and arrogant adding Digby Jones to the roster did seem significant.
Could it be that the powers that be recognise that the Remain campaign which has quietly continued since te referendum is posing a real threat and public opinion is now reaching tipping point?
Digby Jones has made his career by by being confused with John Harvey Jones. The reference to national treasures makes me suspect you’re doing it too.
I mustn't have made myself clear. He is a pompous arrogant ignoramus. However he is something different to the freaks circus we have been presented with so far. My point was that there are no spokesmen at all other than the usual suspects openly supporting Leave so though it is scraping the barrel someone must have decided that they needed a new face. Even if only Z listers were available.
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
I think this misunderstands the constitutional position after Brexit. The UK government sets the law for Northern Ireland. It is under treaty obligation to shadow the same laws as the EU. What happens in case of breach is determined bilaterally between the UK and the EU. Individuals in Northern Ireland aren't party to that treaty. They are governed by the UK government.
Surely that only applies until such times as devolution starts again. At that point many of the matters that are covered by the backstop are actually devolved issues to be decided by the Assembly. So you cannot then claim that they are governed by the UK government and nor can the concerns about representation be ignored. Geoff's point stands.
I agree Vassalage has big practical problems and it won't just apply to Northern Ireland after Brexit, probably. I was challenging that it is an illegal arrangement.
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details. Either parliament does that or the people do. If, as you say (and you're right) that the public should not be expected to opine on 600+ pages of text, then that implies that it's parliament's job to sort it out.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
There is a deal. The question is what we as a nation do with it. Parliament is not capable of making that decision because of the legacy of the 2016 mandate, so we need the people to make that decision in a binary referendum. Either we ratify the withdrawal agreement and leave the EU, or we revoke notification and Remain.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
Nope. Asking the same question again before the result of the first vote is enacted is illegitimate. It is a basic assault on democracy. Unless of course you are from the Barnesian camp which sees democracy as an unnecessary evil.
The pound, and the Bank of England moves to Edinburgh, and Scottish people get free access to English public services but not vice versa Otherwise it's not really leaving. If England doesn't like it they're evil Nazis.
I see all the loonies have been let out now, good old Little Englanders. Hope the jackboots have been polished properly, what a bunch of xenophobic losers there are on here, obsessed by their inferiority complex re Scotland. The envy is palpable.
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
I think this misunderstands the constitutional position after Brexit. The UK government sets the law for Northern Ireland. It is under treaty obligation to shadow the same laws as the EU. What happens in case of breach is determined bilaterally between the UK and the EU. Individuals in Northern Ireland aren't party to that treaty. They are governed by the UK government.
Surely that only applies until such times as devolution starts again. At that point many of the matters that are covered by the backstop are actually devolved issues to be decided by the Assembly. So you cannot then claim that they are governed by the UK government and nor can the concerns about representation be ignored. Geoff's point stands.
I agree Vassalage has big practical problems and it won't just apply to Northern Ireland after Brexit, probably. I was challenging that it is a legally invalid arrangement
I suspect it will indeed be considered legally invalid if it is ever changed. The problem for May being that that probably couldn't happen until the backstop is actually enforced.
Yesterday on radio I heard Digby Jones speaking up for Leave. It struck me as so unusual to have the Leave camp represented by someone other than the Thatcheite rump that I wondered if they'd employed professional help.
There's no obligation on the media to give equal time anymore so the Remainers-Peoples Voters- have been given a pretty clear run. Affable businessmen ex politicians everyone's favourite pop band actors TV personalities Sportsmen and most national treasures are always going to trump what can only be deescribed as misfits and ex Thatcherites. So though pompous and arrogant adding Digby Jones to the roster did seem significant.
Could it be that the powers that be recognise that the Remain campaign which has quietly continued since te referendum is posing a real threat and public opinion is now reaching tipping point?
Digby Jones has made his career by by being confused with John Harvey Jones. The reference to national treasures makes me suspect you’re doing it too.
I mustn't have made myself clear. He is a pompous arrogant ignoramus. However he is something different to the freaks circus we have been presented with so far. My point was that there are no spokesmen at all other than the usual suspects openly supporting Leave so though it is scraping the barrel someone must have decided that they needed a new face. Even if only Z listers were available.
Roger, it is probably unconscious, but your last sentence is a peach.
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
There is a deal. The question is what we as a nation do with it. Parliament is not capable of making that decision because of the legacy of the 2016 mandate, so we need the people to make that decision in a binary referendum. Either we ratify the withdrawal agreement and leave the EU, or we revoke notification and Remain.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
Nope. Asking the same question again before the result of the first vote is enacted is illegitimate. It is a basic assault on democracy. Unless of course you are from the Barnesian camp which sees democracy as an unnecessary evil.
Yesterday on radio I heard Digby Jones speaking up for Leave. It struck me as so unusual to have the Leave camp represented by someone other than the Thatcheite rump that I wondered if they'd employed professional help.
There's no obligation on the media to give equal time anymore so the Remainers-Peoples Voters- have been given a pretty clear run. Affable businessmen ex politicians everyone's favourite pop band actors TV personalities Sportsmen and most national treasures are always going to trump what can only be deescribed as misfits and ex Thatcherites. So though pompous and arrogant adding Digby Jones to the roster did seem significant.
Could it be that the powers that be recognise that the Remain campaign which has quietly continued since te referendum is posing a real threat and public opinion is now reaching tipping point?
Digby Jones has made his career by by being confused with John Harvey Jones. The reference to national treasures makes me suspect you’re doing it too.
I mustn't have made myself clear. He is a pompous arrogant ignoramus. However he is something different to the freaks circus we have been presented with so far. My point was that there are no spokesmen at all other than the usual suspects openly supporting Leave so though it is scraping the barrel someone must have decided that they needed a new face. Even if only Z listers were available.
He's been making the case for the Tories and Brexit for a while now. He spoke at their conference with May in the audience, a bit lower profile than some of the others.
The LibDems need a new party. They've had new leaders and they don't change the public perception that they sold their souls to the devil and more loyally voted for Tory bills than the Tories did. It's possible they could recover in a generation - and the previous Liberal party did so over several generations - but if they want to recover quicker than that they need a new party with a new name so that they can point to the Clegg aberration and say "that wasn't us"
But the Lib Dems are a cult and the people in the party like the ERG are so convinced of their own self importance that they can't change.
Oh joy! James Forsythe points out that the backstop could be illegal.
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
I think this misunderstands the constitutional position after Brexit. The UK government sets the law for Northern Ireland. It is under treaty obligation to shadow the same laws as the EU. What happens in case of breach is determined bilaterally between the UK and the EU. Individuals in Northern Ireland aren't party to that treaty. They are governed by the UK government.
Surely that only applies until such times as devolution starts again. At that point many of the matters that are covered by the backstop are actually devolved issues to be decided by the Assembly. So you cannot then claim that they are governed by the UK government and nor can the concerns about representation be ignored. Geoff's point stands.
I agree Vassalage has big practical problems and it won't just apply to Northern Ireland after Brexit, probably. I was challenging that it is an illegal arrangement.
Edit And nice to see you back.
Of course, the people of Northern Ireland have the freedom to choose whether or not to retain their EU citizenship. Lucky them!
There is a deal. The question is what we as a nation do with it. Parliament is not capable of making that decision because of the legacy of the 2016 mandate, so we need the people to make that decision in a binary referendum. Either we ratify the withdrawal agreement and leave the EU, or we revoke notification and Remain.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
Regardless of whether you see Richard's view as fundamentally right or wrong (and, unsurprisingly, this seems to be rather closely correlated with what people thought of the first referendum result...) it's an opinion that a lot of people hold. Including, I suspect, sufficient MPs to prevent a referendum* getting through Parliament unless Labour's front bench support one.
* (Other than a question that takes the previous referendum as given and so closes out "remain" as an option - "Deal" vs "No Deal" might fail for other reasons, of course, but not what I'm suggesting here.)
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
Nope. Asking the same question again before the result of the first vote is enacted is illegitimate. It is a basic assault on democracy. Unless of course you are from the Barnesian camp which sees democracy as an unnecessary evil.
Referendums have had no place in our democratic traditions and it's offensive to seek to impose dubious rules about their legitimacy.
Hmm EU migrants haven't jumped any queue, more they had a right not to queue so to speak. I don't think it's a particularly racist remark though, more xenophobic perhaps.
She is using the colloquial language of the everyday man or woman in provincial Britain.
No xenophobia is meant by it, nor by them either, and whilst it might make some painfully right-on urban professionals wince - who generally read far too much into language and look for motives that usually aren’t there - it is simply a British way of expressing the debate in terms of fair play.
EU nationals had an automatic right of free movement, others did not, so she simply wants to make it fair by applying the same rules to everyone.
Utter bollox , she was encouraging the xenophobic Little Englanders
To be fair and going by your posts, Little Scotlanders aren’t very different.
Except they are even littler and can't do sports.
Like that great Scot Andy Murray ?
(Or David Coulthard, or Jackie Stewart ... )
I was thinking more of team performances.
LOL, redneck for you , who would have imagined you would be harking back to 1066 for your only ever victory
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to de And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
There is a deal. The question is what we as a nation do with it. Parliament is not capable of making that decision because of the legacy of the 2016 mandate, so we need the people to make that decision in a binary referendum. Either we ratify the withdrawal agreement and leave the EU, or we revoke notification and Remain.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
Nope. Asking the same question again before the result of the first vote is enacted is illegitimate. It is a basic assault on democracy. Unless of course you are from the Barnesian camp which sees democracy as an unnecessary evil.
Incidentally I don't think democracy is an unnecessary evil But it is a means not an end in itself. Sometimes it is an imperfect means in an imperfect democracy such as ours. It is not the golden calf.
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details. Either parliament does that or the people do. If, as you say (and you're right) that the public should not be expected to opine on 600+ pages of text, then that implies that it's parliament's job to sort it out.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
There is a deal. The question is what we as a nation do with it. Parliament is not capable of making that decision because of the legacy of the 2016 mandate, so we need the people to make that decision in a binary referendum. Either we ratify the withdrawal agreement and leave the EU, or we revoke notification and Remain.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
you should have added "supposed" in front of democracy there
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details. Either parliament does that or the people do. If, as you say (and you're right) that the public should not be expected to opine on 600+ pages of text, then that implies that it's parliament's job to sort it out.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
There is a deal. The question is what we as a nation do with it. Parliament is not capable of making that decision because of the legacy of the 2016 mandate, so we need the people to make that decision in a binary referendum. Either we ratify the withdrawal agreement and leave the EU, or we revoke notification and Remain.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
you should have added "supposed" in front of democracy there
Whose lawn are you planning on parking your tiger tank on Mr G?
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
Nope. Asking the same question again before the result of the first vote is enacted is illegitimate. It is a basic assault on democracy. Unless of course you are from the Barnesian camp which sees democracy as an unnecessary evil.
Referendums have had no place in our democratic traditions and it's offensive to seek to impose dubious rules about their legitimacy.
All rules are subject to revision if parliament feels it appropriate. That is what sovereignty is about.
For my 2,500th post can I query the process that allows HMG to publicly hand out gongs in exchange for votes? In what way is this remotely allowable by convention?
Agreed. It is a ridiculous situation. I am in favour of gongs/awards etc for service to the country in many different forms but it should be entirely independent of Government or even Parliament.
Yet another issue which Brexit could provide an opportunity to address as part of a "National reboot." And yet another which Brexit supporters rarely, if ever, raise.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
Nope. Asking the same question again before the result of the first vote is enacted is illegitimate. It is a basic assault on democracy. Unless of course you are from the Barnesian camp which sees democracy as an unnecessary evil.
Referendums have had no place in our democratic traditions and it's offensive to seek to impose dubious rules about their legitimacy.
Referendums have had a place in Britain's democracy for nearly fifty years now. I'd say that was something of a convention. In particular, they've been used regularly since 1997 - itself more than 20 years ago now - under governments involving all three established parties and have never been seriously challenged as a legitimate form of deciding first-order issues. Indeed, going back to the Maastricht debates, and certain other EU treary ratifications since, the *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones. No-one seriously suggested that the right way to determine the question of Scottish independence was through a vote in Holyrood, and nor do they now. Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it.
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details. Either parliament does that or the people do. If, as you say (and you're right) that the public should not be expected to opine on 600+ pages of text, then that implies that it's parliament's job to sort it out.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
you should have added "supposed" in front of democracy there
Whose lawn are you planning on parking your tiger tank on Mr G?
LOL, Just getting prepared, going to be a few torrid years ahead. PS: it is TIKI and I bought a custom painted RC model of this particular tank for my grandson, really smart model.
All options look implausible from here. One has to occur.
Trying to renegotiate looks more of a timewasting distraction to me than a second referendum. A second referendum, however, should not include a Deal option. Either Parliament blesses the deal or it is discarded. The public should not be expected to opine on 500 page documents but on concepts.
That's how we got into this mess in the first place. It's also an unsustainable basis for a vote to put the same question again. The question of concepts was decided in 2016. Now is the time to decide on details. Either parliament does that or the people do. If, as you say (and you're right) that the public should not be expected to opine on 600+ pages of text, then that implies that it's parliament's job to sort it out.
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
I see no case for a referendum if there is a deal. But that presently looks unlikely.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
There is going to be a political tornado whatever happens.
Nope, the decision on staying or going was already taken in 2016. The only legitimate vote would be on whether we accept or reject the deal with the alternative being No Deal. Reopening the question of Remaining has no legitimacy.
We're a democracy. Any vote based on choosing between deliverable alternatives is legitimate. You're free to abstain.
Nope. Asking the same question again before the result of the first vote is enacted is illegitimate. It is a basic assault on democracy. Unless of course you are from the Barnesian camp which sees democracy as an unnecessary evil.
Referendums have had no place in our democratic traditions and it's offensive to seek to impose dubious rules about their legitimacy.
Referendums have had a place in Britain's democracy for nearly fifty years now. I'd say that was something of a convention. In particular, they've been used regularly since 1997 - itself more than 20 years ago now - under governments involving all three established parties and have never been seriously challenged as a legitimate form of deciding first-order issues. Indeed, going back to the Maastricht debates, and certain other EU treary ratifications since, the *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones. No-one seriously suggested that the right way to determine the question of Scottish independence was through a vote in Holyrood, and nor do they now. Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it.
"The *denial* of a referendum caused more fuss than the granting of other ones."
What does that tell you about the present situation? Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it. People will not tolerate having a Brexit deal imposed without a people's vote.
at what point does the case for a referendum on Northern Ireland's status become hard to challenge? If Catholics outnumber Protestants at the 2021 census is that the trigger?
Or will it be driven by a succession of opinion polls saying there is a majority in favour?
Comments
Mind you Labour is not much more united
In the past they were let to the front of the queue. Now they won’t be.
It’s a slightly perjorative choice of words but it’s ridiculous to describe them as “evil”.
Terrorism is evil. Murder is evil. The difference between “go to the front of the queue” and “jump the queue” is not.
However, this morning posters own expectations and hopes are expressed with a certainty that their version of events or political outcomes will prevail
Discussions on the second referendum and its wording reflect this with remainers wanting remain/deal, leavers deal - no deal, and many remain - deal - no deal.
Others maintain we will have a labour government under Corbyn; the DUP threaten an election in a way to change the conservative leader; the conservatives will be out of office for decades, etc etc
The truth is anything can happen and there are so many variables it is impossible to predict. Some of these expectations including a Corbyn government are of course possible as is the re-election of a conservative government but they are not the certainty some on here proclaim
Interesting Boris is addressing the DUP conference. He really should join UKIP who are more in tune with his views. It was interesting that yesterday poll showed TM enhancing her popularity while the ERG and DUP spiral downwards and are the main losers so far
I’d even donate to your party
The so-called backstop would see various EU rules and regulations apply in Northern Ireland even after the UK has left the EU.
But this provision might be illegal under European Human Rights law. The Matthews case brought against the UK Government in 1999 established that people have a right to vote in elections to the parliaments that set their laws.
Under the backstop, the European parliament would help decide the law in Northern Ireland but without any representation for the people of Northern Ireland.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/opinion/7817034/theresa-mays-brexit-blueprint-tory-rebellion/
https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-green-party-haidhausen-munich-elections-social-democrats-spd-is-the-new-red/
There's no obligation on the media to give equal time anymore so the Remainers-Peoples Voters- have been given a pretty clear run. Affable businessmen ex politicians everyone's favourite pop band actors TV personalities Sportsmen and most national treasures are always going to trump what can only be deescribed as misfits and ex Thatcherites. So though pompous and arrogant adding Digby Jones to the roster did seem significant.
Could it be that the powers that be recognise that the Remain campaign which has quietly continued since te referendum is posing a real threat and public opinion is now reaching tipping point?
All EU migrants played fair when they came here. They did not cheat in any way whatsoever. You do not have to be a right-on urban professional to believe that.
It is not the British way to call people cheats when they have played by the rules, when they have made a commitment to this country and when this country needs them in order to function.
I'm even unsure what I want to happen: I know I don't want a disorganised forced hard Brexit, and I know I want a successful country, but have no idea how to avoid the former and obtain the latter.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/24/dup-theresa-may-party-conference-brexit-deal-conservatives
(OK, find a person who wants to take it. You know what I mean.)
My first assumption was they meant the Tories. Or maybe Labour.
Then I clicked to expand the quotes, turns out it's the LDs.
The world we live in, eh.
Difficult to get a word in when its Blue on Blue from dawn till dusk.
For the Many not the Few
Liberté, égalité, fraternité
Strong and Stable
They can keep the bird of liberty.
Actually I suspect the LibDems can defeat Zac anyway. Maybe I should help in a Tory/Labour marginal when the GE comes.
As David said, it's difficult enough to see how a referendum gets through Parliament in time. But I am unsure how any particular question would get approved, since each variant clearly favours a certain side (and therefore hits the same problem that no side controls the Commons), some questions seem purely hypothetical (e.g. if there is no defined route for the UK to stay in the EU, can "Remain" even be a referendum option?) and other questions risk being completely overtaken by events (David notes that the referendum campaign would result in a negotiations freeze but that doesn't mean the whole world freezes - presumably various No Deal prep for example will still be going on behind the scenes, and it's conceivable that options for the UK could either be put on or taken off the table e.g. by joint declaration of EU27 leaders).
And here's the point: even if there is a referendum on 'concepts', it would *still* be parliament's job to agree the details - so unless you're trying overturn the previous result before it could be enacted, what's the point?
On Customs: "Legislation as defined in point (2) of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council shall apply to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland (not including the territorial waters of the United Kingdom)."
Agriculture: "The provisions of Union law listed in Annex 5 to this Protocol shall apply, under the conditions set out therein, to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland"
State aid: "1. The provisions of Union law listed in Annex 8 to this Protocol shall apply to the United Kingdom [insofar as the affect trade to NI]"
Sounds directly applicable to me, so objectors have a point.
I initially wrote off this argument, but there is at least some merit in it.
EDIT: the same arguments are not nearly so strong in respect of the transition, which is time limited, or the FP where the position is more like your post.
It seems reasonable to ask this question in the next couple of years prior to final trade agreements being settled with the EU.
The previous result gave no mandate for no deal Brexit. No one suggested that would happen. There is no previous result to overturn if the deal is rejected. The choice that everyone thought they were making turned out to be unavailable. Time for an update.
To be clear, I think I would abstain in such a referendum. For me this is not about a reversal but about the country choosing between two highly unappetising options given where we now are. Proceeding without a mandate to a no deal Brexit supported actively by just a third of the population would be a recipe for a political tornado.
Regardless of the rights or wrongs, it strikes me that this, combined with the Labour leadership's view that any crisis should be fully exploited for the electoral opportunities it contains, would make it very hard indeed to get a referendum through the Commons.
EDIT: Though Alastair's views are interesting and thoughtful, I think they are not representative of what "People's Voters" are mostly after. If a proposed referendum did not contain a plausible pathway towards Remain, I doubt many MPs whose cards are marked as "referendum supporters" would actually support that form of it.
For supporters: dexter a cock rampant gardant, sinister a chicken armed, crined and unguled.
Deal passed by HoC = Bowler hatted nutters salute the "fleg" and cave the government in.
Deal not passed by HoC = MPs made to vote again, possibly with some changes to the deal but not really and possibly not with May as PM.
I just got James Cleverly for my Panini Brexit sticker album so I'm pretty amped on that.
Corbyn has his eyes on the prize - a General Election. But he is a prisoner of the membership, and having ruthlessly torn through the party process by writ of the membership he can hardly now ignore the membership demanding a fresh vote, especially on such a key issue.
(a) Could someone who thinks that there is going to be a referendum, or at least that it is feasible/plausible/likely, explain why they think SO and I are wrong?
(b) Even if SO and I are correct that the referendum is not a likely outcome from this point, we are indeed facing a set of implausible outcomes of which one must happen, so let's just say it turns out there is a referendum. What needs to change between now and then for this to occur? Given we are in the hypothetical world where a referendum takes place, what form of wording is most likely to get through the Commons? Who would conceivably back each set of question options? Because I'm having such a difficulty even imagining a referendum taking place at all, I don't feel I have any handle whatsoever on which variants of a referendum scenario are more likely than others.
Edit And nice to see you back.
* (Other than a question that takes the previous referendum as given and so closes out "remain" as an option - "Deal" vs "No Deal" might fail for other reasons, of course, but not what I'm suggesting here.)
But it is a means not an end in itself. Sometimes it is an imperfect means in an imperfect democracy such as ours. It is not the golden calf.
And yet another which Brexit supporters rarely, if ever, raise.
Post of the morning!
PS: it is TIKI and I bought a custom painted RC model of this particular tank for my grandson, really smart model.
What does that tell you about the present situation? Referendums are now a part of Britain's constitution; live with it. People will not tolerate having a Brexit deal imposed without a people's vote.
Or will it be driven by a succession of opinion polls saying there is a majority in favour?