So, you concede I'm right then: this deal is nothing like Norway, which has no such right.
You've basically moved your argument onto: the UK will have all these powers, but will make a policy decision to choose to align itself to all the EU rules anyway.
No, you are being deceived by smoke and mirrors. The deal isn't a deal at all, by its nature. None of the essential trade-offs are conceded by either side, which means the UK is still left with the same stark choice of divergence coming at the cost of a border in the Irish sea, and restrictions on free movement coming at the cost of an economic hit. May's victory is just in getting the EU to play along with the charade to get the WA over the line.
This is correct. With the exception of the Irish border, the trade offs are left until later. And in the case of the Irish border the trade off is now constrained to no divergence from the EU or leave Northern Ireland on the other side of an Irish Sea regulatory border, neither of which is acceptable to the current government.
People like you and WilliamGlenn will argue Brexit is pointless, meaningless, vassalage until your dying breath, regardless of its political outcome, or the policy decisions the UK makes.
I could see both of you arguing on here in fifteen years time that every decision the UK Government made - with many years of the new arrangement under its belt - was either informed or influenced by the EU, or would lead to exclusion or punishment by the EU, or the eventual destruction of the UK. Which would never come.
Fair enough, you are both true believers, but don't pretend to be objective in this or taken seriously.
We know parties and parliament can’t solve this. It has to be put back to the people.
And it is not at all certain today the people would. Only needs Boris to paint a picture of Junckers and the rest raising a glass to UK capitulating to the EU to see tens of thousands recoiling at the thought
It's a risk. But it is a near certainty our MPs won't agree something.
Right but on @solarflare's scheme that's not the question they'd have to answer. The question they'd have to answer would be "although you prefer Deal to No Deal, are you prepared to risk No Deal to get a shot at Remain?"
Fair enough but if No Deal is the preferred Leave option to face Remain so be it, for the final Brexit to be legitimate it has to be the most popular choice of the voters
We know parties and parliament can’t solve this. It has to be put back to the people.
And it is not at all certain today the people would. Only needs Boris to paint a picture of Junckers and the rest raising a glass to UK capitulating to the EU to see tens of thousands recoiling at the thought
It's a risk. But it is a near certainty our MPs won't agree something.
And when the people dont ???
We'd be no worse off than now!
At some point, even with a vote from the people, it will come down to MPs making a definitive choice one way or another. At present a lot of them are still seeking to avoid that, or thinking about which party will control things afterwards. Hopefully such a vote will get them to do that, but even if it is unclear or they simply don't respond definitively, at some point they will have to do something.
OK, I'll accept your point and qualify my original statement by saying that it respects the original vote *in the sense* that it has leave as the default position.
If May's deal is the bona fide middle way through and most folk just want it all done with, then the second question with Remain doesn't even come into play. It essentially means Remain has to win two further referenda - firstly in rejecting the leave deal and secondly in saying that remaining is preferred to leaving without a deal.
I don't think TMay would want to do this, as it invites Remain supporters to back No Deal, which is her worst outcome.
If May puts her plan to the people, her best odds would be if it were a piece of brinkmanship with the alternative being No Deal with no time to renegotiate, since the majority of Remainers would feel bounced into "Deal". But while some Leavers might also be content with that form of referendum, she surely couldn't get enough votes for it in Parliament. Clearly no help will be forthcoming from opposition parties, or her own Eurowets. I think it would get more votes than the WA itself, but not enough.
This is what I've been scratching my head about all day - not only is it difficult to see how any course of action can muster a parliamentary majority, but even a referendum requires some form of agreement on the structure, and it's hard for me to see who would compromise on what. Discussing how the referendum should be conducted is almost irrelevant - what matters is who would push a particular version through Parliament and how many MPs would find that format acceptable.
You're right that our opinions don't matter, what matters is what passes the veto points. I think the PM is a veto point, so the obvious way to do it is that she negotiates with whatever group of MPs has the votes to get the deal through and you get whatever form she and they agree on.
If Corbyn's on board then it's just him and her and you're good. Otherwise I think Sturgeon and Cable form a bloc and go into discussions with TMay, then appeal to Labour members in Remainian seats to make up the numbers.
But the big unknown for me is how many Tories stay on board.
We know parties and parliament can’t solve this. It has to be put back to the people.
And it is not at all certain today the people would. Only needs Boris to paint a picture of Junckers and the rest raising a glass to UK capitulating to the EU to see tens of thousands recoiling at the thought
It's a risk. But it is a near certainty our MPs won't agree something.
And when the people dont ???
We'd be no worse off than now!
At some point, even with a vote from the people, it will come down to MPs making a definitive choice one way or another. At present a lot of them are still seeking to avoid that, or thinking about which party will control things afterwards. Hopefully such a vote will get them to do that, but even if it is unclear or they simply don't respond definitively, at some point they will have to do something.
A referendum is months off if at all and in the meantime we are hurtling towards exit with no deal
OK, I'll accept your point and qualify my original statement by saying that it respects the original vote *in the sense* that it has leave as the default position.
If May's deal is the bona fide middle way through and most folk just want it all done with, then the second question with Remain doesn't even come into play. It essentially means Remain has to win two further referenda - firstly in rejecting the leave deal and secondly in saying that remaining is preferred to leaving without a deal.
I don't think TMay would want to do this, as it invites Remain supporters to back No Deal, which is her worst outcome.
If May puts her plan to the people, her best odds would be if it were a piece of brinkmanship with the alternative being No Deal with no time to renegotiate, since the majority of Remainers would feel bounced into "Deal". But while some Leavers might also be content with that form of referendum, she surely couldn't get enough votes for it in Parliament. Clearly no help will be forthcoming from opposition parties, or her own Eurowets. I think it would get more votes than the WA itself, but not enough.
This is what I've been scratching my head about all day - not only is it difficult to see how any course of action can muster a parliamentary majority, but even a referendum requires some form of agreement on the structure, and it's hard for me to see who would compromise on what. Discussing how the referendum should be conducted is almost irrelevant - what matters is who would push a particular version through Parliament and how many MPs would find that format acceptable.
You're right that our opinions don't matter, what matters is what passes the veto points. I think the PM is a veto point, so the obvious way to do it is that she negotiates with whatever group of MPs has the votes to get the deal through and you get whatever form she and they agree on.
If Corbyn's on board then it's just him and her and you're good. Otherwise I think Sturgeon and Cable form a bloc and go into discussions with TMay, then appeal to Labour members in Remainian seats to make up the numbers.
But the big unknown for me is how many Tories stay on board.
If any Tory PM tried to push through a referendum that is "rigged to remain" (in the eyes of Leavers) through negotiation with Corbyn (who I doubt would be susceptible anyway, there's a reason he wants an election) and/or Cable/Sturgeon/Labour ultra-remainers, I imagine they are very likely going to be a Tory ex-PM before their proposal gets any head of steam up?
Right but on @solarflare's scheme that's not the question they'd have to answer. The question they'd have to answer would be "although you prefer Deal to No Deal, are you prepared to risk No Deal to get a shot at Remain?"
Fair enough but if No Deal is the preferred Leave option to face Remain so be it, for the final Brexit to be legitimate it has to be the most popular choice of the voters
I think we need a choice which reflects the true state of people and politics.
"The UK is due to leave the EU on 29th March 2019. A draft deal on the arrangements for leaving have been prepared. What do you think the government should do:
1) Bugger if I know 2) What? 3) Sing Ode to Joy 4) Deport all immigrants 5) Something
Personally I'm voting for 5). I am very much in favour of something. To some extent.
Right but on @solarflare's scheme that's not the question they'd have to answer. The question they'd have to answer would be "although you prefer Deal to No Deal, are you prepared to risk No Deal to get a shot at Remain?"
True, although much the same question is being asked of the HOC anyway, and it's a two way street in that the ultra brexiteers are being asked if they want to risk Remain even though they hate the deal.
Right but on @solarflare's scheme that's not the question they'd have to answer. The question they'd have to answer would be "although you prefer Deal to No Deal, are you prepared to risk No Deal to get a shot at Remain?"
Fair enough but if No Deal is the preferred Leave option to face Remain so be it, for the final Brexit to be legitimate it has to be the most popular choice of the voters
I think we need a choice which reflects the true state of people and politics.
"The UK is due to leave the EU on 29th March 2019. A draft deal on the arrangements for leaving have been prepared. What do you think the government should do:
1) Bugger if I know 2) What? 3) Sing Ode to Joy 4) Deport all immigrants 5) Something
Personally I'm voting for 5). I am very much in favour of something. To some extent.
6) Just get on with it. (please write what it is overleaf)
We know parties and parliament can’t solve this. It has to be put back to the people.
And it is not at all certain today the people would. Only needs Boris to paint a picture of Junckers and the rest raising a glass to UK capitulating to the EU to see tens of thousands recoiling at the thought
It's a risk. But it is a near certainty our MPs won't agree something.
And when the people dont ???
We'd be no worse off than now!
At some point, even with a vote from the people, it will come down to MPs making a definitive choice one way or another. At present a lot of them are still seeking to avoid that, or thinking about which party will control things afterwards. Hopefully such a vote will get them to do that, but even if it is unclear or they simply don't respond definitively, at some point they will have to do something.
A referendum is months off if at all and in the meantime we are hurtling towards exit with no deal
Parliament has to take control
They should, but they aren't. I don't want a second vote, and I don't think it will definitely resolve anything.
But May's deal won't pass. There is apparently no time to negotiate another one (scuppering Tory rebel and Labour plans), and little incentive for the EU to do so. Parliament is, apparently, at least agreed that they don't want no deal.
Given that, Parliament is not capable of resolving this without further democratic cover. Or they will have to u-turn spectacularly to either back May's deal, remain after all, or no deal after all.
They show no sigh of being able to do those things even if they were inclined to, without a vote of some kind.
Right but on @solarflare's scheme that's not the question they'd have to answer. The question they'd have to answer would be "although you prefer Deal to No Deal, are you prepared to risk No Deal to get a shot at Remain?"
Fair enough but if No Deal is the preferred Leave option to face Remain so be it, for the final Brexit to be legitimate it has to be the most popular choice of the voters
I think we need a choice which reflects the true state of people and politics.
"The UK is due to leave the EU on 29th March 2019. A draft deal on the arrangements for leaving have been prepared. What do you think the government should do:
1) Bugger if I know 2) What? 3) Sing Ode to Joy 4) Deport all immigrants 5) Something
Personally I'm voting for 5). I am very much in favour of something. To some extent.
Doing Nothing Is Not An Option, as the Man of the Moment, Tony Blair, once put it. Personally I think doing nothing is almost ALWAYS an option. It's often the best option.
Right but on @solarflare's scheme that's not the question they'd have to answer. The question they'd have to answer would be "although you prefer Deal to No Deal, are you prepared to risk No Deal to get a shot at Remain?"
Fair enough but if No Deal is the preferred Leave option to face Remain so be it, for the final Brexit to be legitimate it has to be the most popular choice of the voters
I think we need a choice which reflects the true state of people and politics.
"The UK is due to leave the EU on 29th March 2019. A draft deal on the arrangements for leaving have been prepared. What do you think the government should do:
1) Bugger if I know 2) What? 3) Sing Ode to Joy 4) Deport all immigrants 5) Something
Personally I'm voting for 5). I am very much in favour of something. To some extent.
Perhaps the UK Government just leave the second referendum ballot paper blank and treat it as a sort of expensive suggestion box
Right but on @solarflare's scheme that's not the question they'd have to answer. The question they'd have to answer would be "although you prefer Deal to No Deal, are you prepared to risk No Deal to get a shot at Remain?"
Fair enough but if No Deal is the preferred Leave option to face Remain so be it, for the final Brexit to be legitimate it has to be the most popular choice of the voters
I think we need a choice which reflects the true state of people and politics.
"The UK is due to leave the EU on 29th March 2019. A draft deal on the arrangements for leaving have been prepared. What do you think the government should do:
1) Bugger if I know 2) What? 3) Sing Ode to Joy 4) Deport all immigrants 5) Something
Personally I'm voting for 5). I am very much in favour of something. To some extent.
6) Just get on with it. (please write what it is overleaf)
It is defined by, select one or more
A) Brexit means Brexit No deal is better than a bad deal C) A red, white and blue Brexit
If any Tory PM tried to push through a referendum that is "rigged to remain" (in the eyes of Leavers) through negotiation with Corbyn (who I doubt would be susceptible anyway, there's a reason he wants an election) and/or Cable/Sturgeon/Labour ultra-remainers, I imagine they are very likely going to be a Tory ex-PM before their proposal gets any head of steam up?
This is also true, although remember the leadership confidence vote is a secret ballot and they know the next unlucky PM they could pick would end up in the same box that TMay was in.
But this is why I don't think you could do an obvious gerrymander like FPTP for three options that split the Leave vote in two. I'm not sure if she could get away with leaving No Deal off the ballot paper or not.
Right but on @solarflare's scheme that's not the question they'd have to answer. The question they'd have to answer would be "although you prefer Deal to No Deal, are you prepared to risk No Deal to get a shot at Remain?"
Fair enough but if No Deal is the preferred Leave option to face Remain so be it, for the final Brexit to be legitimate it has to be the most popular choice of the voters
I think we need a choice which reflects the true state of people and politics.
"The UK is due to leave the EU on 29th March 2019. A draft deal on the arrangements for leaving have been prepared. What do you think the government should do:
1) Bugger if I know 2) What? 3) Sing Ode to Joy 4) Deport all immigrants 5) Something
Personally I'm voting for 5). I am very much in favour of something. To some extent.
6) Just get on with it. (please write what it is overleaf)
It is defined by, select one or more
A) Brexit means Brexit No deal is better than a bad deal C) A red, white and blue Brexit
I've cracked it - how we can get parliament to resolve this, as is their sovereign duty. Tell them they can have whatever Brexit they want, but it will be decided through a series of death matches. The strongest, most stubborn, most scrappy, most wily MP will emerge triumphant and be worthy of leading the people to their chosen course.
It might just be Corbyn - he'd absorb the punches, not expend any energy in responding, and wear all opponents into submission.
Given that, Parliament is not capable of resolving this without further democratic cover. Or they will have to u-turn spectacularly to either back May's deal, remain after all, or no deal after all.
They show no sigh of being able to do those things even if they were inclined to, without a vote of some kind.
I'm not entirely convinced the deal won't go through ..... eventually, with a very large number of abstainers. The leave date incoming like the tide, plus market reaction, will focus minds.
A possible other scenario: if gridlocked, the emergency/panic Norway? It can be whipped up relatively quickly, whereas there's no time for anything else that needs (re)negotiated. Yes, the EFTA states would be grumpy with us essentially using it as a transition to a future state, but can probably be coerced.
I think we need a choice which reflects the true state of people and politics.
"The UK is due to leave the EU on 29th March 2019. A draft deal on the arrangements for leaving have been prepared. What do you think the government should do:
1) Bugger if I know 2) What? 3) Sing Ode to Joy 4) Deport all immigrants 5) Something
At least something means something and therefore goes well with Brexit.
Given that, Parliament is not capable of resolving this without further democratic cover. Or they will have to u-turn spectacularly to either back May's deal, remain after all, or no deal after all.
They show no sigh of being able to do those things even if they were inclined to, without a vote of some kind.
I'm not entirely convinced the deal won't go through ..... eventually, with a very large number of abstainers. The leave date incoming like the tide, plus market reaction, will focus minds.
A possible other scenario: if gridlocked, the emergency/panic Norway? It can be whipped up relatively quickly, whereas there's no time for anything that needs negotiated. Yes, the EFTA states would be grumpy with us essentially using it as a transition to a future state, but can probably be coerced.
I would respect an abstainer in this less than even the most ignorant remainer/nodealer/dealer (take you pick depending on preference). Take a damn stand, MPs.
Emergency off the shelf option seems relatively plausible compared to some options at least.
I've cracked it - how we can get parliament to resolve this, as is their sovereign duty. Tell them they can have whatever Brexit they want, but it will be decided through a series of death matches. The strongest, most stubborn, most scrappy, most wily MP will emerge triumphant and be worthy of leading the people to their chosen course.
It might just be Corbyn - he'd absorb the punches, not expend any energy in responding, and wear all opponents into submission.
I've cracked it - how we can get parliament to resolve this, as is their sovereign duty. Tell them they can have whatever Brexit they want, but it will be decided through a series of death matches. The strongest, most stubborn, most scrappy, most wily MP will emerge triumphant and be worthy of leading the people to their chosen course.
It might just be Corbyn - he'd absorb the punches, not expend any energy in responding, and wear all opponents into submission.
You've cracked it.
Or you've cracked up.
Bit like everybody.
I spend far too much time discussing political minutiae on the internet, I don't think I was ever entirely non-cracked to be honest.
A pleasant night to all, another chapter in the farce that is pretending May's deal will pass shall occur tomorrow, then we can move on.
We know parties and parliament can’t solve this. It has to be put back to the people.
And it is not at all certain today the people would. Only needs Boris to paint a picture of Junckers and the rest raising a glass to UK capitulating to the EU to see tens of thousands recoiling at the thought
It's a risk. But it is a near certainty our MPs won't agree something.
And when the people dont ???
We'd be no worse off than now!
At some point, even with a vote from the people, it will come down to MPs making a definitive choice one way or another. At present a lot of them are still seeking to avoid that, or thinking about which party will control things afterwards. Hopefully such a vote will get them to do that, but even if it is unclear or they simply don't respond definitively, at some point they will have to do something.
A referendum is months off if at all and in the meantime we are hurtling towards exit with no deal
Parliament has to take control
They should, but they aren't. I don't want a second vote, and I don't think it will definitely resolve anything.
But May's deal won't pass. There is apparently no time to negotiate another one (scuppering Tory rebel and Labour plans), and little incentive for the EU to do so. Parliament is, apparently, at least agreed that they don't want no deal.
Given that, Parliament is not capable of resolving this without further democratic cover. Or they will have to u-turn spectacularly to either back May's deal, remain after all, or no deal after all.
They show no sigh of being able to do those things even if they were inclined to, without a vote of some kind.
Nobody seems to want to be the last person to hold the Holy Hand Grenade of Brexit
1. May and much of the press appeal to the public to swing behind the deal as the best available. 2. Baffled and fed up, the public defaults to something like its usual 50-50 stance on EU matters. Different polls give different results according to the phrasing. 3. MPs vote against the deal, by a margin that is large but somewhat less than first thought. 4. All manner of institutions say aargh, No Deal is approaching, this is catastrophe. 5. May goes for a second Parliamentary vote.
It's that vote that isn't clear at this stage. How many Tory MPs will weaken their opposition after expressing it once? Quite a few, I think. I still think it'll get through in the end, and, ahem, I've been right at every stage so far, including predicting the crisis and the last-minute deal. But I'm less sure about this - ironically, I know European decision processes more than I do the current mood in Parliament.
1. May and much of the press appeal to the public to swing behind the deal as the best available. 2. Baffled and fed up, the public defaults to something like its usual 50-50 stance on EU matters. Different polls give different results according to the phrasing. 3. MPs vote against the deal, by a margin that is large but somewhat less than first thought. 4. All manner of institutions say aargh, No Deal is approaching, this is catastrophe. 5. May goes for a second Parliamentary vote.
It's that vote that isn't clear at this stage. How many Tory MPs will weaken their opposition after expressing it once? Quite a few, I think. I still think it'll get through in the end, and, ahem, I've been right at every stage so far, including predicting the crisis and the last-minute deal. But I'm less sure about this - ironically, I know European decision processes more than I do the current mood in Parliament.
How does May get the chance to go for a second vote? Surely others, Labour included, will attempt to force other options before that is tried? Why would anyone in Labour and the Tories who say negotiation will solve this change their mind on a second vote, if it was a viable option for the first it would be viable for the second surely, since both Labour and Tory rebels are in essence saying the EU are lying and will be happy to reopen matters due to their wish to get a deal, so no matter how late it happens they will say that is available.
If any Tory PM tried to push through a referendum that is "rigged to remain" (in the eyes of Leavers) through negotiation with Corbyn (who I doubt would be susceptible anyway, there's a reason he wants an election) and/or Cable/Sturgeon/Labour ultra-remainers, I imagine they are very likely going to be a Tory ex-PM before their proposal gets any head of steam up?
This is also true, although remember the leadership confidence vote is a secret ballot and they know the next unlucky PM they could pick would end up in the same box that TMay was in.
But this is why I don't think you could do an obvious gerrymander like FPTP for three options that split the Leave vote in two. I'm not sure if she could get away with leaving No Deal off the ballot paper or not.
AV for three options would also be interpretable as a gerrymander. So would a conditional question.
If Deal gets defeated in the Commons, I don't envisage the Commons then agreeing to put it on the ballot paper in a referendum. And she can't do a John Major and make it a confidence issue. If there's a referendum it's likely to be Remain versus No Deal. Leavers shouldn't complain. It won't be Remainers' fault that Deal is unavailable. Anybody who wants Leave, well here it will be, the best Leave the British political system could come up with: WTO.
1. May and much of the press appeal to the public to swing behind the deal as the best available. 2. Baffled and fed up, the public defaults to something like its usual 50-50 stance on EU matters. Different polls give different results according to the phrasing. 3. MPs vote against the deal, by a margin that is large but somewhat less than first thought. 4. All manner of institutions say aargh, No Deal is approaching, this is catastrophe. 5. May goes for a second Parliamentary vote.
It's basically what I'm hoping for, tbh.
The question then is with number 3: how large a loss damages the deal beyond repair? There's not a lot of incentive for Labour rebels at present, since it seems to be going down anyway.
How does May get the chance to go for a second vote? Surely others, Labour included, will attempt to force other options before that is tried? Why would anyone in Labour and the Tories who say negotiation will solve this change their mind on a second vote, if it was a viable option for the first it would be viable for the second surely, since both Labour and Tory rebels are in essence saying the EU are lying and will be happy to reopen matters due to their wish to get a deal, so no matter how late it happens they will say that is available.
I think that a lot of opponents feel they have to get a no vote out of their system - they don't like the deal, and want to say so. But that doesn't mean they want the government to melt down, especially if public opinion is swinging behind May (in particular Tory members' opinion).
You're right that others will try to force other options. I think it's hard to judge the prospects for any of them getting majority Parliamentary support - to some extent, I think it depends on the sequence of the questions, as it's easier to support half-palatable things if others have been voted down first. Rulkes lawyers will have a field day and Bercow's calls will be crucial (he seems to have ridden out the demands for his resignation - again).
I've cracked it - how we can get parliament to resolve this, as is their sovereign duty. Tell them they can have whatever Brexit they want, but it will be decided through a series of death matches. The strongest, most stubborn, most scrappy, most wily MP will emerge triumphant and be worthy of leading the people to their chosen course.
It might just be Corbyn - he'd absorb the punches, not expend any energy in responding, and wear all opponents into submission.
You'd just end with the most slippery MP, the one who the blows just slide off.
I've cracked it - how we can get parliament to resolve this, as is their sovereign duty. Tell them they can have whatever Brexit they want, but it will be decided through a series of death matches. The strongest, most stubborn, most scrappy, most wily MP will emerge triumphant and be worthy of leading the people to their chosen course.
Thunderdome! 650MPs enter. One man leaves. Or woman. I figure Diane Abbott's in with a chance.
If any Tory PM tried to push through a referendum that is "rigged to remain" (in the eyes of Leavers) through negotiation with Corbyn (who I doubt would be susceptible anyway, there's a reason he wants an election) and/or Cable/Sturgeon/Labour ultra-remainers, I imagine they are very likely going to be a Tory ex-PM before their proposal gets any head of steam up?
This is also true, although remember the leadership confidence vote is a secret ballot and they know the next unlucky PM they could pick would end up in the same box that TMay was in.
But this is why I don't think you could do an obvious gerrymander like FPTP for three options that split the Leave vote in two. I'm not sure if she could get away with leaving No Deal off the ballot paper or not.
AV for three options would also be interpretable as a gerrymander. So would a conditional question.
If Deal gets defeated in the Commons, I don't envisage the Commons then agreeing to put it on the ballot paper in a referendum. And she can't do a John Major and make it a confidence issue. If there's a referendum it's likely to be Remain versus No Deal. Leavers shouldn't complain. It won't be Remainers' fault that Deal is unavailable. Anybody who wants Leave, well here it will be, the best Leave the British political system could come up with: WTO.
I think Leave would win. Remainders careful what you wish for.
1. May and much of the press appeal to the public to swing behind the deal as the best available. 2. Baffled and fed up, the public defaults to something like its usual 50-50 stance on EU matters. Different polls give different results according to the phrasing. 3. MPs vote against the deal, by a margin that is large but somewhat less than first thought. 4. All manner of institutions say aargh, No Deal is approaching, this is catastrophe. 5. May goes for a second Parliamentary vote.
It's that vote that isn't clear at this stage. How many Tory MPs will weaken their opposition after expressing it once? Quite a few, I think. I still think it'll get through in the end, and, ahem, I've been right at every stage so far, including predicting the crisis and the last-minute deal. But I'm less sure about this - ironically, I know European decision processes more than I do the current mood in Parliament.
How will the Sun and Daily Mail play it? Pressure will build for a People's Vote too during 4.
Got to wonder whether John Bercow will thump out a Speaker's Ruling refusing to allow the tabling of an amendment, as his predecessor did in 1913 to stop women getting the vote.
AV for three options would also be interpretable as a gerrymander. So would a conditional question.
If Deal gets defeated in the Commons, I don't envisage the Commons then agreeing to put it on the ballot paper in a referendum. And she can't do a John Major and make it a confidence issue. If there's a referendum it's likely to be Remain versus No Deal. Leavers shouldn't complain. It won't be Remainers' fault that Deal is unavailable. Anybody who wants Leave, well here it will be, the best Leave the British political system could come up with: WTO.
I still think a logical jump is being made at the point I've put in bold.
How does "Remain" magically work itself onto the referendum ballot?
You may believe that, morally, Leaver MPs should just suck it up. But I think too many of them will see it as a betrayal of democracy. So who is going to propose to put it as an option, and who is going to vote for it? I accept there are some routes but they seem pretty fanciful, and if TMay is dead keen on sticking Remain on such a referendum then I think she'll be out of a job very quickly. (Perhaps one scenario is that she survives a vote of no confidence and tries the stunt during her immune period. But she'd surely still lose a significant fraction of her cabinet if she tried it.)
This is contingent on "Remain" being a meaningful referendum option at all - perhaps by that time we'll know whether Britain can just unilaterally withdraw Article 50 and go back to business as usual. Would the British government actively seek out public assurances of this from the EU27 leaders? (It seems likely to me that this would, ultimately, come down to be a political decision rather than a legal one.) Would they dare make such a declaration unprompted - essentially meddling in British internal politics by doing so - to tempt us to stay in? What if someone (plenty of candidates, let's say e.g. Spain) wants to extract something from the UK before they accept our remaining?
If any Tory PM tried to push through a referendum that is "rigged to remain" (in the eyes of Leavers) through negotiation with Corbyn (who I doubt would be susceptible anyway, there's a reason he wants an election) and/or Cable/Sturgeon/Labour ultra-remainers, I imagine they are very likely going to be a Tory ex-PM before their proposal gets any head of steam up?
This is also true, although remember the leadership confidence vote is a secret ballot and they know the next unlucky PM they could pick would end up in the same box that TMay was in.
But this is why I don't think you could do an obvious gerrymander like FPTP for three options that split the Leave vote in two. I'm not sure if she could get away with leaving No Deal off the ballot paper or not.
AV for three options would also be interpretable as a gerrymander. So would a conditional question.
If Deal gets defeated in the Commons, I don't envisage the Commons then agreeing to put it on the ballot paper in a referendum. And she can't do a John Major and make it a confidence issue. If there's a referendum it's likely to be Remain versus No Deal. Leavers shouldn't complain. It won't be Remainers' fault that Deal is unavailable. Anybody who wants Leave, well here it will be, the best Leave the British political system could come up with: WTO.
I think Leave would win. Remainders careful what you wish for.
1. May and much of the press appeal to the public to swing behind the deal as the best available. 2. Baffled and fed up, the public defaults to something like its usual 50-50 stance on EU matters. Different polls give different results according to the phrasing. 3. MPs vote against the deal, by a margin that is large but somewhat less than first thought. 4. All manner of institutions say aargh, No Deal is approaching, this is catastrophe. 5. May goes for a second Parliamentary vote.
It's that vote that isn't clear at this stage. How many Tory MPs will weaken their opposition after expressing it once? Quite a few, I think. I still think it'll get through in the end, and, ahem, I've been right at every stage so far, including predicting the crisis and the last-minute deal. But I'm less sure about this - ironically, I know European decision processes more than I do the current mood in Parliament.
How will the Sun and Daily Mail play it? Pressure will build for a People's Vote too during 4.
Got to wonder whether John Bercow will thump out a Speaker's Ruling refusing to allow the tabling of an amendment, as his predecessor did in 1913 to stop women getting the vote.
I did lots of canvassing BREXIT barely got a mention.
Agreed. Most people have NEVER felt strongly about Europe. They gave an opinion because they were asked. They still didn't feel that strongly. Now they just want the matter dealt with, and I think any reasonably decisive outcome, Remain or Leave would be accepted.
Decisive outcomes are not, however, May's style. Lots has been left unresolved for leisurely consideration over the next two years.
Right but on @solarflare's scheme that's not the question they'd have to answer. The question they'd have to answer would be "although you prefer Deal to No Deal, are you prepared to risk No Deal to get a shot at Remain?"
Fair enough but if No Deal is the preferred Leave option to face Remain so be it, for the final Brexit to be legitimate it has to be the most popular choice of the voters
I think we need a choice which reflects the true state of people and politics.
"The UK is due to leave the EU on 29th March 2019. A draft deal on the arrangements for leaving have been prepared. What do you think the government should do:
1) Bugger if I know 2) What? 3) Sing Ode to Joy 4) Deport all immigrants 5) Something
Personally I'm voting for 5). I am very much in favour of something. To some extent.
Kle4. That really is quality. Chapeau. Grim humour for grim times.
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.
I bet. I'm a STUG III or T-34 man myself.
May I suggest the Swedish Stridsvagn 103 (S-Tank)? Famous for not having a turret:
If any Tory PM tried to push through a referendum that is "rigged to remain" (in the eyes of Leavers) through negotiation with Corbyn (who I doubt would be susceptible anyway, there's a reason he wants an election) and/or Cable/Sturgeon/Labour ultra-remainers, I imagine they are very likely going to be a Tory ex-PM before their proposal gets any head of steam up?
This is also true, although remember the leadership confidence vote is a secret ballot and they know the next unlucky PM they could pick would end up in the same box that TMay was in.
But this is why I don't think you could do an obvious gerrymander like FPTP for three options that split the Leave vote in two. I'm not sure if she could get away with leaving No Deal off the ballot paper or not.
AV for three options would also be interpretable as a gerrymander. So would a conditional question.
If Deal gets defeated in the Commons, I don't envisage the Commons then agreeing to put it on the ballot paper in a referendum. And she can't do a John Major and make it a confidence issue. If there's a referendum it's likely to be Remain versus No Deal. Leavers shouldn't complain. It won't be Remainers' fault that Deal is unavailable. Anybody who wants Leave, well here it will be, the best Leave the British political system could come up with: WTO.
I don't think anyone's articulated a coherent belief that two rounds (without @solarflare's conditional clevers) is a gerrymander, beyond the common Leaver criticism that it's undemocratic to vote on Remain again at all.
Leaving off Deal would be tough for TMay, because she'd be in the same box Cameron put himself in: She's already said that No Deal would be tolerable and better than some unspecified Bad Deal. And a lot of Tory MPs probably support Deal and dislike both No Deal and Remain, and they're her only remaining supporters, so I can't see her trying to piss them off.
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.
I bet. I'm a STUG III or T-34 man myself.
May I suggest the Swedish Stridsvagn 103 (S-Tank)? Famous for not having a turret:
If any Tory PM tried to push through a referendum that is "rigged to remain" (in the eyes of Leavers) through negotiation with Corbyn (who I doubt would be susceptible anyway, there's a reason he wants an election) and/or Cable/Sturgeon/Labour ultra-remainers, I imagine they are very likely going to be a Tory ex-PM before their proposal gets any head of steam up?
This is also true, although remember the leadership confidence vote is a secret ballot and they know the next unlucky PM they could pick would end up in the same box that TMay was in.
But this is why I don't think you could do an obvious gerrymander like FPTP for three options that split the Leave vote in two. I'm not sure if she could get away with leaving No Deal off the ballot paper or not.
AV for three options would also be interpretable as a gerrymander. So would a conditional question.
If Deal gets defeated in the Commons, I don't envisage the Commons then agreeing to put it on the ballot paper in a referendum. And she can't do a John Major and make it a confidence issue. If there's a referendum it's likely to be Remain versus No Deal. Leavers shouldn't complain. It won't be Remainers' fault that Deal is unavailable. Anybody who wants Leave, well here it will be, the best Leave the British political system could come up with: WTO.
The Saar Plebsicite of 1935 had three options:
Re-unite with Germany Remain a protectorate of France Union with France
How does May get the chance to go for a second vote? Surely others, Labour included, will attempt to force other options before that is tried? Why would anyone in Labour and the Tories who say negotiation will solve this change their mind on a second vote, if it was a viable option for the first it would be viable for the second surely, since both Labour and Tory rebels are in essence saying the EU are lying and will be happy to reopen matters due to their wish to get a deal, so no matter how late it happens they will say that is available.
I think that a lot of opponents feel they have to get a no vote out of their system - they don't like the deal, and want to say so. But that doesn't mean they want the government to melt down, especially if public opinion is swinging behind May (in particular Tory members' opinion).
You're right that others will try to force other options. I think it's hard to judge the prospects for any of them getting majority Parliamentary support - to some extent, I think it depends on the sequence of the questions, as it's easier to support half-palatable things if others have been voted down first. Rulkes lawyers will have a field day and Bercow's calls will be crucial (he seems to have ridden out the demands for his resignation - again).
How many Labour MPs do you think would swing over to Deal / Abstain on a subsequent more crisis-y vote?
At last!!!!!! Best advertisement for "No Deal" you could find!
...Or, the tories are walking into a wipe out for a generation.
It seems most of them have no idea what a Canada-level party existential event is like. They are about to find out when there is no food at Tescos and Kent is a lorry park.
1. May and much of the press appeal to the public to swing behind the deal as the best available. 2. Baffled and fed up, the public defaults to something like its usual 50-50 stance on EU matters. Different polls give different results according to the phrasing. 3. MPs vote against the deal, by a margin that is large but somewhat less than first thought. 4. All manner of institutions say aargh, No Deal is approaching, this is catastrophe. 5. May goes for a second Parliamentary vote.
It's that vote that isn't clear at this stage. How many Tory MPs will weaken their opposition after expressing it once? Quite a few, I think. I still think it'll get through in the end, and, ahem, I've been right at every stage so far, including predicting the crisis and the last-minute deal. But I'm less sure about this - ironically, I know European decision processes more than I do the current mood in Parliament.
It’s Novemeber and we have a deal, so your prediction of it being at the last minute was wrong as far as I can see.
I did lots of canvassing BREXIT barely got a mention.
Agreed. Most people have NEVER felt strongly about Europe. They gave an opinion because they were asked. They still didn't feel that strongly. Now they just want the matter dealt with, and I think any reasonably decisive outcome, Remain or Leave would be accepted.
Decisive outcomes are not, however, May's style. Lots has been left unresolved for leisurely consideration over the next two years.
that is the nature of modern Politics in the UK - rather bland, incremental nudges. Labour on Europe are just as vague.
I agree that folk did not feel that strongly, when the referendum was announced at the start of 2016...I remember there was no great outpouring of passion apart from the usual fruitcakes (maybe thats why they won...) most voters were not bothered
1. May and much of the press appeal to the public to swing behind the deal as the best available. 2. Baffled and fed up, the public defaults to something like its usual 50-50 stance on EU matters. Different polls give different results according to the phrasing. 3. MPs vote against the deal, by a margin that is large but somewhat less than first thought. 4. All manner of institutions say aargh, No Deal is approaching, this is catastrophe. 5. May goes for a second Parliamentary vote.
It's that vote that isn't clear at this stage. How many Tory MPs will weaken their opposition after expressing it once? Quite a few, I think. I still think it'll get through in the end, and, ahem, I've been right at every stage so far, including predicting the crisis and the last-minute deal. But I'm less sure about this - ironically, I know European decision processes more than I do the current mood in Parliament.
How will the Sun and Daily Mail play it? Pressure will build for a People's Vote too during 4.
Got to wonder whether John Bercow will thump out a Speaker's Ruling refusing to allow the tabling of an amendment, as his predecessor did in 1913 to stop women getting the vote.
Someone posted last night that the Clerk has already said that as it is a Meaningful Vote rather than a bill there can be no binding amendments.
1. May and much of the press appeal to the public to swing behind the deal as the best available. 2. Baffled and fed up, the public defaults to something like its usual 50-50 stance on EU matters. Different polls give different results according to the phrasing. 3. MPs vote against the deal, by a margin that is large but somewhat less than first thought. 4. All manner of institutions say aargh, No Deal is approaching, this is catastrophe. 5. May goes for a second Parliamentary vote.
It's that vote that isn't clear at this stage. How many Tory MPs will weaken their opposition after expressing it once? Quite a few, I think. I still think it'll get through in the end, and, ahem, I've been right at every stage so far, including predicting the crisis and the last-minute deal. But I'm less sure about this - ironically, I know European decision processes more than I do the current mood in Parliament.
It’s Novemeber and we have a deal, so your prediction of it being at the last minute was wrong as far as I can see.
in what way do we "have a deal?" - all that we have is a piece of paper full of weak assurances that No10 and the EU wrote. Parliamentary approval means we have a deal....wait for that first
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.
I bet. I'm a STUG III or T-34 man myself.
May I suggest the Swedish Stridsvagn 103 (S-Tank)? Famous for not having a turret:
Tanks are defined by their function rather than structure. A self-propelled gun is an artillery piece which will engage the enemy over the horizon and some miles away from the front line.
A tank is on the front-line, supports the infantry, engages tanks and tank destroyers and doesn't carry passengers inside. An infantry fighting vehicle is on the front line, supports the infantry, engages tanks, and does carry passengers inside. An armoured personnel carrier is on the front line, supports the infantry, does not engages tanks, and does carry passengers inside. The lines are blurry (sixty years ago the Bradley would be a tank, but today it's an IFV).
The S-tank is a tank destroyer: it's designed to hide behind a hill and wait for the invading Soviet tanks to arrive and then kill them.
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.
I bet. I'm a STUG III or T-34 man myself.
May I suggest the Swedish Stridsvagn 103 (S-Tank)? Famous for not having a turret:
Tanks are defined by their function rather than structure. A self-propelled gun is an artillery piece which will engage the enemy over the horizon and some miles away from the front line.
A tank is on the front-line, supports the infantry, engages tanks and tank destroyers and doesn't carry passengers inside. An infantry fighting vehicle is on the front line, supports the infantry, engages tanks, and does carry passengers inside. An armoured personnel carrier is on the front line, supports the infantry, does not engages tanks, and does carry passengers inside. The lines are blurry (sixty years ago the Bradley would be a tank, but today it's an IFV).
The S-tank is a tank destroyer: it's designed to hide behind a hill and wait for the invading Soviet tanks to arrive and then kill them.
Does all this consideration of armed tracked vehicles mean we have created a think-tank?
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.
I bet. I'm a STUG III or T-34 man myself.
May I suggest the Swedish Stridsvagn 103 (S-Tank)? Famous for not having a turret:
Tanks are defined by their function rather than structure. A self-propelled gun is an artillery piece which will engage the enemy over the horizon and some miles away from the front line.
A tank is on the front-line, supports the infantry, engages tanks and tank destroyers and doesn't carry passengers inside. An infantry fighting vehicle is on the front line, supports the infantry, engages tanks, and does carry passengers inside. An armoured personnel carrier is on the front line, supports the infantry, does not engages tanks, and does carry passengers inside. The lines are blurry (sixty years ago the Bradley would be a tank, but today it's an IFV).
The S-tank is a tank destroyer: it's designed to hide behind a hill and wait for the invading Soviet tanks to arrive and then kill them.
Does all this consideration of armed tracked vehicles mean we have created a think-tank?
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.
I bet. I'm a STUG III or T-34 man myself.
May I suggest the Swedish Stridsvagn 103 (S-Tank)? Famous for not having a turret:
Tanks are defined by their function rather than structure. A self-propelled gun is an artillery piece which will engage the enemy over the horizon and some miles away from the front line.
A tank is on the front-line, supports the infantry, engages tanks and tank destroyers and doesn't carry passengers inside. An infantry fighting vehicle is on the front line, supports the infantry, engages tanks, and does carry passengers inside. An armoured personnel carrier is on the front line, supports the infantry, does not engages tanks, and does carry passengers inside. The lines are blurry (sixty years ago the Bradley would be a tank, but today it's an IFV).
The S-tank is a tank destroyer: it's designed to hide behind a hill and wait for the invading Soviet tanks to arrive and then kill them.
Does all this consideration of armed tracked vehicles mean we have created a think-tank?
Boom-tish!
It was late...I was tired...and you're not a paying audience.....
How does May get the chance to go for a second vote? Surely others, Labour included, will attempt to force other options before that is tried? Why would anyone in Labour and the Tories who say negotiation will solve this change their mind on a second vote, if it was a viable option for the first it would be viable for the second surely, since both Labour and Tory rebels are in essence saying the EU are lying and will be happy to reopen matters due to their wish to get a deal, so no matter how late it happens they will say that is available.
I think that a lot of opponents feel they have to get a no vote out of their system - they don't like the deal, and want to say so. But that doesn't mean they want the government to melt down, especially if public opinion is swinging behind May (in particular Tory members' opinion).
You're right that others will try to force other options. I think it's hard to judge the prospects for any of them getting majority Parliamentary support - to some extent, I think it depends on the sequence of the questions, as it's easier to support half-palatable things if others have been voted down first. Rulkes lawyers will have a field day and Bercow's calls will be crucial (he seems to have ridden out the demands for his resignation - again).
How many Labour MPs do you think would swing over to Deal / Abstain on a subsequent more crisis-y vote?</blockquote
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.
I bet. I'm a STUG III or T-34 man myself.
May I suggest the Swedish Stridsvagn 103 (S-Tank)? Famous for not having a turret:
How does May get the chance to go for a second vote? Surely others, Labour included, will attempt to force other options before that is tried? Why would anyone in Labour and the Tories who say negotiation will solve this change their mind on a second vote, if it was a viable option for the first it would be viable for the second surely, since both Labour and Tory rebels are in essence saying the EU are lying and will be happy to reopen matters due to their wish to get a deal, so no matter how late it happens they will say that is available.
I think that a lot of opponents feel they have to get a no vote out of their system - they don't like the deal, and want to say so. But that doesn't mean they want the government to melt down, especially if public opinion is swinging behind May (in particular Tory members' opinion).
You're right that others will try to force other options. I think it's hard to judge the prospects for any of them getting majority Parliamentary support - to some extent, I think it depends on the sequence of the questions, as it's easier to support half-palatable things if others have been voted down first. Rulkes lawyers will have a field day and Bercow's calls will be crucial (he seems to have ridden out the demands for his resignation - again).
How many Labour MPs do you think would swing over to Deal / Abstain on a subsequent more crisis-y vote?
Although I'm a Remainer and I'm not naive about how politics works, I still disagree with Labour effectively vetoing the Withdrawal Agreement. If Labour were negotiating Brexit they probably wouldn't get a substantively better deal, so all they're doing is making things worse (harming the country in the short term at least) in order to try and force a general election.
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.
I bet. I'm a STUG III or T-34 man myself.
May I suggest the Swedish Stridsvagn 103 (S-Tank)? Famous for not having a turret:
Tanks are defined by their function rather than structure. A self-propelled gun is an artillery piece which will engage the enemy over the horizon and some miles away from the front line.
A tank is on the front-line, supports the infantry, engages tanks and tank destroyers and doesn't carry passengers inside. An infantry fighting vehicle is on the front line, supports the infantry, engages tanks, and does carry passengers inside. An armoured personnel carrier is on the front line, supports the infantry, does not engages tanks, and does carry passengers inside. The lines are blurry (sixty years ago the Bradley would be a tank, but today it's an IFV).
The S-tank is a tank destroyer: it's designed to hide behind a hill and wait for the invading Soviet tanks to arrive and then kill them.
Does all this consideration of armed tracked vehicles mean we have created a think-tank?
Boom-tish!
It was late...I was tired...and you're not a paying audience.....
Hah! It went down well enough at the Glasgow Empire. Youth of today, they don't have the experience of week-in, week-out, driving around the country. Nowadays it's one show at the Fringe, then a Radio 4 slot, Mock The Week and before you can say Ramesh Ranganethan you're off to the USA faster than a failed politician and telling Colbert how you've always really admired American culture...
1. May and much of the press appeal to the public to swing behind the deal as the best available. 2. Baffled and fed up, the public defaults to something like its usual 50-50 stance on EU matters. Different polls give different results according to the phrasing. 3. MPs vote against the deal, by a margin that is large but somewhat less than first thought. 4. All manner of institutions say aargh, No Deal is approaching, this is catastrophe. 5. May goes for a second Parliamentary vote.
It's that vote that isn't clear at this stage. How many Tory MPs will weaken their opposition after expressing it once? Quite a few, I think. I still think it'll get through in the end, and, ahem, I've been right at every stage so far, including predicting the crisis and the last-minute deal. But I'm less sure about this - ironically, I know European decision processes more than I do the current mood in Parliament.
It’s Novemeber and we have a deal, so your prediction of it being at the last minute was wrong as far as I can see.
in what way do we "have a deal?" - all that we have is a piece of paper full of weak assurances that No10 and the EU wrote. Parliamentary approval means we have a deal....wait for that first
Don't you think that those MPs who voted against the need for parliamentary approval are duty bound to vote for May's deal?
How does May get the chance to go for a second vote? Surely others, Labour included, will attempt to force other options before that is tried? Why would anyone in Labour and the Tories who say negotiation will solve this change their mind on a second vote, if it was a viable option for the first it would be viable for the second surely, since both Labour and Tory rebels are in essence saying the EU are lying and will be happy to reopen matters due to their wish to get a deal, so no matter how late it happens they will say that is available.
I think that a lot of opponents feel they have to get a no vote out of their system - they don't like the deal, and want to say so. But that doesn't mean they want the government to melt down, especially if public opinion is swinging behind May (in particular Tory members' opinion).
You're right that others will try to force other options. I think it's hard to judge the prospects for any of them getting majority Parliamentary support - to some extent, I think it depends on the sequence of the questions, as it's easier to support half-palatable things if others have been voted down first. Rulkes lawyers will have a field day and Bercow's calls will be crucial (he seems to have ridden out the demands for his resignation - again).
How many Labour MPs do you think would swing over to Deal / Abstain on a subsequent more crisis-y vote?
Although I'm a Remainer and I'm not naive about how politics works, I still disagree with Labour effectively vetoing the Withdrawal Agreement. If Labour were negotiating Brexit they probably wouldn't get a substantively better deal, so all they're doing is making things worse (harming the country in the short term at least) in order to try and force a general election.
A tank is on the front-line, supports the infantry, engages tanks and tank destroyers and doesn't carry passengers inside.
IDF Merkavas sometimes carry 4-6 infantry. It's also the only MBT with a head so you don't have to watch your mate shit in a plastic bag while sending APFSDS rounds down range.
If any Tory PM tried to push through a referendum that is "rigged to remain" (in the eyes of Leavers) through negotiation with Corbyn (who I doubt would be susceptible anyway, there's a reason he wants an election) and/or Cable/Sturgeon/Labour ultra-remainers, I imagine they are very likely going to be a Tory ex-PM before their proposal gets any head of steam up?
This is also true, although remember the leadership confidence vote is a secret ballot and they know the next unlucky PM they could pick would end up in the same box that TMay was in.
But this is why I don't think you could do an obvious gerrymander like FPTP for three options that split the Leave vote in two. I'm not sure if she could get away with leaving No Deal off the ballot paper or not.
AV for three options would also be interpretable as a gerrymander. So would a conditional question.
If Deal gets defeated in the Commons, I don't envisage the Commons then agreeing to put it on the ballot paper in a referendum. And she can't do a John Major and make it a confidence issue. If there's a referendum it's likely to be Remain versus No Deal. Leavers shouldn't complain. It won't be Remainers' fault that Deal is unavailable. Anybody who wants Leave, well here it will be, the best Leave the British political system could come up with: WTO.
I think Leave would win. Remainders careful what you wish for.
Remainers have nothing to lose.
Because they will call for vote after vote until they win?
A tank is on the front-line, supports the infantry, engages tanks and tank destroyers and doesn't carry passengers inside.
IDF Merkavas sometimes carry 4-6 infantry. It's also the only MBT with a head so you don't have to watch your mate shit in a plastic bag while sending APFSDS rounds down range.
I cant see either party leader wanting the debate.....Corbyn scents blood (and has lots to lose), and May is notoriously uncomfortable in these situations. Not sure the viewing would be that good either. Also it gives a hint of a GE in the offing which No10 (at this moment) is not keen on
I did lots of canvassing BREXIT barely got a mention.
Agreed. Most people have NEVER felt strongly about Europe. They gave an opinion because they were asked. They still didn't feel that strongly. Now they just want the matter dealt with, and I think any reasonably decisive outcome, Remain or Leave would be accepted.
Decisive outcomes are not, however, May's style. Lots has been left unresolved for leisurely consideration over the next two years.
that is the nature of modern Politics in the UK - rather bland, incremental nudges. Labour on Europe are just as vague.
I agree that folk did not feel that strongly, when the referendum was announced at the start of 2016...I remember there was no great outpouring of passion apart from the usual fruitcakes (maybe thats why they won...) most voters were not bothered
This is the one thing that peeves me about many hardcore remainers: for all the heat generated by their squealings, they're not making positive arguments *for* the EU. This is the same mistake they made during the referendum. It's all about how it's terrible we're leaving, rather than these are the reasons we should stay.
Europhiles, with one or two exceptions, are being lazy; the hardcore Europhobes (however misguidedly) are not.
That's why if the referendum was held again on the same question, I think leave would win again, just.
At last!!!!!! Best advertisement for "No Deal" you could find!
...Or, the tories are walking into a wipe out for a generation.
It seems most of them have no idea what a Canada-level party existential event is like. They are about to find out when there is no food at Tescos and Kent is a lorry park.
Living in East Kent I can tell you that's what it's like most weeks anyway - including the Tesco bit.
In my experience apocalyptic forecasts of a political party's future are ten a penny and usually bollocks.
How does May get the chance to go for a second vote? Surely others, Labour included, will attempt to force other options before that is tried? Why would anyone in Labour and the Tories who say negotiation will solve this change their mind on a second vote, if it was a viable option for the first it would be viable for the second surely, since both Labour and Tory rebels are in essence saying the EU are lying and will be happy to reopen matters due to their wish to get a deal, so no matter how late it happens they will say that is available.
I think that a lot of opponents feel they have to get a no vote out of their system - they don't like the deal, and want to say so. But that doesn't mean they want the government to melt down, especially if public opinion is swinging behind May (in particular Tory members' opinion).
You're right that others will try to force other options. I think it's hard to judge the prospects for any of them getting majority Parliamentary support - to some extent, I think it depends on the sequence of the questions, as it's easier to support half-palatable things if others have been voted down first. Rulkes lawyers will have a field day and Bercow's calls will be crucial (he seems to have ridden out the demands for his resignation - again).
How many Labour MPs do you think would swing over to Deal / Abstain on a subsequent more crisis-y vote?
Although I'm a Remainer and I'm not naive about how politics works, I still disagree with Labour effectively vetoing the Withdrawal Agreement. If Labour were negotiating Brexit they probably wouldn't get a substantively better deal, so all they're doing is making things worse (harming the country in the short term at least) in order to try and force a general election.
I agree. But, tbf, May always had the option of approaching Brexit on a cross-party basis, and when she lost her majority was implored by many to do so. Yet she has kept the opposition outside the tent and dealt with the whole thing as a Conservative Party matter, to the point where she has even lost the support of the DUP. Popping up at the end and expecting opposition support because of her internal party problems is rich.
“It was clear to most Europeans that the Brexiters’ promises were empty,” said Anna-Lena Högenauer of Luxembourg’s Institute of Political Sciences. “Most, though, thought it was just politics, that there was some kind of plan behind the rhetoric.” The discovery that there was not, Högenauer said, was something of a shock. “The UK basically jumped into the ocean blindfold, and started paddling round in circles. It was almost like it expected the EU not just to say what Brexit should look like, but to devise a version of it that would suit Britain.”
“It was clear to most Europeans that the Brexiters’ promises were empty,” said Anna-Lena Högenauer of Luxembourg’s Institute of Political Sciences. “Most, though, thought it was just politics, that there was some kind of plan behind the rhetoric.” The discovery that there was not, Högenauer said, was something of a shock. “The UK basically jumped into the ocean blindfold, and started paddling round in circles. It was almost like it expected the EU not just to say what Brexit should look like, but to devise a version of it that would suit Britain.”
TBH that’s what it looked to some of us here, didn’t it.
“It was clear to most Europeans that the Brexiters’ promises were empty,” said Anna-Lena Högenauer of Luxembourg’s Institute of Political Sciences. “Most, though, thought it was just politics, that there was some kind of plan behind the rhetoric.” The discovery that there was not, Högenauer said, was something of a shock. “The UK basically jumped into the ocean blindfold, and started paddling round in circles. It was almost like it expected the EU not just to say what Brexit should look like, but to devise a version of it that would suit Britain.”
TBH that’s what it looked to some of us here, didn’t it.
Well, yes. The Brexiteers' lack of work is astonishing. They even witter on about how Cameron should have done the work for them by telling them what Brexit was (which they would then have argued against, as they're arguing against the deal now).
And as we see with the ERG chaos, even when things are in their hands, they're utterly incompetent.
But it's easier to wave your hands in the air, screech and scream about how wrong something is, than it is to actually deal with difficult realities.
And to give May some credit, she's trying to navigate those complexities. Many of the backseat drivers shouting "I could do better!" are, if their previous records are anything to go by, deluded.
The full article - various European perspectives on Brexit, including how our experience has quelled anti-EU sentiment on the continent - is worth a read:
But it was the UK’s many and persistent delusions – on “frictionless trade” as a third country; on a special cake-and-eat-it deal; on avoiding a hard Irish border while leaving the single market and maintaining territorial integrity; on viewing the EU as a political arrangement, not a legal order – that have ultimately proved fatal. With the deal sealed on the EU side, Zuleeg said he now expects it to pass through the House of Commons, possibly on a second vote. “The economic pressure will be enormous,” he said. “But we now have to negotiate the worst trade deal in history – the only one that’s a reduction on what we have.
Anyone know if Gib is still British? Or has she given it away?
In Spain Sanchez is criticised for achieving nothing new - even the official news says pretty much the same thing, as does the Gibraltar PM. But of course you know better.
“It was clear to most Europeans that the Brexiters’ promises were empty,” said Anna-Lena Högenauer of Luxembourg’s Institute of Political Sciences. “Most, though, thought it was just politics, that there was some kind of plan behind the rhetoric.” The discovery that there was not, Högenauer said, was something of a shock. “The UK basically jumped into the ocean blindfold, and started paddling round in circles. It was almost like it expected the EU not just to say what Brexit should look like, but to devise a version of it that would suit Britain.”
TBH that’s what it looked to some of us here, didn’t it.
Well, yes. The Brexiteers' lack of work is astonishing. They even witter on about how Cameron should have done the work for them by telling them what Brexit was (which they would then have argued against, as they're arguing against the deal now).
And as we see with the ERG chaos, even when things are in their hands, they're utterly incompetent.
But it's easier to wave your hands in the air, screech and scream about how wrong something is, than it is to actually deal with difficult realities.
And to give May some credit, she's trying to navigate those complexities. Many of the backseat drivers shouting "I could do better!" are, if their previous records are anything to go by, deluded.
I think it can be summed up in the statement often seen ‘Just leave!’
How does May get the chance to go for a second vote? Surely others, Labour included, will attempt to force other options before that is tried? Why would anyone in Labour and the Tories who say negotiation will solve this change their mind on a second vote, if it was a viable option for the first it would be viable for the second surely, since both Labour and Tory rebels are in essence saying the EU are lying and will be happy to reopen matters due to their wish to get a deal, so no matter how late it happens they will say that is available.
I think that a lot of opponents feel they have to get a no vote out of their system - they don't like the deal, and want to say so. But that doesn't mean they want the government to melt down, especially if public opinion is swinging behind May (in particular Tory members' opinion).
You're right that others will try to force other options. I think it's hard to judge the prospects for any of them getting majority Parliamentary support - to some extent, I think it depends on the sequence of the questions, as it's easier to support half-palatable things if others have been voted down first. Rulkes lawyers will have a field day and Bercow's calls will be crucial (he seems to have ridden out the demands for his resignation - again).
How many Labour MPs do you think would swing over to Deal / Abstain on a subsequent more crisis-y vote?
Although I'm a Remainer and I'm not naive about how politics works, I still disagree with Labour effectively vetoing the Withdrawal Agreement. If Labour were negotiating Brexit they probably wouldn't get a substantively better deal, so all they're doing is making things worse (harming the country in the short term at least) in order to try and force a general election.
Labour would not have had May’s red lines, so we probably would have been much further down the road by now. Though clearly it would not be able to deliver on its six tests, the NI border would not have caused any significant internal disagreements, while stopping FoM would not have been a causus belli.
“It was clear to most Europeans that the Brexiters’ promises were empty,” said Anna-Lena Högenauer of Luxembourg’s Institute of Political Sciences. “Most, though, thought it was just politics, that there was some kind of plan behind the rhetoric.” The discovery that there was not, Högenauer said, was something of a shock. “The UK basically jumped into the ocean blindfold, and started paddling round in circles. It was almost like it expected the EU not just to say what Brexit should look like, but to devise a version of it that would suit Britain.”
TBH that’s what it looked to some of us here, didn’t it.
Well, yes. The Brexiteers' lack of work is astonishing. They even witter on about how Cameron should have done the work for them by telling them what Brexit was (which they would then have argued against, as they're arguing against the deal now).
And as we see with the ERG chaos, even when things are in their hands, they're utterly incompetent.
But it's easier to wave your hands in the air, screech and scream about how wrong something is, than it is to actually deal with difficult realities.
And to give May some credit, she's trying to navigate those complexities. Many of the backseat drivers shouting "I could do better!" are, if their previous records are anything to go by, deluded.
'Leave' was a protest vote that managed to capture a huge segment of the public mood - it is a boil on the body politic the lancing of which will be painful but it requires some very hard thinking on the part of an establishment which must bear some responsibility for losing so much of the public over so many years. Sadly there is as little sign of any recognition of its culpability as of, say the DUP emerging into the 21st century [ its barely in the 20th!].
“It was clear to most Europeans that the Brexiters’ promises were empty,” said Anna-Lena Högenauer of Luxembourg’s Institute of Political Sciences. “Most, though, thought it was just politics, that there was some kind of plan behind the rhetoric.” The discovery that there was not, Högenauer said, was something of a shock. “The UK basically jumped into the ocean blindfold, and started paddling round in circles. It was almost like it expected the EU not just to say what Brexit should look like, but to devise a version of it that would suit Britain.”
TBH that’s what it looked to some of us here, didn’t it.
Well, yes. The Brexiteers' lack of work is astonishing. They even witter on about how Cameron should have done the work for them by telling them what Brexit was (which they would then have argued against, as they're arguing against the deal now).
And as we see with the ERG chaos, even when things are in their hands, they're utterly incompetent.
But it's easier to wave your hands in the air, screech and scream about how wrong something is, than it is to actually deal with difficult realities.
And to give May some credit, she's trying to navigate those complexities. Many of the backseat drivers shouting "I could do better!" are, if their previous records are anything to go by, deluded.
Yep - as is now absolutely clear, they never bothered to learn how the EU works, to understand how integrated the UK is into EU structures, to find out how many international agreements the UK is part of thanks to its EU membership, to investigate just-in-time cross border supply chains or to discover how free trade deals are done. They couldn’t be arsed to do any hard work at all. That was for other people. Just as other people will pay the price for their laziness, lack of curiosity and lies.
“It was clear to most Europeans that the Brexiters’ promises were empty,” said Anna-Lena Högenauer of Luxembourg’s Institute of Political Sciences. “Most, though, thought it was just politics, that there was some kind of plan behind the rhetoric.” The discovery that there was not, Högenauer said, was something of a shock. “The UK basically jumped into the ocean blindfold, and started paddling round in circles. It was almost like it expected the EU not just to say what Brexit should look like, but to devise a version of it that would suit Britain.”
TBH that’s what it looked to some of us here, didn’t it.
Well, yes. The Brexiteers' lack of work is astonishing. They even witter on about how Cameron should have done the work for them by telling them what Brexit was (which they would then have argued against, as they're arguing against the deal now).
And as we see with the ERG chaos, even when things are in their hands, they're utterly incompetent.
But it's easier to wave your hands in the air, screech and scream about how wrong something is, than it is to actually deal with difficult realities.
And to give May some credit, she's trying to navigate those complexities. Many of the backseat drivers shouting "I could do better!" are, if their previous records are anything to go by, deluded.
'Leave' was a protest vote that managed to capture a huge segment of the public mood - it is a boil on the body politic the lancing of which will be painful but it requires some very hard thinking on the part of an establishment which must bear some responsibility for losing so much of the public over so many years. Sadly there is as little sign of any recognition of its culpability as of, say the DUP emerging into the 21st century [ its barely in the 20th!].
+1 There were also a few individuals who expected to ride the tiger to dazzling personal success.
How does May get the chance to go for a second vote? Surely others, Labour included, will attempt to force other options before that is tried? Why would anyone in Labour and the Tories who say negotiation will solve this change their mind on a second vote, if it was a viable option for the first it would be viable for the second surely, since both Labour and Tory rebels are in essence saying the EU are lying and will be happy to reopen matters due to their wish to get a deal, so no matter how late it happens they will say that is available.
I think that a lot of opponents feel they have to get a no vote out of their system - they don't like the deal, and want to say so. But that doesn't mean they want the government to melt down, especially if public opinion is swinging behind May (in particular Tory members' opinion).
You're right that others will try to force other options. I think it's hard to judge the prospects for any of them getting majority Parliamentary support - to some extent, I think it depends on the sequence of the questions, as it's easier to support half-palatable things if others have been voted down first. Rulkes lawyers will have a field day and Bercow's calls will be crucial (he seems to have ridden out the demands for his resignation - again).
How many Labour MPs do you think would swing over to Deal / Abstain on a subsequent more crisis-y vote?
Although I'm a Remainer and I'm not naive about how politics works, I still disagree with Labour effectively vetoing the Withdrawal Agreement. If Labour were negotiating Brexit they probably wouldn't get a substantively better deal, so all they're doing is making things worse (harming the country in the short term at least) in order to try and force a general election.
Labour would not have had May’s red lines, so we probably would have been much further down the road by now. Though clearly it would not be able to deliver on its six tests, the NI border would not have caused any significant internal disagreements, while stopping FoM would not have been a causus belli.
Labour would only have found it easier with a comfortable majority - as indeed probably would T. May. The 2016 GE stymied what little hope there was of a relatively ordered Brexit. Yes, her own fault, but all water under the bridge now.
Comments
At some point, even with a vote from the people, it will come down to MPs making a definitive choice one way or another. At present a lot of them are still seeking to avoid that, or thinking about which party will control things afterwards. Hopefully such a vote will get them to do that, but even if it is unclear or they simply don't respond definitively, at some point they will have to do something.
If Corbyn's on board then it's just him and her and you're good. Otherwise I think Sturgeon and Cable form a bloc and go into discussions with TMay, then appeal to Labour members in Remainian seats to make up the numbers.
But the big unknown for me is how many Tories stay on board.
Parliament has to take control
"The UK is due to leave the EU on 29th March 2019. A draft deal on the arrangements for leaving have been prepared. What do you think the government should do:
1) Bugger if I know
2) What?
3) Sing Ode to Joy
4) Deport all immigrants
5) Something
Personally I'm voting for 5). I am very much in favour of something. To some extent.
But May's deal won't pass. There is apparently no time to negotiate another one (scuppering Tory rebel and Labour plans), and little incentive for the EU to do so. Parliament is, apparently, at least agreed that they don't want no deal.
Given that, Parliament is not capable of resolving this without further democratic cover. Or they will have to u-turn spectacularly to either back May's deal, remain after all, or no deal after all.
They show no sigh of being able to do those things even if they were inclined to, without a vote of some kind.
A) Brexit means Brexit
C) A red, white and blue Brexit
But this is why I don't think you could do an obvious gerrymander like FPTP for three options that split the Leave vote in two. I'm not sure if she could get away with leaving No Deal off the ballot paper or not.
It might just be Corbyn - he'd absorb the punches, not expend any energy in responding, and wear all opponents into submission.
I'm not entirely convinced the deal won't go through ..... eventually, with a very large number of abstainers. The leave date incoming like the tide, plus market reaction, will focus minds.
A possible other scenario: if gridlocked, the emergency/panic Norway? It can be whipped up relatively quickly, whereas there's no time for anything else that needs (re)negotiated. Yes, the EFTA states would be grumpy with us essentially using it as a transition to a future state, but can probably be coerced.
I'd vote for
6) Spend £350m per week more on the NHS.
Emergency off the shelf option seems relatively plausible compared to some options at least.
Or you've cracked up.
Bit like everybody.
A pleasant night to all, another chapter in the farce that is pretending May's deal will pass shall occur tomorrow, then we can move on.
1. May and much of the press appeal to the public to swing behind the deal as the best available.
2. Baffled and fed up, the public defaults to something like its usual 50-50 stance on EU matters. Different polls give different results according to the phrasing.
3. MPs vote against the deal, by a margin that is large but somewhat less than first thought.
4. All manner of institutions say aargh, No Deal is approaching, this is catastrophe.
5. May goes for a second Parliamentary vote.
It's that vote that isn't clear at this stage. How many Tory MPs will weaken their opposition after expressing it once? Quite a few, I think. I still think it'll get through in the end, and, ahem, I've been right at every stage so far, including predicting the crisis and the last-minute deal. But I'm less sure about this - ironically, I know European decision processes more than I do the current mood in Parliament.
If Deal gets defeated in the Commons, I don't envisage the Commons then agreeing to put it on the ballot paper in a referendum. And she can't do a John Major and make it a confidence issue. If there's a referendum it's likely to be Remain versus No Deal. Leavers shouldn't complain. It won't be Remainers' fault that Deal is unavailable. Anybody who wants Leave, well here it will be, the best Leave the British political system could come up with: WTO.
It's basically what I'm hoping for, tbh.
The question then is with number 3: how large a loss damages the deal beyond repair? There's not a lot of incentive for Labour rebels at present, since it seems to be going down anyway.
You're right that others will try to force other options. I think it's hard to judge the prospects for any of them getting majority Parliamentary support - to some extent, I think it depends on the sequence of the questions, as it's easier to support half-palatable things if others have been voted down first. Rulkes lawyers will have a field day and Bercow's calls will be crucial (he seems to have ridden out the demands for his resignation - again).
I did lots of canvassing BREXIT barely got a mention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yDL0AKUCKo
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/nov/24/nicolas-roeg-a-daring-film-maker-of-passionate-and-visceral-brilliance
Got to wonder whether John Bercow will thump out a Speaker's Ruling refusing to allow the tabling of an amendment, as his predecessor did in 1913 to stop women getting the vote.
How does "Remain" magically work itself onto the referendum ballot?
You may believe that, morally, Leaver MPs should just suck it up. But I think too many of them will see it as a betrayal of democracy. So who is going to propose to put it as an option, and who is going to vote for it? I accept there are some routes but they seem pretty fanciful, and if TMay is dead keen on sticking Remain on such a referendum then I think she'll be out of a job very quickly. (Perhaps one scenario is that she survives a vote of no confidence and tries the stunt during her immune period. But she'd surely still lose a significant fraction of her cabinet if she tried it.)
This is contingent on "Remain" being a meaningful referendum option at all - perhaps by that time we'll know whether Britain can just unilaterally withdraw Article 50 and go back to business as usual. Would the British government actively seek out public assurances of this from the EU27 leaders? (It seems likely to me that this would, ultimately, come down to be a political decision rather than a legal one.) Would they dare make such a declaration unprompted - essentially meddling in British internal politics by doing so - to tempt us to stay in? What if someone (plenty of candidates, let's say e.g. Spain) wants to extract something from the UK before they accept our remaining?
Australia 1.64
England 2.54
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/cricket/market/1.151661837
You may recognise her modus operandi.
Decisive outcomes are not, however, May's style. Lots has been left unresolved for leisurely consideration over the next two years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlS9HaSrhzU
Leaving off Deal would be tough for TMay, because she'd be in the same box Cameron put himself in: She's already said that No Deal would be tolerable and better than some unspecified Bad Deal. And a lot of Tory MPs probably support Deal and dislike both No Deal and Remain, and they're her only remaining supporters, so I can't see her trying to piss them off.
RIP.
Re-unite with Germany
Remain a protectorate of France
Union with France
The first option got 90%!
It seems most of them have no idea what a Canada-level party existential event is like. They are about to find out when there is no food at Tescos and Kent is a lorry park.
Like
Football
Seems unlikely to me that you wont be able to lay some of that off when the firing starts...
I agree that folk did not feel that strongly, when the referendum was announced at the start of 2016...I remember there was no great outpouring of passion apart from the usual fruitcakes (maybe thats why they won...) most voters were not bothered
https://twitter.com/riotwomennn/status/1066020842528739328?s=21
A tank is on the front-line, supports the infantry, engages tanks and tank destroyers and doesn't carry passengers inside. An infantry fighting vehicle is on the front line, supports the infantry, engages tanks, and does carry passengers inside. An armoured personnel carrier is on the front line, supports the infantry, does not engages tanks, and does carry passengers inside. The lines are blurry (sixty years ago the Bradley would be a tank, but today it's an IFV).
The S-tank is a tank destroyer: it's designed to hide behind a hill and wait for the invading Soviet tanks to arrive and then kill them.
Like
Chips
Then suddenly no further votes required........
Strange that
But does it have a kettle?
Europhiles, with one or two exceptions, are being lazy; the hardcore Europhobes (however misguidedly) are not.
That's why if the referendum was held again on the same question, I think leave would win again, just.
In my experience apocalyptic forecasts of a political party's future are ten a penny and usually bollocks.
And as we see with the ERG chaos, even when things are in their hands, they're utterly incompetent.
But it's easier to wave your hands in the air, screech and scream about how wrong something is, than it is to actually deal with difficult realities.
And to give May some credit, she's trying to navigate those complexities. Many of the backseat drivers shouting "I could do better!" are, if their previous records are anything to go by, deluded.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/24/eu-wont-miss-britain-after-brexit
But it was the UK’s many and persistent delusions – on “frictionless trade” as a third country; on a special cake-and-eat-it deal; on avoiding a hard Irish border while leaving the single market and maintaining territorial integrity; on viewing the EU as a political arrangement, not a legal order – that have ultimately proved fatal. With the deal sealed on the EU side, Zuleeg said he now expects it to pass through the House of Commons, possibly on a second vote. “The economic pressure will be enormous,” he said. “But we now have to negotiate the worst trade deal in history – the only one that’s a reduction on what we have.
Failing to plan is planning to fail!
There were also a few individuals who expected to ride the tiger to dazzling personal success.