Mueller getting closer to Nige according to latest reports that Jerome Corsi has been offered a plea bargain deal for perjury re Wikileaks and Assange...
Vince should take a line out of the SDLP's book and get behind the deal. His line is almost as reprehensible as Corbyn's or the ERGs. If the deal fails. THEN you put the decision back to the people. I expect Ken Clarke will pivot back to the people's vote after the deal is rejected.
A question, on which I have no settled view, is what is the minimum size of defeat of the deal that would allow Theresa May to continue to press its merits on a dubious House? If it goes down by less than 20, clearly she is still fighting. If it goes down by more than 100, could she keep arguing for it (and if so how)?
On current numbers as advertised by the various interested groups, it looks like it will lose by well over 100.
The Withdrawal Agreement is essentially fixed, but the future arrangement that will take its place is wide open. The outcomes could include rejoining the EU or even not leaving in the first place. All of the options require EU consent so there's no reason to reflect a preferred path just because the EU hasn't agreed yet. Mrs May disengenuously pretends her outcome is the only one. Her many opponents should call her out on that if they think they have a better plan.
They don't have a better plan, that is exactly the point.
That statement is open to challenge and there's certainly no reason to take Theresa May's word for it. The point is there is a choice of bad plans, which are bad in different ways. So we could go to Norway plus customs union, which deals with Ireland and is a relatively low impact Leave but is maximum vassal state. There's remaining in the EU, which would be by far the best outcome except people have formally rejected in a vote. There's "no deal" which might allow freedom from EU structures but is probably unviable. Then there's May's plan which typical for the woman resolves nothing at all but maintains the Brexit delusion a bit longer. We should debate what form of crapness we are going for. Mrs May's isn't necessarily the least bad.
None of those obviate the need for the backstop, which is the principal objection to the deal.
Returning to my original comment, the Withdrawal Agreement is a done deal in every scenario, except possibly No Deal. Even that's uncertain because it seems unlikely we would never have a deal with the EU on anything at all, ever. But the End State is up for grabs. Remain and Norway+ make the backstop disappear; May's Chequers 2 plan doesn't; Canada doesn't and No Deal probably doesn't for the reasons I have just given. We don't need to take or leave May's plan.
The May plan, as far as it relates to the political declaration, is really the May deceit. She's still not being honest about the logic of the trade offs.
Vince should take a line out of the SDLP's book and get behind the deal. His line is almost as reprehensible as Corbyn's or the ERGs. If the deal fails. THEN you put the decision back to the people. I expect Ken Clarke will pivot back to the people's vote after the deal is rejected.
A question, on which I have no settled view, is what is the minimum size of defeat of the deal that would allow Theresa May to continue to press its merits on a dubious House? If it goes down by less than 20, clearly she is still fighting. If it goes down by more than 100, could she keep arguing for it (and if so how)?
On current numbers as advertised by the various interested groups, it looks like it will lose by well over 100.
Won't a lot depend not just on the final vote, but on the amendments? In fact, the passing (or not) of amendments are likely to change how MPs vote on the final division - for example, if a referendum has been ruled out or mandated.
Edit: Similarly, Labour say they are going to try to amend the bill to rule out 'no deal'. I've no idea how they could do this, but if they were successful, Leavers might prefer to back the deal rather than trash it in the hope of no deal.
Vince should take a line out of the SDLP's book and get behind the deal. His line is almost as reprehensible as Corbyn's or the ERGs. If the deal fails. THEN you put the decision back to the people. I expect Ken Clarke will pivot back to the people's vote after the deal is rejected.
Ken Clarke has never favoured referenda.
He views them as glorified opinion polls.
Personally I expect it’ll be like 1972 all over again as Labour rebels come to the rescue of a Tory Prime Minister.
A question, on which I have no settled view, is what is the minimum size of defeat of the deal that would allow Theresa May to continue to press its merits on a dubious House? If it goes down by less than 20, clearly she is still fighting. If it goes down by more than 100, could she keep arguing for it (and if so how)?
On current numbers as advertised by the various interested groups, it looks like it will lose by well over 100.
50 perhaps? Maybe she'd still have a slim hope at 80? But May is not a persuader, her technique is to take decisions in a tightly knit coterie of advisers and then spring them on people when it's too late to have any debate. As we saw from her time at the Home Office and the dementia tax disaster last year. She just keeps on saying she is right and it's in the national interest. Where are the arguments that might be deployed to bring the waverers on board?
Vince should take a line out of the SDLP's book and get behind the deal. His line is almost as reprehensible as Corbyn's or the ERGs. If the deal fails. THEN you put the decision back to the people. I expect Ken Clarke will pivot back to the people's vote after the deal is rejected.
Ken Clarke has never favoured referenda.
He views them as glorified opinion polls.
Personally I expect it’ll be like 1972 all over again as Labour rebels come to the rescue of a Tory Prime Minister.
There’s an irony if that happens.
Judging by their twitter feeds I've got Flint and Mann voting with the government. Any others ?
Vince should take a line out of the SDLP's book and get behind the deal. His line is almost as reprehensible as Corbyn's or the ERGs. If the deal fails. THEN you put the decision back to the people. I expect Ken Clarke will pivot back to the people's vote after the deal is rejected.
Ken Clarke has never favoured referenda.
He views them as glorified opinion polls.
Personally I expect it’ll be like 1972 all over again as Labour rebels come to the rescue of a Tory Prime Minister.
There’s an irony if that happens.
Judging by their twitter feeds I've got Flint and Mann voting with the government. Any others ?
Among non Labour opposition MPs, Frank Field, Lady Hermon, Stephen Lloyd.
Vince should take a line out of the SDLP's book and get behind the deal. His line is almost as reprehensible as Corbyn's or the ERGs. If the deal fails. THEN you put the decision back to the people. I expect Ken Clarke will pivot back to the people's vote after the deal is rejected.
Ken Clarke has never favoured referenda.
He views them as glorified opinion polls.
Personally I expect it’ll be like 1972 all over again as Labour rebels come to the rescue of a Tory Prime Minister.
There’s an irony if that happens.
Judging by their twitter feeds I've got Flint and Mann voting with the government. Any others ?
Among non Labour opposition MPs, Frank Field, Lady Hermon, Stephen Lloyd.
It is refreshing that at least a handful of Labour MPs are putting their constituents first, rather than running scared of the Corbyn cult.
A question, on which I have no settled view, is what is the minimum size of defeat of the deal that would allow Theresa May to continue to press its merits on a dubious House? If it goes down by less than 20, clearly she is still fighting. If it goes down by more than 100, could she keep arguing for it (and if so how)?
On current numbers as advertised by the various interested groups, it looks like it will lose by well over 100.
Edit: Similarly, Labour say they are going to try to amend the bill to rule out 'no deal'. I've no idea how they could do this, but if they were successful, Leavers might prefer to back the deal rather than trash it in the hope of no deal.
Out of date though. Smooth and orderly appeared alongside strong and stable more than half a dozen times in the 2017 manifesto. The new slogan seems to be "balanced approach to the economy" as noted earlier in this thread.
A question, on which I have no settled view, is what is the minimum size of defeat of the deal that would allow Theresa May to continue to press its merits on a dubious House? If it goes down by less than 20, clearly she is still fighting. If it goes down by more than 100, could she keep arguing for it (and if so how)?
On current numbers as advertised by the various interested groups, it looks like it will lose by well over 100.
Won't a lot depend not just on the final vote, but on the amendments? In fact, the passing (or not) of amendments are likely to change how MPs vote on the final division - for example, if a referendum has been ruled out or mandated.
Edit: Similarly, Labour say they are going to try to amend the bill to rule out 'no deal'. I've no idea how they could do this, but if they were successful, Leavers might prefer to back the deal rather than trash it in the hope of no deal.
The only amendment that could achieve that is "That this house believes this deal, even if rejected that this bill passes into law on 29th March 2018" (sorry I'm not completely au fait with the flowery language)
A question, on which I have no settled view, is what is the minimum size of defeat of the deal that would allow Theresa May to continue to press its merits on a dubious House? If it goes down by less than 20, clearly she is still fighting. If it goes down by more than 100, could she keep arguing for it (and if so how)?
On current numbers as advertised by the various interested groups, it looks like it will lose by well over 100.
It depends surely upon whether any amendments are made by Europe after a rejection.
To one extent, played right, a mammoth HoC defeat could assist May be the logic someone used to say a hung Parliament could help May in the negotiations. If after a mammoth defeat Varakar and Barnier get a fright and thing that actually a concession is needed on the subject of the backstop in order to rescue the deal then that should guarantee the deal goes through on the second go.
As it stands I think this deal is a 'bad deal' and agree with May's maxim that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'. If OTOH the backstop was fixed then the meat of the rest of the deal is acceptable. I suspect reading between the lines most Tory MPs opposed to this would agree.
Eliminate the backstop you eliminate the rebellion and ultimately we [almost] all want there to be a deal, we just disagree on how to get there.
Vince should take a line out of the SDLP's book and get behind the deal. His line is almost as reprehensible as Corbyn's or the ERGs. If the deal fails. THEN you put the decision back to the people. I expect Ken Clarke will pivot back to the people's vote after the deal is rejected.
Ken Clarke has never favoured referenda.
He views them as glorified opinion polls.
Personally I expect it’ll be like 1972 all over again as Labour rebels come to the rescue of a Tory Prime Minister.
There’s an irony if that happens.
Judging by their twitter feeds I've got Flint and Mann voting with the government. Any others ?
Among non Labour opposition MPs, Frank Field, Lady Hermon, Stephen Lloyd.
It is refreshing that at least a handful of Labour MPs are putting their constituents first, rather than running scared of the Corbyn cult.
Their constituents, or at least the ones that voted them in, want the Tories turfed out.
When the people had a say it was vital parliament be given the opportunity to block it. Now parliament has a say it is apparently vital that the people must be able to overturn it in favour of remaining. It seems clear that contrary to her initial claims her only principle here is that we must remain.
I was thinking, after the success of "The Match" on Friday night, despite those being involved being absolutely crap....perhaps May vs Corbyn debate could repeat the same format. PPV, in play betting with Ray popping up to tell us the latest odds, etc.
Vince should take a line out of the SDLP's book and get behind the deal. His line is almost as reprehensible as Corbyn's or the ERGs. If the deal fails. THEN you put the decision back to the people. I expect Ken Clarke will pivot back to the people's vote after the deal is rejected.
Ken Clarke has never favoured referenda.
He views them as glorified opinion polls.
Personally I expect it’ll be like 1972 all over again as Labour rebels come to the rescue of a Tory Prime Minister.
I'm sure that if the vote went against him, there would be reasons why it was not final and binding.
The only reason why there'll be a 2nd vote is because the Tories will have made a complete horlicks of implementing the first one. It'll not be Blair's fault.
Are there any leavers enthusiastic about this deal? The fact so many remainers are says a lot about how much this is a betrayal. Remainers cheering on this deal says about as much as if McDonnell was cheering on a Tory budget.
Are there any leavers enthusiastic about this deal? The fact so many remainers are says a lot about how much this is a betrayal. Remainers cheering on this deal says about as much as if McDonnell was cheering on a Tory budget.
Well, of course, Leavers are in a smallish minority in the HoC.
A question, on which I have no settled view, is what is the minimum size of defeat of the deal that would allow Theresa May to continue to press its merits on a dubious House? If it goes down by less than 20, clearly she is still fighting. If it goes down by more than 100, could she keep arguing for it (and if so how)?
On current numbers as advertised by the various interested groups, it looks like it will lose by well over 100.
Won't a lot depend not just on the final vote, but on the amendments? In fact, the passing (or not) of amendments are likely to change how MPs vote on the final division - for example, if a referendum has been ruled out or mandated.
Edit: Similarly, Labour say they are going to try to amend the bill to rule out 'no deal'. I've no idea how they could do this, but if they were successful, Leavers might prefer to back the deal rather than trash it in the hope of no deal.
The only amendment that could achieve that is "That this house believes this deal, even if rejected that this bill passes into law on 29th March 2018" (sorry I'm not completely au fait with the flowery language)
Surely even that wouldn't suffice since all amendments fail if the bill fails. In order for any amendments to become law, the bill they're amending must become law.
Are there any leavers enthusiastic about this deal? The fact so many remainers are says a lot about how much this is a betrayal. Remainers cheering on this deal says about as much as if McDonnell was cheering on a Tory budget.
Well, of course, Leavers are in a smallish minority in the HoC.
Yet a majority of the country. I seem to recall there were about 100 which is a smallish majority but some of those should be enthusiastic. Who is?
Are there any leavers enthusiastic about this deal? The fact so many remainers are says a lot about how much this is a betrayal. Remainers cheering on this deal says about as much as if McDonnell was cheering on a Tory budget.
Brexit means Brexit. It's practically a koan. I'm delighted that she's got a deal, curate's egg though it may be.
Are there any leavers enthusiastic about this deal? The fact so many remainers are says a lot about how much this is a betrayal. Remainers cheering on this deal says about as much as if McDonnell was cheering on a Tory budget.
I'm not enthusiastic about it, but I prefer it to any plausible alternative.
What a load of nonsense, EU people do queue jump, perfectly legally, but they do that. Why are we so scared of speaking the truth.
At the airport at passport control there are two queues, one for EU/British passports and the other for Non EU. Different queues, not jumping the queue.
Also not possible to jump a queue that doesn't exist.
A question, on which I have no settled view, is what is the minimum size of defeat of the deal that would allow Theresa May to continue to press its merits on a dubious House? If it goes down by less than 20, clearly she is still fighting. If it goes down by more than 100, could she keep arguing for it (and if so how)?
On current numbers as advertised by the various interested groups, it looks like it will lose by well over 100.
Won't a lot depend not just on the final vote, but on the amendments? In fact, the passing (or not) of amendments are likely to change how MPs vote on the final division - for example, if a referendum has been ruled out or mandated.
Edit: Similarly, Labour say they are going to try to amend the bill to rule out 'no deal'. I've no idea how they could do this, but if they were successful, Leavers might prefer to back the deal rather than trash it in the hope of no deal.
The only amendment that could achieve that is "That this house believes this deal, even if rejected that this bill passes into law on 29th March 2018" (sorry I'm not completely au fait with the flowery language)
Surely even that wouldn't suffice since all amendments fail if the bill fails. In order for any amendments to become law, the bill they're amending must become law.
If a wrecking amendment is passed saying (e.g.) “this deal may not be accepted, and the government is instructed to return for further negotiations; but in the event of no deal being reached by 31 Jan the government must seek to revoke A50” that would work - the government would have to whip to vote the bill down at that stage, but logically those who voted for the amendment would then vote the amended bill into law.
Not sure whether the speaker would allow the amendment though.
What a load of nonsense, EU people do queue jump, perfectly legally, but they do that. Why are we so scared of speaking the truth.
At the airport at passport control there are two queues, one for EU/British passports and the other for Non EU. Different queues, not jumping the queue.
Also not possible to jump a queue that doesn't exist.
From a non-EU visitor perspective at that airport, those EU visitors are being given preferential treatment as they enter more smoothly.
What a load of nonsense, EU people do queue jump, perfectly legally, but they do that. Why are we so scared of speaking the truth.
What rubbish, how can you queue jump when you are following the legal process. They take their rightful place based on the laws implemented by the Tories.
What a load of nonsense, EU people do queue jump, perfectly legally, but they do that. Why are we so scared of speaking the truth.
At the airport at passport control there are two queues, one for EU/British passports and the other for Non EU. Different queues, not jumping the queue.
Also not possible to jump a queue that doesn't exist.
From a non-EU visitor perspective at that airport, those EU visitors are being given preferential treatment.
Due to FOM within the EU but noone is jumping any queues at present.
Are there any leavers enthusiastic about this deal? The fact so many remainers are says a lot about how much this is a betrayal. Remainers cheering on this deal says about as much as if McDonnell was cheering on a Tory budget.
I am a Leaver and very enthusiastic about this deal. Controlled immigration, membership fees ended, British courts sovereign, the ability to have global trade in services while maintaining continental supply chains in goods. It's great. But then I make decisions based on what I am for rather than this modern attitude of just trying to oppose people I dislike.
What a load of nonsense, EU people do queue jump, perfectly legally, but they do that. Why are we so scared of speaking the truth.
At the airport at passport control there are two queues, one for EU/British passports and the other for Non EU. Different queues, not jumping the queue.
Also not possible to jump a queue that doesn't exist.
From a non-EU visitor perspective at that airport, those EU visitors are being given preferential treatment.
Due to FOM within the EU but noone is jumping any queues at present.
Legally, but we are talking about perception. and that's what May probably meant by her original comment. Anway, she's now apologised as it's easier to do that than argue the case.
Are there any leavers enthusiastic about this deal? The fact so many remainers are says a lot about how much this is a betrayal. Remainers cheering on this deal says about as much as if McDonnell was cheering on a Tory budget.
I am a Leaver and very enthusiastic about this deal. Controlled immigration, membership fees ended, British courts sovereign, the ability to have global trade in services while maintaining continental supply chains in goods. It's great. But then I make decisions based on what I am for rather than this modern attitude of just trying to oppose people I dislike.
It's a fantasy. If you want frictionless trade you have to maintain free movement and this deal commits to that in writing.
A question, on which I have no settled view, is what is the minimum size of defeat of the deal that would allow Theresa May to continue to press its merits on a dubious House? If it goes down by less than 20, clearly she is still fighting. If it goes down by more than 100, could she keep arguing for it (and if so how)?
On current numbers as advertised by the various interested groups, it looks like it will lose by well over 100.
Won't a lot depend not just on the final vote, but on the amendments? In fact, the passing (or not) of amendments are likely to change how MPs vote on the final division - for example, if a referendum has been ruled out or mandated.
Edit: Similarly, Labour say they are going to try to amend the bill to rule out 'no deal'. I've no idea how they could do this, but if they were successful, Leavers might prefer to back the deal rather than trash it in the hope of no deal.
The only amendment that could achieve that is "That this house believes this deal, even if rejected that this bill passes into law on 29th March 2018" (sorry I'm not completely au fait with the flowery language)
Surely even that wouldn't suffice since all amendments fail if the bill fails. In order for any amendments to become law, the bill they're amending must become law.
If a wrecking amendment is passed saying (e.g.) “this deal may not be accepted, and the government is instructed to return for further negotiations; but in the event of no deal being reached by 31 Jan the government must seek to revoke A50” that would work - the government would have to whip to vote the bill down at that stage, but logically those who voted for the amendment would then vote the amended bill into law.
Not sure whether the speaker would allow the amendment though.
I don't think that will work to repeal The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.
What a load of nonsense, EU people do queue jump, perfectly legally, but they do that. Why are we so scared of speaking the truth.
At the airport at passport control there are two queues, one for EU/British passports and the other for Non EU. Different queues, not jumping the queue.
Also not possible to jump a queue that doesn't exist.
From a non-EU visitor perspective at that airport, those EU visitors are being given preferential treatment.
Due to FOM within the EU but noone is jumping any queues at present.
Are there any leavers enthusiastic about this deal? The fact so many remainers are says a lot about how much this is a betrayal. Remainers cheering on this deal says about as much as if McDonnell was cheering on a Tory budget.
I am a Leaver and very enthusiastic about this deal. Controlled immigration, membership fees ended, British courts sovereign, the ability to have global trade in services while maintaining continental supply chains in goods. It's great. But then I make decisions based on what I am for rather than this modern attitude of just trying to oppose people I dislike.
It's a fantasy. If you want frictionless trade you have to maintain free movement and this deal commits to that in writing.
No such thing as frictionless trade. We have friction in trade with the EU right now. What this does do is provide access to European supply chains while allowing us to slash unskilled immigration. Exactly what Britain needs.
I see Edward Leigh has raised the question of abrogation... not immediately dismissed by May.
Could this be the comfort blanket the wobbly Tory Brexiters need?
This is what the ERG is being so stupid about. Obviously May can't talk about it, but once outside the EU we will be a sovereign country able to join and leave any agreement we want to. Give it ten years and if the constraints of a customs agreement are too much, make a push to leave then. At some point you need to bank all the wins you have had so far.
What a load of nonsense, EU people do queue jump, perfectly legally, but they do that. Why are we so scared of speaking the truth.
What rubbish, how can you queue jump when you are following the legal process. They take their rightful place based on the laws implemented by the Tories.
What a load of nonsense, EU people do queue jump, perfectly legally, but they do that. Why are we so scared of speaking the truth.
Er. Cos if it is perfectly legal it isn't queue jumping? It is following the lawful process.
So far as I'm aware, queue jumping in normal life isn't illegal either, it just tends to make those being 'jumped', who were part of the queue (if judged in chronological order), annoyed. So legality is surely beside the point.
What rubbish, how can you queue jump when you are following the legal process. They take their rightful place based on the laws implemented by the Tories.
What a load of nonsense, EU people do queue jump, perfectly legally, but they do that. Why are we so scared of speaking the truth.
At the airport at passport control there are two queues, one for EU/British passports and the other for Non EU. Different queues, not jumping the queue.
Also not possible to jump a queue that doesn't exist.
From a non-EU visitor perspective at that airport, those EU visitors are being given preferential treatment.
Due to FOM within the EU but noone is jumping any queues at present.
Legally, but we are talking about perception. and that's what May probably meant by her original comment. Anway, she's now apologised as it's easier to do that than argue the case.
It just cracks me up the way people fake horror at such an innocuous statement.
What rubbish, how can you queue jump when you are following the legal process. They take their rightful place based on the laws implemented by the Tories.
Why does queue jumping have to imply illegality?
where did the queue come from in first place, it is imaginary in May's twisted mind.
A question, on which I have no settled view, is what is the minimum size of defeat of the deal that would allow Theresa May to continue to press its merits on a dubious House? If it goes down by less than 20, clearly she is still fighting. If it goes down by more than 100, could she keep arguing for it (and if so how)?
On current numbers as advertised by the various interested groups, it looks like it will lose by well over 100.
Won't a lot depend not just on the final vote, but on the amendments? In fact, the passing (or not) of amendments are likely to change how MPs vote on the final division - for example, if a referendum has been ruled out or mandated.
Edit: Similarly, Labour say they are going to try to amend the bill to rule out 'no deal'. I've no idea how they could do this, but if they were successful, Leavers might prefer to back the deal rather than trash it in the hope of no deal.
The only amendment that could achieve that is "That this house believes this deal, even if rejected that this bill passes into law on 29th March 2018" (sorry I'm not completely au fait with the flowery language)
Surely even that wouldn't suffice since all amendments fail if the bill fails. In order for any amendments to become law, the bill they're amending must become law.
If a wrecking amendment is passed saying (e.g.) “this deal may not be accepted, and the government is instructed to return for further negotiations; but in the event of no deal being reached by 31 Jan the government must seek to revoke A50” that would work - the government would have to whip to vote the bill down at that stage, but logically those who voted for the amendment would then vote the amended bill into law.
Not sure whether the speaker would allow the amendment though.
I don't think that will work to repeal The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.
Does it need to repeal that act? It could amend it if needed but I had assumed that a revocation would be a new act or executive action. Probably the latter.
Are there any leavers enthusiastic about this deal? The fact so many remainers are says a lot about how much this is a betrayal. Remainers cheering on this deal says about as much as if McDonnell was cheering on a Tory budget.
I am a Leaver and very enthusiastic about this deal. Controlled immigration, membership fees ended, British courts sovereign, the ability to have global trade in services while maintaining continental supply chains in goods. It's great. But then I make decisions based on what I am for rather than this modern attitude of just trying to oppose people I dislike.
It's a fantasy. If you want frictionless trade you have to maintain free movement and this deal commits to that in writing.
Rubbish. We had FOM with Ireland for years and years but trade wasn’t “frictionless” as it is between two English counties, nor is it now between us and the 27. We have different currencies and tax rates for starters. The deal in no way commits to FOM as now. There may be haggling, sure as part of the future trade deal but FOM wouldn’t be as now, despite your fervent desire.
What a load of nonsense, EU people do queue jump, perfectly legally, but they do that. Why are we so scared of speaking the truth.
At the airport at passport control there are two queues, one for EU/British passports and the other for Non EU. Different queues, not jumping the queue.
Also not possible to jump a queue that doesn't exist.
From a non-EU visitor perspective at that airport, those EU visitors are being given preferential treatment.
Due to FOM within the EU but noone is jumping any queues at present.
Legally, but we are talking about perception. and that's what May probably meant by her original comment. Anway, she's now apologised as it's easier to do that than argue the case.
It just cracks me up the way people fake horror at such an innocuous statement.
Sadly social media means our pathetic modern-day MPs react to such comments in order to value-signal their way through the actual issues.
Comments
Thought that might happen.
Mueller getting closer to Nige according to latest reports that Jerome Corsi has been offered a plea bargain deal for perjury re Wikileaks and Assange...
https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/1067082086559948801?s=21
https://twitter.com/sethabramson/status/1067083379328409602?s=21
If the deal fails. THEN you put the decision back to the people.
I expect Ken Clarke will pivot back to the people's vote after the deal is rejected.
On current numbers as advertised by the various interested groups, it looks like it will lose by well over 100.
Edit: Similarly, Labour say they are going to try to amend the bill to rule out 'no deal'. I've no idea how they could do this, but if they were successful, Leavers might prefer to back the deal rather than trash it in the hope of no deal.
Personally I expect it’ll be like 1972 all over again as Labour rebels come to the rescue of a Tory Prime Minister.
There’s an irony if that happens.
HAH !
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/margaret-thatcher-new-50-note-bank-england-scientist-shortlist-mark-carney-ada-lovelace-a8652816.html
(Thatcher won't be on any banknote in our lifetimes - she's far too polarising)
FPT: Mr. Pointer, I agree. This could still make it through the Commons.
To one extent, played right, a mammoth HoC defeat could assist May be the logic someone used to say a hung Parliament could help May in the negotiations. If after a mammoth defeat Varakar and Barnier get a fright and thing that actually a concession is needed on the subject of the backstop in order to rescue the deal then that should guarantee the deal goes through on the second go.
As it stands I think this deal is a 'bad deal' and agree with May's maxim that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'. If OTOH the backstop was fixed then the meat of the rest of the deal is acceptable. I suspect reading between the lines most Tory MPs opposed to this would agree.
Eliminate the backstop you eliminate the rebellion and ultimately we [almost] all want there to be a deal, we just disagree on how to get there.
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/1067093123564634112
When the people had a say it was vital parliament be given the opportunity to block it. Now parliament has a say it is apparently vital that the people must be able to overturn it in favour of remaining. It seems clear that contrary to her initial claims her only principle here is that we must remain.
https://twitter.com/JGForsyth/status/1067094241854271490
Are there any leavers enthusiastic about this deal? The fact so many remainers are says a lot about how much this is a betrayal. Remainers cheering on this deal says about as much as if McDonnell was cheering on a Tory budget.
What a mess.
Different queues, not jumping the queue.
Also not possible to jump a queue that doesn't exist.
Not sure whether the speaker would allow the amendment though.
Could this be the comfort blanket the wobbly Tory Brexiters need?
Edit. Malcolm got in first!
https://twitter.com/SkySportsF1/status/1067098713502490624
But then Labour want FoM......
I thank you.