Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.
It assumes that:
- There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and - That she will lose it, and - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.
There's no way that's a 25% chance.
You also have to include the possibility that the government loses a VoNC on Dec 12, in which case I think May would be an 80%+ shot to go before Xmas. Add that in and you get a lot closer to a 25% chance.
Everything there rests on what the DUP do. While I expect that they would back the govt in a VoNC if the Deal goes down (though not necessarily if the deal goes through), it can't be relied upon.
Do you think any Conservative MPs would refuse to support the government on a VONC?
The question, I suppose is whether any *current* Con MPs would do so - they'd surely have to resign the whip or defect first if they planned on it.
Simple answer is that I don't know. This is an issue that raises high emotions and there've been enough cases in the past to suggest we shouldn't discount the possibility. My guess is that there won't be but it's not something I'll be staking anything on. If a Con MP does vote against the govt on a VoNC, they're almost certainly committing career suicide as they'd be expelled from the Party and their chances of winning at a subsequent election - as early as January - would be low.
If they believe this deal is a near traitorous capitulation leading to vassalage, and somehow it does get through, then they should vote down the government even at that cost. How could someone support a government which dud such a thing?
Some people on Facebook really do think that Thresa May is a worse traitor than Kim Philby or William Joyce.
You must follow som pretty odd people on Facebook
'Follow'? These are my relatives. The old saying 'God gave us our relations, thank God we can choose our friends' has never been more apposite.
Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.
It assumes that:
- There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and - That she will lose it, and - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.
There's no way that's a 25% chance.
You also have to include the possibility that the government loses a VoNC on Dec 12, in which case I think May would be an 80%+ shot to go before Xmas. Add that in and you get a lot closer to a 25% chance.
Everything there rests on what the DUP do. While I expect that they would back the govt in a VoNC if the Deal goes down (though not necessarily if the deal goes through), it can't be relied upon.
Do you think any Conservative MPs would refuse to support the government on a VONC?
The question, I suppose is whether any *current* Con MPs would do so - they'd surely have to resign the whip or defect first if they planned on it.
Simple answer is that I don't know. This is an issue that raises high emotions and there've been enough cases in the past to suggest we shouldn't discount the possibility. My guess is that there won't be but it's not something I'll be staking anything on. If a Con MP does vote against the govt on a VoNC, they're almost certainly committing career suicide as they'd be expelled from the Party and their chances of winning at a subsequent election - as early as January - would be low.
If they believe this deal is a near traitorous capitulation leading to vassalage, and somehow it does get through, then they should vote down the government even at that cost. How could someone support a government which dud such a thing?
Some people on Facebook really do think that Thresa May is a worse traitor than Kim Philby or William Joyce.
Sure, but Mann (Or Hopkins in Sean_F ) case are clearly not unthinking Labour party hacks and might vote through the deal.
John is his own man and absolutely will not be told what to do, but whips, Corbyn, constituents or the Archangel Gabriel. If pressured, his inclination will be to do the opposite. Kelvin is very different - a quiet, consistent left-winger suspended due to non-political allegations. I think he's likely to vote with Corbyn.
Did you tell him you have never and will never vote for him anyway?
It's completely irrelevant which way you might vote when writing a letter to your local MP.
It's pretty relevant how they vote though. I have Chris Law in Dundee West. Never rebelled against the SNP. Almost always voted for greater EU integration. Opposed the referendum at every step. I am a little reluctant to waste the pixels. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25270/chris_law/dundee_west
Could be worse David , you could have on of those unprincipled 13 lying toerags that have more faces than the town clock. They make Lib Dems seem principled and honest. Now that would be a waste of breath.
Did you tell him you have never and will never vote for him anyway?
It's completely irrelevant which way you might vote when writing a letter to your local MP. I'd have written a similiar one to Rowley, though his mind seems made up.
If I were JM I would be more concerned with what potential and confirmed Labour voters think.
Mind you if he votes for the deal he will in all likely hood never have to be concerned with that either as IMO he will be deselected
I expect he'll be receiving plenty of messages from those who aren't his constituents to not back the deal. Kinder, gentler messages.
Fact for the day : WeWork is by far the biggest of those pre-letting tenants. It's an order of magnitude bigger than anyone else. (And number two is another temporary office space firm.)
If May loses the 11 December vote, will she be immediately defenestrated by the Conservative Party?
No. (Famous last words).
Labour would surely table a VoNC in such circumstances and it would be madness for Con MPs to go into that debate without a leader, when the outcome of the vote isn't certain.
In any case, as the vote being lost is the default assumption, there's no logical reason why if you would do it then, you wouldn't do it now.
That said, politicians are emotional creatures (and don't always work to what the rest of the world would see as normal laws of logic, even when they're trying to), so nothing can be ruled out.
If May loses the 11 December vote, will she be immediately defenestrated by the Conservative Party?
No. (Famous last words).
Labour would surely table a VoNC in such circumstances and it would be madness for Con MPs to go into that debate without a leader, when the outcome of the vote isn't certain.
In any case, as the vote being lost is the default assumption, there's no logical reason why if you would do it then, you wouldn't do it now.
That said, politicians are emotional creatures (and don't always work to what the rest of the world would see as normal laws of logic, even when they're trying to), so nothing can be ruled out.
The DUP will support the Tories in that VONC I suspect.
It's certainly not €800bn - that's assets under management etc, not wealth.
That would be the German economy that shrank by 0.2% in the last quarter compared with an increase of 0.6% here? That's the one having a construction boom?
And when have you ever not see cranes on the skyline in London?
Nevertheless the €800 billion of assets that have moved to Frankfurt is presumably a hard fact. How many assets you are responsible for is a key indicator of your importance in a bank. You get measured on it all the time. The tax revenue is probably welcome in Germany and other countries as well.
They used to be ours, but not any more thanks to Brexit. We might get more fish but don't hold breath
They might be right of course, but its not a hard fact.
Also, not all assets are created equally. If we lost €800bn of money market or French government bond business, I doubt we'd notice. On the other hand, that works probably represent the entire London private equity and venture capital space, and we'd definitely notice that.
Punters make it a 25% chance that she’ll be out this year which sort of assumes that there’ll be a CON MP confidence this side of Christmas.
It assumes that:
- There will be a Tory MP no-confidence vote, before Christmas, and - That she will lose it, and - That she will stand down as PM immediately or within a few days of losing it, rather than remaining as PM until a successor is chosen.
There's no way that's a 25% chance.
You also have to include the possibility that the government loses a VoNC on Dec 12, in which case I think May would be an 80%+ shot to go before Xmas. Add that in and you get a lot closer to a 25% chance.
Everything there rests on what the DUP do. While I expect that they would back the govt in a VoNC if the Deal goes down (though not necessarily if the deal goes through), it can't be relied upon.
Do you think any Conservative MPs would refuse to support the government on a VONC?
The question, I suppose is whether any *current* Con MPs would do so - they'd surely have to resign the whip or defect first if they planned on it.
Simple answer is that I don't know. This is an issue that raises high emotions and there've been enough cases in the past to suggest we shouldn't discount the possibility. My guess is that there won't be but it's not something I'll be staking anything on. If a Con MP does vote against the govt on a VoNC, they're almost certainly committing career suicide as they'd be expelled from the Party and their chances of winning at a subsequent election - as early as January - would be low.
would abstentions be viewed the same way ?
I can't believe that the vote wouldn't have a three-line whip.
A parliamentary VoNC is effectively a four-line whip. All MPs are expected to turn up and vote for the party, and no excuses barring serious ill health are usually tolerated. Pairing is unlikely to apply. Ministers scheduled to be overseas will be flown back.
I don't know whether an abstention on a VoNC would result in a full expulsion; I would certainly expect it to result in the withdrawal of the whip and if a GE was triggered before the whip was restored, the MP would be unlikely to be able to stand (which frankly would be fair enough given that s/he had at the very least seriously risked bringing down their own party in government - and depending on the closeness of the vote, might actually have done so).
Sure, but Mann (Or Hopkins in Sean_F ) case are clearly not unthinking Labour party hacks and might vote through the deal.
John is his own man and absolutely will not be told what to do, but whips, Corbyn, constituents or the Archangel Gabriel. If pressured, his inclination will be to do the opposite. Kelvin is very different - a quiet, consistent left-winger suspended due to non-political allegations. I think he's likely to vote with Corbyn.
@NickPalmer - totally off topic, but were you close to Fiona Jones during her brief period as MP for Newark at all?
A few years back I read an awful article on what she has been through during her trial. I'd hope MP's would be better supported nowadays but I doubt it.
*If* there's a second referendum, and it's a three option referendum, then I think May's deal wins. Most voters are not bitter enders who would rather have nothing at all, than have to compromise, and it will be most voters' second choice.
So, we can be sure that Remain MPs in the Commons would rule that out. Their best chance is to make it a binary option Remain/No Deal (and frighten the voters into Remain) or Remain/Deal, and hope that enough hard Brexiters sit on their hands.
And, if Remain loses second time around, there's endless scope to demand further referenda in the future.
I don't think deal would win. Who would speak to defend it? After the Commons on left And right unite to condemn it?
In aggregate, voters are wiser than MP's.
In a three-way referendum, Deal goes down first.
Today it would win.
I think every poll (certainly, the majority of them), which have polled deal / no deal / remain, have found 'deal' to have least support. In a campaign, it would likely only be squeezed further.
Deltapoll put Deal second, but that's the only one so far.
Deltapoll issued a correction to their initial tweet - Deal was the Condrocet winner vs both (a bit vs Remain and a lot vs No Deal)
*If* there's a second referendum, and it's a three option referendum, then I think May's deal wins. Most voters are not bitter enders who would rather have nothing at all, than have to compromise, and it will be most voters' second choice.
So, we can be sure that Remain MPs in the Commons would rule that out. Their best chance is to make it a binary option Remain/No Deal (and frighten the voters into Remain) or Remain/Deal, and hope that enough hard Brexiters sit on their hands.
And, if Remain loses second time around, there's endless scope to demand further referenda in the future.
I don't think deal would win. Who would speak to defend it? After the Commons on left And right unite to condemn it?
In aggregate, voters are wiser than MP's.
In a three-way referendum, Deal goes down first.
Today it would win.
I think every poll (certainly, the majority of them), which have polled deal / no deal / remain, have found 'deal' to have least support. In a campaign, it would likely only be squeezed further.
Even though No Deal is the least popular option on first preferences, it would beat Remain 52:48 in a two-way competition according to the preference orderings above. This is because Deal supporters prefer No Deal to Remain by a large margin.
As well as beating Remain in a two-way comparison, the May Agreement would also beat No Deal in a straight contest by a large margin, 58 to 42. The modest first-preference lead for the Deal would be strengthened because Remainers strongly prefer the Deal to No Deal.
So constructing a series of two-way contests from the preference orderings means that there is a majority for the Deal over No Deal and for the Deal over Remain. This means that May’s Agreement is what political scientists call the Condorcet winner
*If* there's a second referendum, and it's a three option referendum, then I think May's deal wins. Most voters are not bitter enders who would rather have nothing at all, than have to compromise, and it will be most voters' second choice.
So, we can be sure that Remain MPs in the Commons would rule that out. Their best chance is to make it a binary option Remain/No Deal (and frighten the voters into Remain) or Remain/Deal, and hope that enough hard Brexiters sit on their hands.
And, if Remain loses second time around, there's endless scope to demand further referenda in the future.
I don't think deal would win. Who would speak to defend it? After the Commons on left And right unite to condemn it?
In aggregate, voters are wiser than MP's.
In a three-way referendum, Deal goes down first.
Today it would win.
I think every poll (certainly, the majority of them), which have polled deal / no deal / remain, have found 'deal' to have least support. In a campaign, it would likely only be squeezed further.
It should not be included. Parliament is unclear what it wants but if it votes as expected it will be clear they do not want the deal. There's no point giving voters that choice.
Parliament is also clear that it doesn't want No Deal. Parliament is also close to filled with MPs who stood on manifestoes backing Brexit. There is no good reason for excluding Deal from a referendum that doesn't apply to the other options.
If May loses the 11 December vote, will she be immediately defenestrated by the Conservative Party?
No. (Famous last words).
Labour would surely table a VoNC in such circumstances and it would be madness for Con MPs to go into that debate without a leader, when the outcome of the vote isn't certain.
In any case, as the vote being lost is the default assumption, there's no logical reason why if you would do it then, you wouldn't do it now.
That said, politicians are emotional creatures (and don't always work to what the rest of the world would see as normal laws of logic, even when they're trying to), so nothing can be ruled out.
The DUP will support the Tories in that VONC I suspect.
Wouldnt count on it TM has royally fooked them over
It's certainly not €800bn - that's assets under management etc, not wealth.
That would be the German economy that shrank by 0.2% in the last quarter compared with an increase of 0.6% here? That's the one having a construction boom?
And when have you ever not see cranes on the skyline in London?
Nevertheless the €800 billion of assets that have moved to Frankfurt is presumably a hard fact. How many assets you are responsible for is a key indicator of your importance in a bank. You get measured on it all the time. The tax revenue is probably welcome in Germany and other countries as well.
They used to be ours, but not any more thanks to Brexit. We might get more fish but don't hold breath
They might be right of course, but its not a hard fact.
Also, not all assets are created equally. If we lost €800bn of money market or French government bond business, I doubt we'd notice. On the other hand, that works probably represent the entire London private equity and venture capital space, and we'd definitely notice that.
Its very hard to find up to date statistics post 2016 but certainly up to that point London's share of fund management was steadily increasing.
*If* there's a second referendum, and it's a three option referendum, then I think May's deal wins. Most voters are not bitter enders who would rather have nothing at all, than have to compromise, and it will be most voters' second choice.
So, we can be sure that Remain MPs in the Commons would rule that out. Their best chance is to make it a binary option Remain/No Deal (and frighten the voters into Remain) or Remain/Deal, and hope that enough hard Brexiters sit on their hands.
And, if Remain loses second time around, there's endless scope to demand further referenda in the future.
I don't think deal would win. Who would speak to defend it? After the Commons on left And right unite to condemn it?
In aggregate, voters are wiser than MP's.
In a three-way referendum, Deal goes down first.
Today it would win.
I think every poll (certainly, the majority of them), which have polled deal / no deal / remain, have found 'deal' to have least support. In a campaign, it would likely only be squeezed further.
Even though No Deal is the least popular option on first preferences, it would beat Remain 52:48 in a two-way competition according to the preference orderings above. This is because Deal supporters prefer No Deal to Remain by a large margin.
As well as beating Remain in a two-way comparison, the May Agreement would also beat No Deal in a straight contest by a large margin, 58 to 42. The modest first-preference lead for the Deal would be strengthened because Remainers strongly prefer the Deal to No Deal.
So constructing a series of two-way contests from the preference orderings means that there is a majority for the Deal over No Deal and for the Deal over Remain. This means that May’s Agreement is what political scientists call the Condorcet winner
I find it very hard to imagine the electoral commission taking anything other than an extremely dim view of attempting to conflate two separate questions in such a way as to elicit a preferred second-choice answer.
There are two questions at work here:
1. Do we still wish to leave the EU (Yes/No) 2. If we leave the EU, on what basis? (May/Norway+/No Deal)
"How is a hard Brexit not mandated? After being given apocalyptic predictions if we left the EU, the majority still voted to leave."
*
There is no doubt that many of the 17m voted for that. But many did not. And of those that did there were different views on what it might mean. Ditto amongst those that didn't. Several different priorities were in play. Trade deals? EU budget contribution? Immigration? ECJ? EU food regulation? Worker rights? Consumer rights? Tax rates? State Aid rules? Fisheries? Passports? Etc etc etc. It is therefore not supportable to interpret the referendum beyond what was on the ballot (so the UK must leave the EU) and what was not on the ballot but was made clear to all and by all (under the best exit deal that the government could in practice achieve). Which by definition is this one.
A disappointing but unarguable truth. This is it. All those who wanted to Leave should back this deal. As should the democrats on the remain side.
I am going to argue with it on the following principles:
Firstly on the assumption that there is no alteration possible in any aspect on a deal presented to parliament on a take it or leave it basis. The EU is constrained/inflexible, but that really isn't the case, in particular on the political statement part.
Secondly and related, that parliament has no right to revision on a deal that it has had no part in formulating.
Thirdly that parliament has no discretion or sovereignty in principle. That it cannot under any circumstances reject a deal, no matter how catastrophic it might turn out to be. Parliament is bound by the previous decision and not guided by it.
The first is obviously open to debate but I see no signs that the EU will move.
The second is simply a fact. Parliament has no legal right to amend or modify a treaty that is placed before it. Under the 2010 act it can either pass it or reject it. It cannot amend it.
The third is of course open to debate as well. But given that Parliament should have known it is not allowed to amend deals and that a deal once approved by the EU would be almost impossible to renegotiate, if they didn't want to Brexit then they should not have voted for Article 50.
These are good points but on point two, I should say the assertion is that parliament only has the right to approve the deal, and not the right to accept or reject. While the Act doesn't enable MPs to modify the text parliament can give the government whatever instruction it wants.
If May loses the 11 December vote, will she be immediately defenestrated by the Conservative Party?
Not likely - she has 21 days to provide a response but in practice that should come fairly quickly
In her interview with Faisal Islam on Sky from the G20 she was asked what happens if her deal falls
She gave him that well known stare and said
'Faisal, we are leaving the European Union on the 29th March 2019'
No hesitation at all so she seems determined it will be her deal or no deal
It'd be her very own Nero Decree.
Chopping off the head to spite the face.
You seem to miss the nuance.
She is ruling out a second referendum or moving A50 in that statement
But isn't she effectively threatening the nation with no deal chaos if parliament doesn't vote for her deal?
That may be the only choice, other than remaining. It's legislation which says we leave come what may if they vote down the deal. No one forced them to trigger A50 (a party whip does not count, plenty defied it)
Did you tell him you have never and will never vote for him anyway?
It's completely irrelevant which way you might vote when writing a letter to your local MP. I'd have written a similiar one to Rowley, though his mind seems made up.
If I were JM I would be more concerned with what potential and confirmed Labour voters think.
Mind you if he votes for the deal he will in all likely hood never have to be concerned with that either as IMO he will be deselected
I expect he'll be receiving plenty of messages from those who aren't his constituents to not back the deal. Kinder, gentler messages.
At least neither your former MP or your current one told George Eaton and Owen Jones they "make a lovely couple" on Twitter last night.
*If* there's a second referendum, and it's a three option referendum, then I think May's deal wins. Most voters are not bitter enders who would rather have nothing at all, than have to compromise, and it will be most voters' second choice.
So, we can be sure that Remain MPs in the Commons would rule that out. Their best chance is to make it a binary option Remain/No Deal (and frighten the voters into Remain) or Remain/Deal, and hope that enough hard Brexiters sit on their hands.
And, if Remain loses second time around, there's endless scope to demand further referenda in the future.
I don't think deal would win. Who would speak to defend it? After the Commons on left And right unite to condemn it?
In aggregate, voters are wiser than MP's.
In a three-way referendum, Deal goes down first.
Today it would win.
I think every poll (certainly, the majority of them), which have polled deal / no deal / remain, have found 'deal' to have least support. In a campaign, it would likely only be squeezed further.
It should not be included. Parliament is unclear what it wants but if it votes as expected it will be clear they do not want the deal. There's no point giving voters that choice.
Parliament is also clear that it doesn't want No Deal. Parliament is also close to filled with MPs who stood on manifestoes backing Brexit. There is no good reason for excluding Deal from a referendum that doesn't apply to the other options.
It would be pointless. In any case parliament doesn't want no deal but has legislated to see it happen by default so they have implicitly accepted it no matter how they bleat about it now. Not so the deal.
No one will credibly defend it. We know people still in cabinet don't like parts of it now, so we can guess even they won't be backing deal with any sincerity.
If May loses the 11 December vote, will she be immediately defenestrated by the Conservative Party?
No. (Famous last words).
Labour would surely table a VoNC in such circumstances and it would be madness for Con MPs to go into that debate without a leader, when the outcome of the vote isn't certain.
In any case, as the vote being lost is the default assumption, there's no logical reason why if you would do it then, you wouldn't do it now.
That said, politicians are emotional creatures (and don't always work to what the rest of the world would see as normal laws of logic, even when they're trying to), so nothing can be ruled out.
The DUP will support the Tories in that VONC I suspect.
Wouldnt count on it TM has royally fooked them over
The DUP VoNC if the deal passes. If it falls then they're sitting pretty politically.
If May loses the 11 December vote, will she be immediately defenestrated by the Conservative Party?
No. (Famous last words).
Labour would surely table a VoNC in such circumstances and it would be madness for Con MPs to go into that debate without a leader, when the outcome of the vote isn't certain.
In any case, as the vote being lost is the default assumption, there's no logical reason why if you would do it then, you wouldn't do it now.
That said, politicians are emotional creatures (and don't always work to what the rest of the world would see as normal laws of logic, even when they're trying to), so nothing can be ruled out.
The DUP will support the Tories in that VONC I suspect.
Wouldnt count on it TM has royally fooked them over
The DUP VoNC if the deal passes. If it falls then they're sitting pretty politically.
I don't know whether an abstention on a VoNC would result in a full expulsion; I would certainly expect it to result in the withdrawal of the whip and if a GE was triggered before the whip was restored, the MP would be unlikely to be able to stand (which frankly would be fair enough given that s/he had at the very least seriously risked bringing down their own party in government - and depending on the closeness of the vote, might actually have done so).
If there's a serious risk of a VONC because the DUP withdraw Conf&Supp, no MP will ever be allowed to be more than 45 minutes from the voting lobby. No overseas trips, no returning to your constituencies and families and mistresses and outside interests. You are trapped, and at the mercy of Comrade Corbyn and his VONCs. He can strike any time he wants, as often as he wants, until he succeeds.
An MP who defied the party line on a VONC would surely be persona non grata forever. Loss of the whip, social ostracisation, and an almost certain threat of deselection.
Did you tell him you have never and will never vote for him anyway?
It's completely irrelevant which way you might vote when writing a letter to your local MP. I'd have written a similiar one to Rowley, though his mind seems made up.
If I were JM I would be more concerned with what potential and confirmed Labour voters think.
Mind you if he votes for the deal he will in all likely hood never have to be concerned with that either as IMO he will be deselected
I expect he'll be receiving plenty of messages from those who aren't his constituents to not back the deal. Kinder, gentler messages.
At least neither your former MP or your current one told George Eaton and Owen Jones they "make a lovely couple" on Twitter last night.
On topic, the big surprise for me has been just how unwilling Conservative MPs have been to compromise with reality. I expected them to vote for the eventual deal in the absence of an alternative. But despite the absence of a viable alternative, they still seem intent on voting it down en masse.
"How is a hard Brexit not mandated? After being given apocalyptic predictions if we left the EU, the majority still voted to leave."
*
There is no doubt that many of the 17m voted for that. But many did not. And of those that did there were different views on what it might mean. Ditto amongst those that didn't. Several different priorities were in play. Trade deals? EU budget contribution? Immigration? ECJ? EU food regulation? Worker rights? Consumer rights? Tax rates? State Aid rules? Fisheries? Passports? Etc etc etc. It is therefore not supportable to interpret the referendum beyond what was on the ballot (so the UK must leave the EU) and what was not on the ballot but was made clear to all and by all (under the best exit deal that the government could in practice achieve). Which by definition is this one.
A disappointing but unarguable truth. This is it. All those who wanted to Leave should back this deal. As should the democrats on the remain side.
I am going to argue with it on the following principles:
Firstly on the assumption that there is no alteration possible in any aspect on a deal presented to parliament on a take it or leave it basis. The EU is constrained/inflexible, but that really isn't the case, in particular on the political statement part.
Secondly and related, that parliament has no right to revision on a deal that it has had no part in formulating.
Thirdly that parliament has no discretion or sovereignty in principle. That it cannot under any circumstances reject a deal, no matter how catastrophic it might turn out to be. Parliament is bound by the previous decision and not guided by it.
The first is obviously open to debate but I see no signs that the EU will move.
The second is simply a fact. Parliament has no legal right to amend or modify a treaty that is placed before it. Under the 2010 act it can either pass it or reject it. It cannot amend it.
The third is of course open to debate as well. But given that Parliament should have known it is not allowed to amend deals and that a deal once approved by the EU would be almost impossible to renegotiate, if they didn't want to Brexit then they should not have voted for Article 50.
These are good points but on point two, I should say the assertion is that parliament only has the right to approve the deal, and not the right to accept or reject. While the Act doesn't enable MPs to modify the text parliament can give the government whatever instruction it wants.
But the Government has no legal obligation to follow that instruction (unfortunately in my view even if the outcome would be counter to my hopes)
*If* there's a second referendum, and it's a three option referendum, then I think May's deal wins. Most voters are not bitter enders who would rather have nothing at all, than have to compromise, and it will be most voters' second choice.
So, we can be sure that Remain MPs in the Commons would rule that out. Their best chance is to make it a binary option Remain/No Deal (and frighten the voters into Remain) or Remain/Deal, and hope that enough hard Brexiters sit on their hands.
And, if Remain loses second time around, there's endless scope to demand further referenda in the future.
I don't think deal would win. Who would speak to defend it? After the Commons on left And right unite to condemn it?
In aggregate, voters are wiser than MP's.
In a three-way referendum, Deal goes down first.
Today it would win.
I think every poll (certainly, the majority of them), which have polled deal / no deal / remain, have found 'deal' to have least support. In a campaign, it would likely only be squeezed further.
Deltapoll put Deal second, but that's the only one so far.
Deltapoll issued a correction to their initial tweet - Deal was the Condrocet winner vs both (a bit vs Remain and a lot vs No Deal)
On topic, the big surprise for me has been just how unwilling Conservative MPs have been to compromise with reality. I expected them to vote for the eventual deal in the absence of an alternative. But despite the absence of a viable alternative, they still seem intent on voting it down en masse.
This is a civil war. It long ago stopped being about doing the right thing, but about crushing your enemies whatever the cost.
So it all boils down to what happens on December 11th - if the Deal passes the Commons, life can return to what passes for normal. If not, what then?
Many of us have speculated the loss of the Deal will precipitate the Conservative VoNC - would those who vote against the Deal vote against May (or abstain) and would there be others? Would she lose the vote - perhaps not but with the backing of 200 MPs only she'd be broken in terms of authority and credibility.
Would Labour seek to bring down the Government in the Commons? They know unless the DUP vote with them they don't have the numbers - if the DUP abstain the Government will just survive - so I suspect they won't try.
A VoNC in the Commons would also enable the Conservatives to rally back round the leader whether May or otherwise and would probably ensure May's survival but with her Deal voted down, what then? Another try in the New Year or do we start frantically preparing for a No Deal on 29/3/19?
Let's say May walks which I still think unlikely - how and around what will her successor re-unite and re-unify the Party? Neither a new referendum nor an attempt to extend A50 seem to have much traction so it's the Norway option and how to explain no end to Freedom of Movement?
I don't know whether an abstention on a VoNC would result in a full expulsion; I would certainly expect it to result in the withdrawal of the whip and if a GE was triggered before the whip was restored, the MP would be unlikely to be able to stand (which frankly would be fair enough given that s/he had at the very least seriously risked bringing down their own party in government - and depending on the closeness of the vote, might actually have done so).
If there's a serious risk of a VONC because the DUP withdraw Conf&Supp, no MP will ever be allowed to be more than 45 minutes from the voting lobby. No overseas trips, no returning to your constituencies and families and mistresses and outside interests. You are trapped, and at the mercy of Comrade Corbyn and his VONCs. He can strike any time he wants, as often as he wants, until he succeeds.
An MP who defied the party line on a VONC would surely be persona non grata forever. Loss of the whip, social ostracisation, and an almost certain threat of deselection.
Just out of interest, what is he position on deselection. Is it in the hands of Central Office or the individual constituencies?
On topic, the big surprise for me has been just how unwilling Conservative MPs have been to compromise with reality. I expected them to vote for the eventual deal in the absence of an alternative. But despite the absence of a viable alternative, they still seem intent on voting it down en masse.
It appears head-banging is catching.... or the 'must believe harder' mindset is spreading...
I saw Oakeshott was banging on about lack of true believers being the problem last night on This Week.
It's a pseudo-religion not politics to some of these Brexiteers....
I find it very hard to imagine the electoral commission taking anything other than an extremely dim view of attempting to conflate two separate questions in such a way as to elicit a preferred second-choice answer.
There are two questions at work here:
1. Do we still wish to leave the EU (Yes/No) 2. If we leave the EU, on what basis? (May/Norway+/No Deal)
Not use a voting system widely used throughout the UK and instead introduce a novel "two part" vote? Why would they take a dim view of that?
In case you hadn't noticed, Question 1 has been asked and answered.
On topic, the big surprise for me has been just how unwilling Conservative MPs have been to compromise with reality. I expected them to vote for the eventual deal in the absence of an alternative. But despite the absence of a viable alternative, they still seem intent on voting it down en masse.
I expect most of them will get there eventually, after howling into the wind for a bit.
On topic, the big surprise for me has been just how unwilling Conservative MPs have been to compromise with reality. I expected them to vote for the eventual deal in the absence of an alternative. But despite the absence of a viable alternative, they still seem intent on voting it down en masse.
Yes, the Tories are nothing if not pragmatic. Looks like they may prefer to be nothing. If they vote this down then oust May they'll be polling in the low thirties, if they're lucky.
If there's a serious risk of a VONC because the DUP withdraw Conf&Supp, no MP will ever be allowed to be more than 45 minutes from the voting lobby. No overseas trips, no returning to your constituencies and families and mistresses and outside interests. You are trapped, and at the mercy of Comrade Corbyn and his VONCs. He can strike any time he wants, as often as he wants, until he succeeds.
An MP who defied the party line on a VONC would surely be persona non grata forever. Loss of the whip, social ostracisation, and an almost certain threat of deselection.
Not supporting your party on a Vote of Confidence in the Commons is about as serious as it gets short of actually crossing the floor.
The deterrent effects are less for an MP intending to retire at the next election of course.
I don't know whether an abstention on a VoNC would result in a full expulsion; I would certainly expect it to result in the withdrawal of the whip and if a GE was triggered before the whip was restored, the MP would be unlikely to be able to stand (which frankly would be fair enough given that s/he had at the very least seriously risked bringing down their own party in government - and depending on the closeness of the vote, might actually have done so).
If there's a serious risk of a VONC because the DUP withdraw Conf&Supp, no MP will ever be allowed to be more than 45 minutes from the voting lobby. No overseas trips, no returning to your constituencies and families and mistresses and outside interests. You are trapped, and at the mercy of Comrade Corbyn and his VONCs. He can strike any time he wants, as often as he wants, until he succeeds.
I don't think that's true. The opposition can't just ambush the government with a VONC, they have to table it and and there would be a debate first (by convention very quickly, but the vote wouldn't be instantaneous). In any case if by chance Corbyn did win one by subterfuge or by taking advantage of a time when a disproportionate number of Tory MPs were away with their mistresses, it can always be reversed within 14 days.
On topic, the big surprise for me has been just how unwilling Conservative MPs have been to compromise with reality. I expected them to vote for the eventual deal in the absence of an alternative. But despite the absence of a viable alternative, they still seem intent on voting it down en masse.
It appears head-banging is catching.... or the 'must believe harder' mindset is spreading...
I saw Oakeshott was banging on about lack of true believers being the problem last night on This Week.
It's a pseudo-religion not politics to some of these Brexiteers....
There are cultists on both sides. Apparently the world is actually black and white, despite all evidence to the contrary.
I don't know whether an abstention on a VoNC would result in a full expulsion; I would certainly expect it to result in the withdrawal of the whip and if a GE was triggered before the whip was restored, the MP would be unlikely to be able to stand (which frankly would be fair enough given that s/he had at the very least seriously risked bringing down their own party in government - and depending on the closeness of the vote, might actually have done so).
If there's a serious risk of a VONC because the DUP withdraw Conf&Supp, no MP will ever be allowed to be more than 45 minutes from the voting lobby. No overseas trips, no returning to your constituencies and families and mistresses and outside interests. You are trapped, and at the mercy of Comrade Corbyn and his VONCs. He can strike any time he wants, as often as he wants, until he succeeds.
An MP who defied the party line on a VONC would surely be persona non grata forever. Loss of the whip, social ostracisation, and an almost certain threat of deselection.
Just out of interest, what is he position on deselection. Is it in the hands of Central Office or the individual constituencies?
For a sitting MP, there's automatic reselection unless either the local association no-confidences their MP, or if they have the whip withdrawn.
An MP that supported a VONC against their government would absolutely lose the whip, and therefore could not be reselected as Tory candidate for the next election.
I don't know whether an abstention on a VoNC would result in a full expulsion; I would certainly expect it to result in the withdrawal of the whip and if a GE was triggered before the whip was restored, the MP would be unlikely to be able to stand (which frankly would be fair enough given that s/he had at the very least seriously risked bringing down their own party in government - and depending on the closeness of the vote, might actually have done so).
If there's a serious risk of a VONC because the DUP withdraw Conf&Supp, no MP will ever be allowed to be more than 45 minutes from the voting lobby. No overseas trips, no returning to your constituencies and families and mistresses and outside interests. You are trapped, and at the mercy of Comrade Corbyn and his VONCs. He can strike any time he wants, as often as he wants, until he succeeds.
An MP who defied the party line on a VONC would surely be persona non grata forever. Loss of the whip, social ostracisation, and an almost certain threat of deselection.
Slight correction there:
Corbyn can strike with a VoNC any time he likes, but only with a couple of caveats. He can't ambush the government with a stealth motion - the Speaker would surely have to enable a full debate on the motion and reasonable notice (e.g. next working day). While the legislation isn't that prescriptive, it would in any case be in Labour's interests to stick to that convention in case an ambush motion might later be brought in against them. Therefore, MPs would be allowed around the country or abroad, providing that the whips had details and that they could be assured of a return in time.
Also, there's a credibility question. While Corbyn can table a VoNC whenever he wants, to do so and then lose wastes political capital, and to do so and lose several times only serves to highlight your own weakness at a time when you should have strength. It's one thing to table the motion after a bad government defeat - that much is expected and sensible - it'd be quite another to keep on doing it in the absence of developments elsewhere.
*If* there's a second referendum, and it's a three option referendum, then I think May's deal wins. Most voters are not bitter enders who would rather have nothing at all, than have to compromise, and it will be most voters' second choice.
So, we can be sure that Remain MPs in the Commons would rule that out. Their best chance is to make it a binary option Remain/No Deal (and frighten the voters into Remain) or Remain/Deal, and hope that enough hard Brexiters sit on their hands.
And, if Remain loses second time around, there's endless scope to demand further referenda in the future.
I don't think deal would win. Who would speak to defend it? After the Commons on left And right unite to condemn it?
In aggregate, voters are wiser than MP's.
In a three-way referendum, Deal goes down first.
Today it would win.
I think every poll (certainly, the majority of them), which have polled deal / no deal / remain, have found 'deal' to have least support. In a campaign, it would likely only be squeezed further.
Even though No Deal is the least popular option on first preferences, it would beat Remain 52:48 in a two-way competition according to the preference orderings above. This is because Deal supporters prefer No Deal to Remain by a large margin.
As well as beating Remain in a two-way comparison, the May Agreement would also beat No Deal in a straight contest by a large margin, 58 to 42. The modest first-preference lead for the Deal would be strengthened because Remainers strongly prefer the Deal to No Deal.
So constructing a series of two-way contests from the preference orderings means that there is a majority for the Deal over No Deal and for the Deal over Remain. This means that May’s Agreement is what political scientists call the Condorcet winner
I don't know whether an abstention on a VoNC would result in a full expulsion; I would certainly expect it to result in the withdrawal of the whip and if a GE was triggered before the whip was restored, the MP would be unlikely to be able to stand (which frankly would be fair enough given that s/he had at the very least seriously risked bringing down their own party in government - and depending on the closeness of the vote, might actually have done so).
If there's a serious risk of a VONC because the DUP withdraw Conf&Supp, no MP will ever be allowed to be more than 45 minutes from the voting lobby. No overseas trips, no returning to your constituencies and families and mistresses and outside interests. You are trapped, and at the mercy of Comrade Corbyn and his VONCs. He can strike any time he wants, as often as he wants, until he succeeds.
An MP who defied the party line on a VONC would surely be persona non grata forever. Loss of the whip, social ostracisation, and an almost certain threat of deselection.
Just out of interest, what is he position on deselection. Is it in the hands of Central Office or the individual constituencies?
For a sitting MP, there's automatic reselection unless either the local association no-confidences their MP, or if they have the whip withdrawn.
An MP that supported a VONC against their government would absolutely lose the whip, and therefore could not be reselected as Tory candidate for the next election.
So what happens if they still have the support of their constituency. Does that effectively mean no Tory candidate in that constituency?
I don't know whether an abstention on a VoNC would result in a full expulsion; I would certainly expect it to result in the withdrawal of the whip and if a GE was triggered before the whip was restored, the MP would be unlikely to be able to stand (which frankly would be fair enough given that s/he had at the very least seriously risked bringing down their own party in government - and depending on the closeness of the vote, might actually have done so).
If there's a serious risk of a VONC because the DUP withdraw Conf&Supp, no MP will ever be allowed to be more than 45 minutes from the voting lobby. No overseas trips, no returning to your constituencies and families and mistresses and outside interests. You are trapped, and at the mercy of Comrade Corbyn and his VONCs. He can strike any time he wants, as often as he wants, until he succeeds.
An MP who defied the party line on a VONC would surely be persona non grata forever. Loss of the whip, social ostracisation, and an almost certain threat of deselection.
Just out of interest, what is he position on deselection. Is it in the hands of Central Office or the individual constituencies?
For a sitting MP, there's automatic reselection unless either the local association no-confidences their MP, or if they have the whip withdrawn.
An MP that supported a VONC against their government would absolutely lose the whip, and therefore could not be reselected as Tory candidate for the next election.
So what happens if they still have the support of their constituency. Does that effectively mean no Tory candidate in that constituency?
I expect the constituency association would be dissolved by CCHQ, and a new one established.
I don't know whether an abstention on a VoNC would result in a full expulsion; I would certainly expect it to result in the withdrawal of the whip and if a GE was triggered before the whip was restored, the MP would be unlikely to be able to stand (which frankly would be fair enough given that s/he had at the very least seriously risked bringing down their own party in government - and depending on the closeness of the vote, might actually have done so).
If there's a serious risk of a VONC because the DUP withdraw Conf&Supp, no MP will ever be allowed to be more than 45 minutes from the voting lobby. No overseas trips, no returning to your constituencies and families and mistresses and outside interests. You are trapped, and at the mercy of Comrade Corbyn and his VONCs. He can strike any time he wants, as often as he wants, until he succeeds.
An MP who defied the party line on a VONC would surely be persona non grata forever. Loss of the whip, social ostracisation, and an almost certain threat of deselection.
I don't think that's true. The opposition can't just ambush the government with a VONC, they have to table it and and there would be a debate first.
The FTPA is vague on the matter. It specifies the form that the motion must take, and that it takes precedence over all house business.
But it leaves the precise mechanics of the VONCs to the Speaker.
On topic, the big surprise for me has been just how unwilling Conservative MPs have been to compromise with reality. I expected them to vote for the eventual deal in the absence of an alternative. But despite the absence of a viable alternative, they still seem intent on voting it down en masse.
That a sizable number would take the stance they have was not surprising. The deal has big issues after all. I confess the extent against it has surprised me. They are much more confident of alternatives being viable than I anticipated
On topic, the big surprise for me has been just how unwilling Conservative MPs have been to compromise with reality. I expected them to vote for the eventual deal in the absence of an alternative. But despite the absence of a viable alternative, they still seem intent on voting it down en masse.
That doesn't just apply to Con MPs; it's true of the opposition parties too.
But the assumption I think you have wrong is the absence of a viable alternative: many MPs believe that there are alternatives, rightly or wrongly. While they continue to chase them, they won't be forced into what they see as second- or third-best.
Our JCR elections were conducted by the Condorcet method. As the Returning Officer, I don't recall it ever making a difference compared to AV (or even FPTP, for that matter).
Whether the Withdrawal Agreement is 'good' or 'bad' is a matter of personal opinion and as such is irrelevant to the point I'm making. MPs in triggering article 50 in accordance with the referendum result mandated that the UK leave the EU on 29 March next year under the best exit terms that the UK government could in practice manage to negotiate with the EU27. The government has now done that (by definition they have) and ergo those self same MPs are honour bound to ratify not frustrate.
Yep. I think it is fair to be critical of the deal and say others could have done better - I know that is certainly my view - but the Government was given a task by the voters and they have carried that out. I don't think anyone could reasonably claim that this is not leaving the EU and if the backstop is not eventually needed it probably goes further than many had expected.
I would not claim to be ecstatic about the deal but then I suspect I was never going to be. It is a reasonable compromise and does fulfil the mandate from the Referendum.
I would feel better if a senior Tory was prepared to say something along the lines of:
"This is an embarrassingly poor deal. But it's the only one we have. In reality, we have limited possibilities for renegotiating it. Attempting such renegotiations will leave us even less time to prepare for a No Deal Brexit if they fail. The Government has egregiously failed in its duty to prepare the nation for the worst effects of No deal - deliberately, in my mind, to cut off No Deal as a realistic option. People should be held to account for that in due course.
However, the over-riding duty is to deliver Brexit, in accordance with the wishes of the people as conveyed in the 2016 Referendum, then as reinforced in the 2017 General Election. A General Election in which over 85% of the votes cast were for parties pledged to deliver Brexit.
There are people still playing games trying to prevent Brexit happening at all. I hold these people in contempt, because these people hold the voters in contempt.
So my priority is to achieve Brexit, then move towards the best trade deal we can negotiate. And if the EU acts with anything I consider to be in bad faith in those negotiations, if it drags its feet, if it - or any of its member states - introduces conditions to get the deal signed, then I will have no hesitation in abrogating the Brexit Agreement. Just give me an excuse guys, just give me an excuse....
It goes without saying the trade agreement needs to be handled by an entirely new team. Top down. The PM should confirm that she will stand down and allow her successor to be in post by 31st March. If she gives that confirmation, then - and only then - will I vote for her Brexit deal."
A senior Tory saying that would be a long way towards getting my support.
Our JCR elections were conducted by the Condorcet method. As the Returning Officer, I don't recall it ever making a difference compared to AV (or even FPTP, for that matter).
To be clear, Condorcet isn't a method, its a criterion. And has been discussed many times recently, due to the Condorcet paradox, it's quite possible to have a situation where there is no Condorcet winner.
The FTPA is vague on the matter. It specifies the form that the motion must take, and that it takes precedence over all house business.
But it leaves the precise mechanics of the VONCs to the Speaker.
Yes, so it will be governed by the same parliamentary conventions as previous votes of confidence.
It will be governed by whatever entertainingly mischievous thoughts are going through Bercow's head today.
Whilst I don't like Bercow, he does act correctly on parliamentary procedures. (I have the impression that's he also much more impartial now that Cameron has gone. I won't speculate as to why that might be!).
Our JCR elections were conducted by the Condorcet method. As the Returning Officer, I don't recall it ever making a difference compared to AV (or even FPTP, for that matter).
To be clear, Condorcet isn't a method, its a criterion. And has been discussed many times recently, due to the Condorcet paradox, it's quite possible to have a situation where there is no Condorcet winner.
It is both a method and a criterion. The method being to resolve all the pairwise comparisons and see if there is a Condorcet winner. Failing that, it is usual to revert to AV.
The FTPA is vague on the matter. It specifies the form that the motion must take, and that it takes precedence over all house business.
But it leaves the precise mechanics of the VONCs to the Speaker.
Yes, so it will be governed by the same parliamentary conventions as previous votes of confidence.
It will be governed by whatever entertainingly mischievous thoughts are going through Bercow's head today.
Whilst I don't like Bercow, he does act correctly on parliamentary procedures. (I have the impression that's he also much more impartial now that Cameron has gone. I won't speculate as to why that might be!).
You said that about his respect for the convention about government legal advice. But he strongly hinted he's minded to find the government in contempt.
"How is a hard Brexit not mandated? After being given apocalyptic predictions if we left the EU, the majority still voted to leave."
*
There is no doubt that Which by definition is this one.
A disappointing but unarguable truth. This is it. All those who wanted to Leave should back this deal. As should the democrats on the remain side.
I am going to argue with it on the following principles:
Firstly on the assumption that there is no alteration possible in any aspect on a deal presented to parliament on a take it or leave it basis. The EU is constrained/inflexible, but that really isn't the case, in particular on the political statement part.
Secondly and related, that parliament has no right to revision on a deal that it has had no part in formulating.
Thirdly that parliament has no discretion or sovereignty in principle. That it cannot under any circumstances reject a deal, no matter how catastrophic it might turn out to be. Parliament is bound by the previous decision and not guided by it.
The first is obviously open to debate but I see no signs that the EU will move.
The second is simply a fact. Parliament has no legal right to amend or modify a treaty that is placed before it. Under the 2010 act it can either pass it or reject it. It cannot amend it.
The third is of course open to debate as well. But given that Parliament should have known it is not allowed to amend deals and that a deal once approved by the EU would be almost impossible to renegotiate, if they didn't want to Brexit then they should not have voted for Article 50.
These are good points but on point two, I should say the assertion is that parliament only has the right to approve the deal, and not the right to accept or reject. While the Act doesn't enable MPs to modify the text parliament can give the government whatever instruction it wants.
But the Government has no legal obligation to follow that instruction (unfortunately in my view even if the outcome would be counter to my hopes)
True. But the fact parliament might be ignored isn't a reason for it not to assert its position.
You said that about his respect for the convention about government legal advice. But he strongly hinted he's minded to find the government in contempt.
Bercow respects convention when it suits him.
No I didn't say that. I don't have enough knowledge of the arcane corners of parliamentary procedures to know whether the government is in contempt on the legal advice, although it certainly looks like it on the face of things.
I would feel better if a senior Tory was prepared to say something along the lines of:
"This is an embarrassingly poor deal. But it's the only one we have. In reality, we have limited possibilities for renegotiating it. Attempting such renegotiations will leave us even less time to prepare for a No Deal Brexit if they fail. The Government has egregiously failed in its duty to prepare the nation for the worst effects of No deal - deliberately, in my mind, to cut off No Deal as a realistic option. People should be held to account for that in due course.
However, the over-riding duty is to deliver Brexit, in accordance with the wishes of the people as conveyed in the 2016 Referendum, then as reinforced in the 2017 General Election. A General Election in which over 85% of the votes cast were for parties pledged to deliver Brexit.
There are people still playing games trying to prevent Brexit happening at all. I hold these people in contempt, because these people hold the voters in contempt.
So my priority is to achieve Brexit, then move towards the best trade deal we can negotiate. And if the EU acts with anything I consider to be in bad faith in those negotiations, if it drags its feet, if it - or any of its member states - introduces conditions to get the deal signed, then I will have no hesitation in abrogating the Brexit Agreement. Just give me an excuse guys, just give me an excuse....
It goes without saying the trade agreement needs to be handled by an entirely new team. Top down. The PM should confirm that she will stand down and allow her successor to be in post by 31st March. If she gives that confirmation, then - and only then - will I vote for her Brexit deal."
A senior Tory saying that would be a long way towards getting my support.
I agree that this is a more logical approach to selling the deal than the one that May is taking but saying "this is really crap but our bungling has left us with no choice but to accept it" is not a very convincing sales pitch. Especially when the voters were promised something much better.
Our JCR elections were conducted by the Condorcet method. As the Returning Officer, I don't recall it ever making a difference compared to AV (or even FPTP, for that matter).
To be clear, Condorcet isn't a method, its a criterion. And has been discussed many times recently, due to the Condorcet paradox, it's quite possible to have a situation where there is no Condorcet winner.
It is both a method and a criterion. The method being to resolve all the pairwise comparisons and see if there is a Condorcet winner. Failing that, it is usual to revert to AV.
There are several Condorcet methods. The Schulze method can be used to assign a winner even in the presence of a cycle by considering pairwise the strength of the strongest "beat path" from each candidate to the other.
Although Schulze is very elegant mathematically, it can be hard to explain and so I can see why a simpler method like AV might be preferred. But AV does not meet the Condorcet criterion- it can elect a winner when another eliminated candidate is the Condorcet winner.
Nick Clegg should definitely have proposed Schulze over AV. The referendum would have been beautiful and incomprehensible.
Whether the Withdrawal Agreement is 'good' or 'bad' is a matter of personal opinion and as such is irrelevant to the point I'm making. MPs in triggering article 50 in accordance with the referendum result mandated that the UK leave the EU on 29 March next year under the best exit terms that the UK government could in practice manage to negotiate with the EU27. The government has now done that (by definition they have) and ergo those self same MPs are honour bound to ratify not frustrate.
Yep. I think it is fair to be critical of the deal and say others could have done better - I know that is certainly my view - but the Government was given a task by the voters and they have carried that out. I don't think anyone could reasonably claim that this is not leaving the EU and if the backstop is not eventually needed it probably goes further than many had expected.
I would not claim to be ecstatic about the deal but then I suspect I was never going to be. It is a reasonable compromise and does fulfil the mandate from the Referendum.
I would feel better if a senior Tory was prepared to say something along the lines of:
"This is an embarrassingly poor deal. But it's the only one we have. In reality, we have limited possibilities
However, the over-riding duty is to deliver Brexit, in accordance with the wishes of the people as conveyed in the 2016 Referendum, then as reinforced in the 2017 General Election. A General Election in which over 85% of the votes cast were for parties pledged to deliver Brexit.
There are people still playing games trying to prevent Brexit happening at all. I hold these people in contempt, because these people hold the voters in contempt.
So my priority is to achieve Brexit, then move towards the best trade deal we can negotiate. And if the EU acts with anything I consider to be in bad faith in those negotiations, if it drags its feet, if it - or any of its member states - introduces conditions to get the deal signed, then I will have no hesitation in abrogating the Brexit Agreement. Just give me an excuse guys, just give me an excuse....
It goes without saying the trade agreement needs to be handled by an entirely new team. Top down. The PM should confirm that she will stand down and allow her successor to be in post by 31st March. If she gives that confirmation, then - and only then - will I vote for her Brexit deal."
A senior Tory saying that would be a long way towards getting my support.
Entirely reasonable as far as I am concerned. ERG need to get the WDA on the statute, leave in March, and then take on the EU most probably with a new leader
So what happens if they still have the support of their constituency. Does that effectively mean no Tory candidate in that constituency?
We have the fairly recent example of Zac Goldsmith who resigned from the Conservative Party and fought a by-election in opposition to Government policy on a third runway at Heathrow.
This could have been awkward for Conservative activists wanting to help Goldsmith because the rule in the Lib Dems (and I imagine it's the same in the Conservatives) is that you cannot remain a member if you work for an opposing candidate in an election. Had Richmond Park Conservatives put up an Official Conservative candidate, no Conservative activist or member could have worked for Goldsmith without risking expulsion from the Party.
However, Richmond Park Conservatives opted not to contest the by election and as all activists of whatever party on here will confirm, IF your party is not contesting an election you are free as a voter to choose whichever candidate (or none) you wish to support.
This left Conservatives able to support the Independent Zac Goldsmith as a candidate - I believe one local Conservative activist did stand as a Conservative candidate but she was not an official candidate and wasn't endorsed officially by Richmond Park Conservatives.
So it's possible to not have a candidate (Tatton 1997 and Wyre Forest in 2001 are other examples where parties have stood aside) but if the candidate had wilfully voted against the Party it's hard to see how the constituency could endorse that person as their candidate without risking punitive sanction from the centre.
I don't know whether an abstention on a VoNC would result in a full expulsion; I would certainly expect it to result in the withdrawal of the whip and if a GE was triggered before the whip was restored, the MP would be unlikely to be able to stand (which frankly would be fair enough given that s/he had at the very least seriously risked bringing down their own party in government - and depending on the closeness of the vote, might actually have done so).
If there's a serious risk of a VONC because the DUP withdraw Conf&Supp, no MP will ever be allowed to be more than 45 minutes from the voting lobby. No overseas trips, no returning to your constituencies and families and mistresses and outside interests. You are trapped, and at the mercy of Comrade Corbyn and his VONCs. He can strike any time he wants, as often as he wants, until he succeeds.
An MP who defied the party line on a VONC would surely be persona non grata forever. Loss of the whip, social ostracisation, and an almost certain threat of deselection.
Just out of interest, what is he position on deselection. Is it in the hands of Central Office or the individual constituencies?
For a sitting MP, there's automatic reselection unless either the local association no-confidences their MP, or if they have the whip withdrawn.
An MP that supported a VONC against their government would absolutely lose the whip, and therefore could not be reselected as Tory candidate for the next election.
So what happens if they still have the support of their constituency. Does that effectively mean no Tory candidate in that constituency?
The constituency association would be expected to conduct a selection process, irrespective of the preferences of the members, Exec or officers for the sitting MP. That selection would have to be conducted without the suspended MP.
If the Association wasn't willing to do that then I expect that CCHQ would step in in some form, probably involving putting the Association into special measures. For example, it could either to run the selection process itself - possibly through an Area officer - or even impose a candidate directly. Depending on time constraints, the former option would be the more sensible but if a VoNC was carried, I can't imagine that there would be any sympathy for an Association which backed an MP which had just brought down their own government.
*If* there's a second referendum, and it's a three option referendum, then I think May's deal wins. Most voters are not bitter enders who would rather have nothing at all, than have to compromise, and it will be most voters' second choice.
So, we can be sure that Remain MPs in the Commons would rule that out. Their best chance is to make it a binary option Remain/No Deal (and frighten the voters into Remain) or Remain/Deal, and hope that enough hard Brexiters sit on their hands.
And, if Remain loses second time around, there's endless scope to demand further referenda in the future.
I don't think deal would win. Who would speak to defend it? After the Commons on left And right unite to condemn it?
In aggregate, voters are wiser than MP's.
In a three-way referendum, Deal goes down first.
Today it would win.
I think every poll (certainly, the majority of them), which have polled deal / no deal / remain, have found 'deal' to have least support. In a campaign, it would likely only be squeezed further.
Even though No Deal is the least popular option on first preferences, it would beat Remain 52:48 in a two-way competition according to the preference orderings above. This is because Deal supporters prefer No Deal to Remain by a large margin.
As well as beating Remain in a two-way comparison, the May Agreement would also beat No Deal in a straight contest by a large margin, 58 to 42. The modest first-preference lead for the Deal would be strengthened because Remainers strongly prefer the Deal to No Deal.
So constructing a series of two-way contests from the preference orderings means that there is a majority for the Deal over No Deal and for the Deal over Remain. This means that May’s Agreement is what political scientists call the Condorcet winner
On topic, the big surprise for me has been just how unwilling Conservative MPs have been to compromise with reality. I expected them to vote for the eventual deal in the absence of an alternative. But despite the absence of a viable alternative, they still seem intent on voting it down en masse.
It appears head-banging is catching.... or the 'must believe harder' mindset is spreading...
I saw Oakeshott was banging on about lack of true believers being the problem last night on This Week.
It's a pseudo-religion not politics to some of these Brexiteers....
There are cultists on both sides. Apparently the world is actually black and white, despite all evidence to the contrary.
I would feel better if a senior Tory was prepared to say something along the lines of:
"This is an embarrassingly poor deal. But it's the only one we have. In reality, we have limited possibilities for renegotiating it. Attempting such renegotiations will leave us even less time to prepare for a No Deal Brexit if they fail. The Government has egregiously failed in its duty to prepare the nation for the worst effects of No deal - deliberately, in my mind, to cut off No Deal as a realistic option. People should be held to account for that in due course.
However, the over-riding duty is to deliver Brexit, in accordance with the wishes of the people as conveyed in the 2016 Referendum, then as reinforced in the 2017 General Election. A General Election in which over 85% of the votes cast were for parties pledged to deliver Brexit.
There are people still playing games trying to prevent Brexit happening at all. I hold these people in contempt, because these people hold the voters in contempt.
So my priority is to achieve Brexit, then move towards the best trade deal we can negotiate. And if the EU acts with anything I consider to be in bad faith in those negotiations, if it drags its feet, if it - or any of its member states - introduces conditions to get the deal signed, then I will have no hesitation in abrogating the Brexit Agreement. Just give me an excuse guys, just give me an excuse....
It goes without saying the trade agreement needs to be handled by an entirely new team. Top down. The PM should confirm that she will stand down and allow her successor to be in post by 31st March. If she gives that confirmation, then - and only then - will I vote for her Brexit deal."
A senior Tory saying that would be a long way towards getting my support.
I agree that this is a more logical approach to selling the deal than the one that May is taking but saying "this is really crap but our bungling has left us with no choice but to accept it" is not a very convincing sales pitch. Especially when the voters were promised something much better.
Very nice. Had dinner with a Cons MP (voted Remain) last night who showed me some of their emails. Typical: You ******** traitor. Make sure you ******* vote against the **** ****** deal you Remoaner c***.
As I said something about the mindset of Leave vs Remain supporters.
I think Alastair Burt was right that the attacks on the deal from Leavers will tend to make former Remain MPs feel that they are no longer obliged to respect the referendum result.
It certainly provides cover to any of them.
It's more than cover - if Leavers have decided that they now don't like the Brexit they campaigned for and voted for, then why on earth should Remainer MPs who think Brexit is a mistake, but were deferring to the democratic decision, continue to defer to it?
Because Brexit isn't the mistake. Remainer May's fake Brexit is the mistake.
Well hopefully you're right there will be a chance for proper brexit. But if not what then? Mps may have to face that choice.
MPs may not get that choice. The only chance for a Brexit we voted for is to see Remainer May's deal voted down. Too many Remainer MPs see that as a voting down of Brexit as @Richard_Nabavi alluded too and not merely a voting down of the mess May has tried to drag us into.
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Very nice. Had dinner with a Cons MP (voted Remain) last night who showed me some of their emails. Typical: You ******** traitor. Make sure you ******* vote against the **** ****** deal you Remoaner c***.
As I said something about the mindset of Leave vs Remain supporters.
I think Alastair Burt was right that the attacks on the deal from Leavers will tend to make former Remain MPs feel that they are no longer obliged to respect the referendum result.
It certainly provides cover to any of them.
It's more than cover - if Leavers have decided that they now don't like the Brexit they campaigned for and voted for, then why on earth should Remainer MPs who think Brexit is a mistake, but were deferring to the democratic decision, continue to defer to it?
Because Brexit isn't the mistake. Remainer May's fake Brexit is the mistake.
Well hopefully you're right there will be a chance for proper brexit. But if not what then? Mps may have to face that choice.
MPs may not get that choice. The only chance for a Brexit we voted for is to see Remainer May's deal voted down. Too many Remainer MPs see that as a voting down of Brexit as @Richard_Nabavi alluded too and not merely a voting down of the mess May has tried to drag us into.
Not a chance - forget brexit if that is your attitude
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Very nice. Had dinner with a Cons MP (voted Remain) last night who showed me some of their emails. Typical: You ******** traitor. Make sure you ******* vote against the **** ****** deal you Remoaner c***.
As I said something about the mindset of Leave vs Remain supporters.
I think Alastair Burt was right that the attacks on the deal from Leavers will tend to make former Remain MPs feel that they are no longer obliged to respect the referendum result.
It certainly provides cover to any of them.
It's more than cover - if Leavers have decided that they now don't like the Brexit they campaigned for and voted for, then why on earth should Remainer MPs who think Brexit is a mistake, but were deferring to the democratic decision, continue to defer to it?
Because Brexit isn't the mistake. Remainer May's fake Brexit is the mistake.
Well hopefully you're right there will be a chance for proper brexit. But if not what then? Mps may have to face that choice.
MPs may not get that choice. The only chance for a Brexit we voted for is to see Remainer May's deal voted down.
Right. But if you still cannot get the Brexit you want after that?
I don't know whether an abstention on a VoNC would result in a full expulsion; I would certainly expect it to result in the withdrawal of the whip and if a GE was triggered before the whip was restored, the MP would be unlikely to be able to stand (which frankly would be fair enough given that s/he had at the very least seriously risked bringing down their own party in government - and depending on the closeness of the vote, might actually have done so).
If there's a serious risk of a VONC because the DUP withdraw Conf&Supp, no MP will ever be allowed to be more than 45 minutes from the voting lobby. No overseas trips, no returning to your constituencies and families and mistresses and outside interests. You are trapped, and at the mercy of Comrade Corbyn and his VONCs. He can strike any time he wants, as often as he wants, until he succeeds.
An MP who defied the party line on a VONC would surely be persona non grata forever. Loss of the whip, social ostracisation, and an almost certain threat of deselection.
Just out of interest, what is he position on deselection. Is it in the hands of Central Office or the individual constituencies?
For a sitting MP, there's automatic reselection unless either the local association no-confidences their MP, or if they have the whip withdrawn.
An MP that supported a VONC against their government would absolutely lose the whip, and therefore could not be reselected as Tory candidate for the next election.
So what happens if they still have the support of their constituency. Does that effectively mean no Tory candidate in that constituency?
The constituency association would be expected to conduct a selection process, irrespective of the preferences of the members, Exec or officers for the sitting MP. That selection would have to be conducted without the suspended MP.
If the Association wasn't willing to do that then I expect that CCHQ would step in in some form, probably involving putting the Association into special measures. For example, it could either to run the selection process itself - possibly through an Area officer - or even impose a candidate directly. Depending on time constraints, the former option would be the more sensible but if a VoNC was carried, I can't imagine that there would be any sympathy for an Association which backed an MP which had just brought down their own government.
Which kind of sums up what is wrong with the party system. My party right or wrong is now way to run politics.
Whilst I don't like Bercow, he does act correctly on parliamentary procedures. (I have the impression that's he also much more impartial now that Cameron has gone. I won't speculate as to why that might be!).
I am not sure that is true.
He seems as anti-Government as ever, if not more so.
In the recent Brexit statements, he has called anti-May backbenchers repeatedly before anyone who might offer any support
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
Alas Mr Smith is no longer my MP, so I can't write to him urging him to vote against May's deal.
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Quite but the EU post brexit will be our enemies......
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Kissinger had it right though. There are no permanent friends or enemies, only interests."
Very nice. Had dinner with a Cons MP (voted Remain) last night who showed me some of their emails. Typical: You ******** traitor. Make sure you ******* vote against the **** ****** deal you Remoaner c***.
As I said something about the mindset of Leave vs Remain supporters.
I think Alastair Burt was right that the attacks on the deal from Leavers will tend to make former Remain MPs feel that they are no longer obliged to respect the referendum result.
It certainly provides cover to any of them.
It's more than cover - if Leavers have decided that they now don't like the Brexit they campaigned for and voted for, then why on earth should Remainer MPs who think Brexit is a mistake, but were deferring to the democratic decision, continue to defer to it?
Because Brexit isn't the mistake. Remainer May's fake Brexit is the mistake.
Well hopefully you're right there will be a chance for proper brexit. But if not what then? Mps may have to face that choice.
MPs may not get that choice. The only chance for a Brexit we voted for is to see Remainer May's deal voted down. Too many Remainer MPs see that as a voting down of Brexit as @Richard_Nabavi alluded too and not merely a voting down of the mess May has tried to drag us into.
Not a chance - forget brexit if that is your attitude
Fine by me.
The 2016 referendum boiled down to a choice between "taking back control" (Leave) or "economic stability" (Remain).
I was torn at first but went for Leave in the end as I thought the risks were overblown but we'd gain more from control than we lose from any instability.
May's deal has sacrificed our control in order to gain economic stability. I'm sorry but to me that's a complete betrayal of the vote. If you want stability, vote remain, but we had that debate and control beat stability.
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Kissinger had it right though. There are no permanent friends or enemies, only interests."
We seem to be severely pissing off our friends in the EU. Perfidious Albion rides again! Win lose or draw, that doesn't bode well for the future. And when all this is over we're going to need our friends.
Kissinger had it right though. There are no permanent friends or enemies, only interests."
And our interests are pretty well always aligned with those of our neighbours. Even fisheries policy could be sorted out if here was a bit of goodwill, and AIUI, if big business hadn't decided to trade quotas.
Very nice. Had dinner with a Cons MP (voted Remain) last night who showed me some of their emails. Typical: You ******** traitor. Make sure you ******* vote against the **** ****** deal you Remoaner c***.
As I said something about the mindset of Leave vs Remain supporters.
I think Alastair Burt was right that the attacks on the deal from Leavers will tend to make former Remain MPs feel that they are no longer obliged to respect the referendum result.
It certainly provides cover to any of them.
It's more than cover - if Leavers have decided that they now don't like the Brexit they campaigned for and voted for, then why on earth should Remainer MPs who think Brexit is a mistake, but were deferring to the democratic decision, continue to defer to it?
Because Brexit isn't the mistake. Remainer May's fake Brexit is the mistake.
Well hopefully you're right there will be a chance for proper brexit. But if not what then? Mps may have to face that choice.
MPs may not get that choice. The only chance for a Brexit we voted for is to see Remainer May's deal voted down.
Right. But if you still cannot get the Brexit you want after that?
It's out of our hands. As I said many MPs (not just May) are prepared to betray what we voted for. We don't get a say except at elections. We possibly remain, minus the rebate, or we possibly leave - who knows?
Did you tell him you have never and will never vote for him anyway?
It's completely irrelevant which way you might vote when writing a letter to your local MP.
It's pretty relevant how they vote though. I have Chris Law in Dundee West. Never rebelled against the SNP. Almost always voted for greater EU integration. Opposed the referendum at every step. I am a little reluctant to waste the pixels. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25270/chris_law/dundee_west
Could be worse David , you could have on of those unprincipled 13 lying toerags that have more faces than the town clock. They make Lib Dems seem principled and honest. Now that would be a waste of breath.
Comments
Quite right too.
Labour would surely table a VoNC in such circumstances and it would be madness for Con MPs to go into that debate without a leader, when the outcome of the vote isn't certain.
In any case, as the vote being lost is the default assumption, there's no logical reason why if you would do it then, you wouldn't do it now.
That said, politicians are emotional creatures (and don't always work to what the rest of the world would see as normal laws of logic, even when they're trying to), so nothing can be ruled out.
I don't know whether an abstention on a VoNC would result in a full expulsion; I would certainly expect it to result in the withdrawal of the whip and if a GE was triggered before the whip was restored, the MP would be unlikely to be able to stand (which frankly would be fair enough given that s/he had at the very least seriously risked bringing down their own party in government - and depending on the closeness of the vote, might actually have done so).
A few years back I read an awful article on what she has been through during her trial. I'd hope MP's would be better supported nowadays but I doubt it.
In the real world, where a referendum would be conducted under AV or with two questions, Deal finishes last.
There are two questions at work here:
1. Do we still wish to leave the EU (Yes/No)
2. If we leave the EU, on what basis? (May/Norway+/No Deal)
No one will credibly defend it. We know people still in cabinet don't like parts of it now, so we can guess even they won't be backing deal with any sincerity.
An MP who defied the party line on a VONC would surely be persona non grata forever. Loss of the whip, social ostracisation, and an almost certain threat of deselection.
So it all boils down to what happens on December 11th - if the Deal passes the Commons, life can return to what passes for normal. If not, what then?
Many of us have speculated the loss of the Deal will precipitate the Conservative VoNC - would those who vote against the Deal vote against May (or abstain) and would there be others? Would she lose the vote - perhaps not but with the backing of 200 MPs only she'd be broken in terms of authority and credibility.
Would Labour seek to bring down the Government in the Commons? They know unless the DUP vote with them they don't have the numbers - if the DUP abstain the Government will just survive - so I suspect they won't try.
A VoNC in the Commons would also enable the Conservatives to rally back round the leader whether May or otherwise and would probably ensure May's survival but with her Deal voted down, what then? Another try in the New Year or do we start frantically preparing for a No Deal on 29/3/19?
Let's say May walks which I still think unlikely - how and around what will her successor re-unite and re-unify the Party? Neither a new referendum nor an attempt to extend A50 seem to have much traction so it's the Norway option and how to explain no end to Freedom of Movement?
I saw Oakeshott was banging on about lack of true believers being the problem last night on This Week.
It's a pseudo-religion not politics to some of these Brexiteers....
In case you hadn't noticed, Question 1 has been asked and answered.
The deterrent effects are less for an MP intending to retire at the next election of course.
An MP that supported a VONC against their government would absolutely lose the whip, and therefore could not be reselected as Tory candidate for the next election.
Corbyn can strike with a VoNC any time he likes, but only with a couple of caveats. He can't ambush the government with a stealth motion - the Speaker would surely have to enable a full debate on the motion and reasonable notice (e.g. next working day). While the legislation isn't that prescriptive, it would in any case be in Labour's interests to stick to that convention in case an ambush motion might later be brought in against them. Therefore, MPs would be allowed around the country or abroad, providing that the whips had details and that they could be assured of a return in time.
Also, there's a credibility question. While Corbyn can table a VoNC whenever he wants, to do so and then lose wastes political capital, and to do so and lose several times only serves to highlight your own weakness at a time when you should have strength. It's one thing to table the motion after a bad government defeat - that much is expected and sensible - it'd be quite another to keep on doing it in the absence of developments elsewhere.
But it leaves the precise mechanics of the VONCs to the Speaker.
But the assumption I think you have wrong is the absence of a viable alternative: many MPs believe that there are alternatives, rightly or wrongly. While they continue to chase them, they won't be forced into what they see as second- or third-best.
"This is an embarrassingly poor deal. But it's the only one we have. In reality, we have limited possibilities for renegotiating it. Attempting such renegotiations will leave us even less time to prepare for a No Deal Brexit if they fail. The Government has egregiously failed in its duty to prepare the nation for the worst effects of No deal - deliberately, in my mind, to cut off No Deal as a realistic option. People should be held to account for that in due course.
However, the over-riding duty is to deliver Brexit, in accordance with the wishes of the people as conveyed in the 2016 Referendum, then as reinforced in the 2017 General Election. A General Election in which over 85% of the votes cast were for parties pledged to deliver Brexit.
There are people still playing games trying to prevent Brexit happening at all. I hold these people in contempt, because these people hold the voters in contempt.
So my priority is to achieve Brexit, then move towards the best trade deal we can negotiate. And if the EU acts with anything I consider to be in bad faith in those negotiations, if it drags its feet, if it - or any of its member states - introduces conditions to get the deal signed, then I will have no hesitation in abrogating the Brexit Agreement. Just give me an excuse guys, just give me an excuse....
It goes without saying the trade agreement needs to be handled by an entirely new team. Top down. The PM should confirm that she will stand down and allow her successor to be in post by 31st March. If she gives that confirmation, then - and only then - will I vote for her Brexit deal."
A senior Tory saying that would be a long way towards getting my support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_vote_of_confidence_in_the_Major_ministry
Bercow respects convention when it suits him.
Although Schulze is very elegant mathematically, it can be hard to explain and so I can see why a simpler method like AV might be preferred. But AV does not meet the Condorcet criterion- it can elect a winner when another eliminated candidate is the Condorcet winner.
Nick Clegg should definitely have proposed Schulze over AV. The referendum would have been beautiful and incomprehensible.
This could have been awkward for Conservative activists wanting to help Goldsmith because the rule in the Lib Dems (and I imagine it's the same in the Conservatives) is that you cannot remain a member if you work for an opposing candidate in an election. Had Richmond Park Conservatives put up an Official Conservative candidate, no Conservative activist or member could have worked for Goldsmith without risking expulsion from the Party.
However, Richmond Park Conservatives opted not to contest the by election and as all activists of whatever party on here will confirm, IF your party is not contesting an election you are free as a voter to choose whichever candidate (or none) you wish to support.
This left Conservatives able to support the Independent Zac Goldsmith as a candidate - I believe one local Conservative activist did stand as a Conservative candidate but she was not an official candidate and wasn't endorsed officially by Richmond Park Conservatives.
So it's possible to not have a candidate (Tatton 1997 and Wyre Forest in 2001 are other examples where parties have stood aside) but if the candidate had wilfully voted against the Party it's hard to see how the constituency could endorse that person as their candidate without risking punitive sanction from the centre.
If the Association wasn't willing to do that then I expect that CCHQ would step in in some form, probably involving putting the Association into special measures. For example, it could either to run the selection process itself - possibly through an Area officer - or even impose a candidate directly. Depending on time constraints, the former option would be the more sensible but if a VoNC was carried, I can't imagine that there would be any sympathy for an Association which backed an MP which had just brought down their own government.
Today I am deeply saddened.
I just found out that Roy Bailey, perhaps one of the greatest folk singers of our age, died a couple of weeks ago.
His version of Richard Thompson's 'Beeswing' remains my all time favourite folk song.
Rest in Peace Roy
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/30/julian-smith-chief-whip-may-brexit
The key paragraph is this one, echoing a point @Big_G_NorthWales has made:
A key tactic for the Brexit vote is to allow all the other options to be voted on via MPs submitting amendments, and let them fail first, forcing MPs to consider May’s deal as the only realistic option on the table. The Smith argument is that none of the various alternatives command a majority in the Commons.
He seems as anti-Government as ever, if not more so.
In the recent Brexit statements, he has called anti-May backbenchers repeatedly before anyone who might offer any support
As I am now a resident of the Shipley constituency, I don't think my current MP needs any persuasion!
The 2016 referendum boiled down to a choice between "taking back control" (Leave) or "economic stability" (Remain).
I was torn at first but went for Leave in the end as I thought the risks were overblown but we'd gain more from control than we lose from any instability.
May's deal has sacrificed our control in order to gain economic stability. I'm sorry but to me that's a complete betrayal of the vote. If you want stability, vote remain, but we had that debate and control beat stability.