Labour sources said that Starmer was ready to sign a joint letter with the DUP’s Westminster leader, Nigel Dodds, the Liberal Democrat Brexit spokesman Tom Brake, and the SNP Europe spokesman Stephen Gethins, asking Bercow to allow a motion “that the government has held parliament in contempt”.
Under Commons rules, if the speaker allows the motion to go before the House and the vote is carried it would then be referred to the committee of privileges which would rule on whether a contempt of parliament had taken place.
If it were decided that a contempt had occurred, the committee could recommend a suitable punishment which would be put back to MPs to agree.
In theory the most severe penalty is expulsion from the House, although the prospects of that happening would appear remote. -------- I do like the very British journalism of that last line - yes, probably the committee won't recommend that the entire government should be expelled.
Just the Prime Minister.
Resigning matter, surely?
Well, the PM doesn't actually need to be an MP. It would give her more time to tour the country using her persuasive powers to whip up the masses to support her deal.
Is it THAT much odder than anything else that's happened lately?
Labour sources said that Starmer was ready to sign a joint letter with the DUP’s Westminster leader, Nigel Dodds, the Liberal Democrat Brexit spokesman Tom Brake, and the SNP Europe spokesman Stephen Gethins, asking Bercow to allow a motion “that the government has held parliament in contempt”.
Under Commons rules, if the speaker allows the motion to go before the House and the vote is carried it would then be referred to the committee of privileges which would rule on whether a contempt of parliament had taken place.
If it were decided that a contempt had occurred, the committee could recommend a suitable punishment which would be put back to MPs to agree.
In theory the most severe penalty is expulsion from the House, although the prospects of that happening would appear remote. -------- I do like the very British journalism of that last line - yes, probably the committee won't recommend that the entire government should be expelled.
Just the Prime Minister.
Resigning matter, surely?
Well, the PM doesn't actually need to be an MP. It would give her more time to tour the country using her persuasive powers to whip up the masses to support her deal.
Is it THAT much odder than anything else that's happened lately?
(In whimsical Sunday morning mode, sorry)
But doesn't the Conservative leader have to be an MP?
Remainers will mostly rank (remain, deal, no deal) Conservative loyalists will split on 2nd prefs, but just about rank (deal, remain, no deal) Erg will tend to rank (no deal, remain, deal), but there are less than 48 of them so who cares. Other leavers will rank (no deal, deal, remain)
Deal likely to be eliminated in round one, with conservative loyalists just winning it for remain, but it will be close.
Remainers will mostly rank (remain, deal, no deal) Conservative loyalists will split on 2nd prefs, but just about rank (deal, remain, no deal) Erg will tend to rank (no deal, remain, deal), but there are less than 48 of them so who cares. Other leavers will rank (no deal, deal, remain)
Deal likely to be eliminated in round one, with conservative loyalists just winning it for remain, but it will be close.
Why would Conservative loyalists vote Deal 1, Remain 2.
Mr. S, depends. One question, three answers, and you're right.
But if it's a two-phase referendum it'd be perhaps fairer, although that might introduce a bias to the middle.
Q1 Should the UK Remain or Leave?
Q2 If Leave wins, should the UK leave with May's deal, or with no deal?
I would have suggested there are two options. They both revolve around the deal.
Option 1 If our elected representatives have rejected the deal by a substantial margin then I see no morally logical case for them to offer us something they consider completely unacceptable, so the choice is leave / remain
Option 2
1st referendum is deal, yes or no.
If no 2nd referendum is remain / no deal
The problem with 2 phase is everything loses as an individual option set against the potential of everything else. It was proved with remain, although that wasn't 2 phase presumably the same result would happen. If no deal was offered with the deal and remain as potential future possibilities if you vote it down, it loses. The deal would get thrashed if no deal and remain are possible on rejection. The only one that might win in those circumstances (this time round anyway) is remain but that would likely lose as well.
The main problem with a second referendum is not the ordering of questions but that neither side (or none of the sides) has done anything to bolster their case. Remainers have not pointed out the rewards of membership, nor Brexiteers the benefits of leaving or any clear path to achieving them.
If the next campaign is to be fought on the same mixture of Project Fear, half truths and downright lies, then why expect a different result?
So Theresa, Pop Quiz: what do you do? Publish the full legal advice that admits the EU has an effective veto on our actually leaving the EU - or face contempt of Parliament by not publishing it?
Publish, say 'woops - I didn't notice that bit' then scrap the deal.
The bit that was specifically drawn to your attention by the Attorney General? The bit that was so sensitive, there were numbered copies of the advice given out and collected back because they were so explosive? Whoops indeed.....
Not sure I see any acceptable way out on this. The DUP won't back down, because they are the DUP. Labour won't back down because it's blood sport. The other parties want their "me too" moment. Tories who hate her deal arent going to help out if it says "May's Brexit don't mean Brexit". So you have to think that by some point this coming week, the PM has a toxic piece of advice published. Whilst she is out and about flogging her horse that isn't just dead, it's at the knackers yard being melted down for glue. Result? her "deal" dies by a majority of over two hundred....
Whoops.
And then brexit dies as we rejoin
... or never actually leave.
If the EU will let us. An important caveat too many people are forgetting and what the headbangers of the ERG and DUP seem to be gambling on.
I would expect the EU to be very anxious to have us abort Brexit, but it will only take one naysayer - say, a deeply unpopular Spanish PM looking for some cheap domestic points, or an Irish PM who doesn't understand the issues, or an ill-judged phrase from a very arrogant but not very bright German in charge of the secretariat - to wreck it and leave us with no deal at all and every flight on the planet grounded.
With that bombshell, I am needed elsewhere. Have a good morning.
Just scaremongering , they can sign a bit of paper in an instant and everything carries on, usual rubbish to frighten the stupid plebs.
Remainers will mostly rank (remain, deal, no deal) Conservative loyalists will split on 2nd prefs, but just about rank (deal, remain, no deal) Erg will tend to rank (no deal, remain, deal), but there are less than 48 of them so who cares. Other leavers will rank (no deal, deal, remain)
Deal likely to be eliminated in round one, with conservative loyalists just winning it for remain, but it will be close.
Why would Conservative loyalists vote Deal 1, Remain 2.
Mr. S, depends. One question, three answers, and you're right.
But if it's a two-phase referendum it'd be perhaps fairer, although that might introduce a bias to the middle.
Q1 Should the UK Remain or Leave?
Q2 If Leave wins, should the UK leave with May's deal, or with no deal?
Phase referendum is not fairer. It is fairer to word it according to the possible outcomes. There are three. We need to pick one.
On April we will
Remain Leave with Mays deal Leave without Mays deal.
That’s it. Pick one. Or rank them
How is that honouring a vote where 52% have already said "Leave"? Or the 2017 General Election manifestos where 86% of the votes were cast for parties pledging to implement Brexit? Go ahead - if you really want to try to break democracy in this country...
Agree - no binary vote can have Remain as an option - that’s been asked and answered.
Given the closeness of the first vote there is a case for including Remain as one of three options.
If Parliament can’t do it’s job of implementing what people voted for in both a referendum and a General Election they’d better be pretty confident in proposing a second referendum or they’ll likely face mass redundancies at the first available opportunity.
Remainers will mostly rank (remain, deal, no deal) Conservative loyalists will split on 2nd prefs, but just about rank (deal, remain, no deal) Erg will tend to rank (no deal, remain, deal), but there are less than 48 of them so who cares. Other leavers will rank (no deal, deal, remain)
Deal likely to be eliminated in round one, with conservative loyalists just winning it for remain, but it will be close.
Why would Conservative loyalists vote Deal 1, Remain 2.
I said that they would split, but remain will nudge it due to residual sympathies with and interest in business.
Mr. S, depends. One question, three answers, and you're right.
But if it's a two-phase referendum it'd be perhaps fairer, although that might introduce a bias to the middle.
Q1 Should the UK Remain or Leave?
Q2 If Leave wins, should the UK leave with May's deal, or with no deal?
Phase referendum is not fairer. It is fairer to word it according to the possible outcomes. There are three. We need to pick one.
On April we will
Remain Leave with Mays deal Leave without Mays deal.
That’s it. Pick one. Or rank them
How is that honouring a vote where 52% have already said "Leave"? Or the 2017 General Election manifestos where 86% of the votes were cast for parties pledging to implement Brexit? Go ahead - if you really want to try to break democracy in this country...
The people have full control and can honour the vote or benefit from all the new information. Either way it is up to the people.
Remainers will mostly rank (remain, deal, no deal) Conservative loyalists will split on 2nd prefs, but just about rank (deal, remain, no deal) Erg will tend to rank (no deal, remain, deal), but there are less than 48 of them so who cares. Other leavers will rank (no deal, deal, remain)
Deal likely to be eliminated in round one, with conservative loyalists just winning it for remain, but it will be close.
Why would Conservative loyalists vote Deal 1, Remain 2.
Yeh, they wouldn't.
Many I know would vote no deal only.
The vast majority wouldn't include Remain at all.
Indeed. And I suspect Remain would campaign for "Just vote for Remain. No second chances for second best" or similar.
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
The main problem with a second referendum is not the ordering of questions but that neither side (or none of the sides) has done anything to bolster their case. Remainers have not pointed out the rewards of membership, nor Brexiteers the benefits of leaving or any clear path to achieving them.
If the next campaign is to be fought on the same mixture of Project Fear, half truths and downright lies, then why expect a different result?
I don't think this is true. Awareness of our relationship with the EU, what it affords us, and the downsides, is much higher after 2 years of discussion. The obvious example is Northern Ireland - we now realise the significance of the EU much more than we did during the referendum campaign.
One problem with a second referendum that is now emerging is that some of the pro-Brexit organisations will boycott it. Thereby an exercise with question marks over its legitimacy will become more illegitimate still.
Remainers will mostly rank (remain, deal, no deal) Conservative loyalists will split on 2nd prefs, but just about rank (deal, remain, no deal) Erg will tend to rank (no deal, remain, deal), but there are less than 48 of them so who cares. Other leavers will rank (no deal, deal, remain)
Deal likely to be eliminated in round one, with conservative loyalists just winning it for remain, but it will be close.
Why would Conservative loyalists vote Deal 1, Remain 2.
Yeh, they wouldn't.
Many I know would vote no deal only.
The vast majority wouldn't include Remain at all.
Interesting. The fuck business mentality has penetrated the party more than I thought. I had assumed that old school conservative bank managerial types would care more about economic impact.
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Or if Parliament has failed pick a new Parliament.
Remainers will mostly rank (remain, deal, no deal) Conservative loyalists will split on 2nd prefs, but just about rank (deal, remain, no deal) Erg will tend to rank (no deal, remain, deal), but there are less than 48 of them so who cares. Other leavers will rank (no deal, deal, remain)
Deal likely to be eliminated in round one, with conservative loyalists just winning it for remain, but it will be close.
Why would Conservative loyalists vote Deal 1, Remain 2.
Yeh, they wouldn't.
Many I know would vote no deal only.
The vast majority wouldn't include Remain at all.
Indeed. And I suspect Remain would campaign for "Just vote for Remain. No second chances for second best" or similar.
Well, there isn't a second best, is there? Really?
Remainers will mostly rank (remain, deal, no deal) Conservative loyalists will split on 2nd prefs, but just about rank (deal, remain, no deal) Erg will tend to rank (no deal, remain, deal), but there are less than 48 of them so who cares. Other leavers will rank (no deal, deal, remain)
Deal likely to be eliminated in round one, with conservative loyalists just winning it for remain, but it will be close.
Why would Conservative loyalists vote Deal 1, Remain 2.
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Or if Parliament has failed pick a new Parliament.
That’s the Labour line, but as Starmer said May has run down the clock deliberately taking alternatives off the table. So we’re left with a vote.
Remainers will mostly rank (remain, deal, no deal) Conservative loyalists will split on 2nd prefs, but just about rank (deal, remain, no deal) Erg will tend to rank (no deal, remain, deal), but there are less than 48 of them so who cares. Other leavers will rank (no deal, deal, remain)
Deal likely to be eliminated in round one, with conservative loyalists just winning it for remain, but it will be close.
Why would Conservative loyalists vote Deal 1, Remain 2.
Yeh, they wouldn't.
Many I know would vote no deal only.
The vast majority wouldn't include Remain at all.
With respect the vast majority of conservative voters are not ERG followers
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Isn't it two choices as things stand?
There are three, remain, deal and no deal, which is the default. That’s it. Essentially one of those will happen in just four months time.
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Parliament would have failed. A key conclusion from this whole mess. Once parliament decided that the referendum result had to be implemented, it had a duty to ensure that it happened. Forcing the govt to set up an independent or cross-party Brexit commission might've been one way.
The biggest risk I see is Kahn deciding that he wants back in the Commons to be on hand when Corbyn calls it a day. He will have spent the previous 4 years doing something a lot more meaningful than sulking on the back benches like many of his potential opponents and we should always remember how high a proportion of Labour members and activists live in London.
There is almost zero chance of the Tories beating him if he does run.
Remainers will mostly rank (remain, deal, no deal) Conservative loyalists will split on 2nd prefs, but just about rank (deal, remain, no deal) Erg will tend to rank (no deal, remain, deal), but there are less than 48 of them so who cares. Other leavers will rank (no deal, deal, remain)
Deal likely to be eliminated in round one, with conservative loyalists just winning it for remain, but it will be close.
Why would Conservative loyalists vote Deal 1, Remain 2.
Yeh, they wouldn't.
Many I know would vote no deal only.
The vast majority wouldn't include Remain at all.
Indeed. And I suspect Remain would campaign for "Just vote for Remain. No second chances for second best" or similar.
Well, there isn't a second best, is there? Really?
Theresa May's strategy is entirely based hers being everybody's second best. "OK it's shit. Just not as shit as...."
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Isn't it two choices as things stand?
There are three, remain, deal and no deal, which is the default. That’s it. Essentially one of those will happen in just four months time.
Remain is dependent on a court case and agreement of a host of third parties and possibly negotiation.
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Parliament would have failed. A key conclusion from this whole mess. Once parliament decided that the referendum result had to be implemented, it had a duty to ensure that it happened. Forcing the govt to set up an independent or cross-party Brexit commission might've been one way.
Getting cold feet two years later is pathetic.
Parliament has failed already. We are just four months away and no one has a clue what will happen. That’s failure.
The biggest risk I see is Kahn deciding that he wants back in the Commons to be on hand when Corbyn calls it a day. He will have spent the previous 4 years doing something a lot more meaningful than sulking on the back benches like many of his potential opponents and we should always remember how high a proportion of Labour members and activists live in London.
There is almost zero chance of the Tories beating him if he does run.
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Isn't it two choices as things stand?
There are three, remain, deal and no deal, which is the default. That’s it. Essentially one of those will happen in just four months time.
It will reduce to one or two next Tuesday. One if the Deal passes, Two if it does not (A50 withdrawal* vs No Deal).
*A50 withdrawal is not quite synonymous with Remain, though in practice is likely to be.
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Or if Parliament has failed pick a new Parliament.
That’s the Labour line, but as Starmer said May has run down the clock deliberately taking alternatives off the table. So we’re left with a vote.
A General Election can be run a lot sooner than a referendum unless you want to leave the result open to endless challenge by driving a coach & horses through Electoral Commission guidelines.
Headline says it all - support for the deal is shrinking in the Commons. With the legal advice row on top of it all, it's become excruciating to watch. Especially with Labour prioritising an election - they had better make damn sure if they take over a new deal really is a lot different.
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Or if Parliament has failed pick a new Parliament.
That’s the Labour line, but as Starmer said May has run down the clock deliberately taking alternatives off the table. So we’re left with a vote.
A General Election can be run a lot sooner than a referendum unless you want to leave the result open to endless challenge by driving a coach & horses through Electoral Commission guidelines.
A general election isn't asking a relevant question to resolving brexit.
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Or if Parliament has failed pick a new Parliament.
That’s the Labour line, but as Starmer said May has run down the clock deliberately taking alternatives off the table. So we’re left with a vote.
A General Election can be run a lot sooner than a referendum unless you want to leave the result open to endless challenge by driving a coach & horses through Electoral Commission guidelines.
A general election isn't asking a relevant question to resolving brexit.
I suspect the Parties might mention their Brexit plans in their manifestos....
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Isn't it two choices as things stand?
There are three, remain, deal and no deal, which is the default. That’s it. Essentially one of those will happen in just four months time.
It will reduce to one or two next Tuesday. One if the Deal passes, Two if it does not (A50 withdrawal* vs No Deal).
*A50 withdrawal is not quite synonymous with Remain, though in practice is likely to be.
No it will not.
If as we expect deal falls it will still have been backed by 200 plus mps with the combined no deal/remain 400 plus. You may want to dish the deal but as Gina Miller said today it has to be all three to be fair to everyone. And I thought she was a heroine of yours
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Or if Parliament has failed pick a new Parliament.
That’s the Labour line, but as Starmer said May has run down the clock deliberately taking alternatives off the table. So we’re left with a vote.
A General Election can be run a lot sooner than a referendum unless you want to leave the result open to endless challenge by driving a coach & horses through Electoral Commission guidelines.
A general election isn't asking a relevant question to resolving brexit.
And a general election leaves no deal in place by default. The time for a GE makes no deal almost certain
A techie question which I really ought to know the answer to, but I don't. An elderly relative has given me a flash drive on which he has dozens of Word files, some of which he'd be grateful if I could print out. He's asked me to send him a list of the file names so he can recall which ones he wants.
I can print out any individual file. But I find I have no idea how to print a list of all the file names, short of copying them one by one. Can anyone help?
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Or if Parliament has failed pick a new Parliament.
That’s the Labour line, but as Starmer said May has run down the clock deliberately taking alternatives off the table. So we’re left with a vote.
A General Election can be run a lot sooner than a referendum unless you want to leave the result open to endless challenge by driving a coach & horses through Electoral Commission guidelines.
A general election isn't asking a relevant question to resolving brexit.
I suspect the Parties might mention their Brexit plans in their manifestos....
The problem is that manifestos means unicorns.
We will be back in Narnia (many people never left).
Labour sources said that Starmer was ready to sign a joint letter with the DUP’s Westminster leader, Nigel Dodds, the Liberal Democrat Brexit spokesman Tom Brake, and the SNP Europe spokesman Stephen Gethins, asking Bercow to allow a motion “that the government has held parliament in contempt”.
Under Commons rules, if the speaker allows the motion to go before the House and the vote is carried it would then be referred to the committee of privileges which would rule on whether a contempt of parliament had taken place.
If it were decided that a contempt had occurred, the committee could recommend a suitable punishment which would be put back to MPs to agree.
In theory the most severe penalty is expulsion from the House, although the prospects of that happening would appear remote. -------- I do like the very British journalism of that last line - yes, probably the committee won't recommend that the entire government should be expelled.
Although Corbyn could then win a VONC in the House...
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Or if Parliament has failed pick a new Parliament.
That’s the Labour line, but as Starmer said May has run down the clock deliberately taking alternatives off the table. So we’re left with a vote.
A General Election can be run a lot sooner than a referendum unless you want to leave the result open to endless challenge by driving a coach & horses through Electoral Commission guidelines.
A general election isn't asking a relevant question to resolving brexit.
And a general election leaves no deal in place by default. The time for a GE makes no deal almost certain
There will almost certainly be an art 50 extension for a GE granted.
A techie question which I really ought to know the answer to, but I don't. An elderly relative has given me a flash drive on which he has dozens of Word files, some of which he'd be grateful if I could print out. He's asked me to send him a list of the file names so he can recall which ones he wants.
I can print out any individual file. But I find I have no idea how to print a list of all the file names, short of copying them one by one. Can anyone help?
Display the file directory and take a screenshot of it?
A techie question which I really ought to know the answer to, but I don't. An elderly relative has given me a flash drive on which he has dozens of Word files, some of which he'd be grateful if I could print out. He's asked me to send him a list of the file names so he can recall which ones he wants.
I can print out any individual file. But I find I have no idea how to print a list of all the file names, short of copying them one by one. Can anyone help?
Open up the command line (cmd at the start menu). Go to the relevant directory. Then dir * > listing.txt
to get the contents into listing.txt (filenames with other info)
If you want just .doc files, then something like dir *.doc > listing.txt
edit: And if you want just the filenames and not filesizes: dir *.doc /b > listing.txt
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Or if Parliament has failed pick a new Parliament.
That’s the Labour line, but as Starmer said May has run down the clock deliberately taking alternatives off the table. So we’re left with a vote.
A General Election can be run a lot sooner than a referendum unless you want to leave the result open to endless challenge by driving a coach & horses through Electoral Commission guidelines.
A general election isn't asking a relevant question to resolving brexit.
And a general election leaves no deal in place by default. The time for a GE makes no deal almost certain
There will almost certainly be an art 50 extension for a GE granted.
You would expect so but the legal position is waiting clarification and if one of the 27,for any reason refused, we would be crashing out into no deal
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Isn't it two choices as things stand?
There are three, remain, deal and no deal, which is the default. That’s it. Essentially one of those will happen in just four months time.
It will reduce to one or two next Tuesday. One if the Deal passes, Two if it does not (A50 withdrawal* vs No Deal).
*A50 withdrawal is not quite synonymous with Remain, though in practice is likely to be.
No it will not.
If as we expect deal falls it will still have been backed by 200 plus mps with the combined no deal/remain 400 plus. You may want to dish the deal but as Gina Miller said today it has to be all three to be fair to everyone. And I thought she was a heroine of yours
If the Deal has been voted down by MPs, then why would they ask for it to be included in a #peoplesvote?
The Deal would be dead if voted down, though as I have predicted before the Tory backbenchers are likely to funk bringing down their own government.
There are three, remain, deal and no deal, which is the default. That’s it. Essentially one of those will happen in just four months time.
A no deal will happen in just under 4 months time.
Given the way things are going, that's almost inevitable.
It only won't happen if Parliament votes for the current deal.
If Parliament won't vote for the current deal, then unless the government obtains an extension to A50 (why would the EU agree and what would the purpose of such an extension be?) out we go without a deal on March 29th.
Another referendum may be the only way to break the logjam. While I understand the concerns re democracy/legitimacy if Parliament were to cancel Brexit of its own volition (though it is a bit odd for those arguing for Parliamentary sovereignty vis-a-vis the EU to argue that Parliament ought not to be sovereign when it comes to this decision) if a fresh vote voted Remain then it would be just as legitimate as the first vote.
People are entitled to change their minds. And it seems to me sensible to ask people if, now - nearly 3 years later- and knowing what deal is on offer from the EU, whether they still want to go ahead with leaving the EU and take the the terms offered i.e. Remain or the deal.
I am not in favour of having a No Deal option because we don't know what No Deal means - does it mean lots of mini-deals to allow medecines in or a literal No-Deal with everything grounded or WTO or what? It is as vague as the original pro-Brexit promises of a deal in an afternoon. To have another vague option on a ballot paper is daft. Why make the same mistake again?
So my preference would be for two clear options. That means getting a statement from the EU that if Britain voted to Remain before March 29th it would be on the same terms as currently exist, even if those terms (e.g. re budget contributions) may change in the future.
I would be cheeky and ask not just to Remain on the same terms but to have a statement from the EU that Britain could opt out of ever closer union i.e. as per that bit of the Cameron deal. That is more valuable than the rebate and it also gives Britain the right to opt in should the political wind change here. Plus, from the EU's perspective, a country changing its mind is the best possible result from its perspective (rather than a bitter No-Deal outcome which could spray harm in all sorts of unexpected directions) and removing one source of the angst in the British-EU relationship might help provide the space for the fresh thinking that is so badly needed on both sides of the Channel.
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Isn't it two choices as things stand?
There are three, remain, deal and no deal, which is the default. That’s it. Essentially one of those will happen in just four months time.
It will reduce to one or two next Tuesday. One if the Deal passes, Two if it does not (A50 withdrawal* vs No Deal).
*A50 withdrawal is not quite synonymous with Remain, though in practice is likely to be.
No it will not.
If as we expect deal falls it will still have been backed by 200 plus mps with the combined no deal/remain 400 plus. You may want to dish the deal but as Gina Miller said today it has to be all three to be fair to everyone. And I thought she was a heroine of yours
If the Deal has been voted down by MPs, then why would they ask for it to be included in a #peoplesvote?
The Deal would be dead if voted down, though as I have predicted before the Tory backbenchers are likely to funk bringing down their own government.
So you are contradicting Gina Miller now as it does not suit you
Mr. S, depends. One question, three answers, and you're right.
But if it's a two-phase referendum it'd be perhaps fairer, although that might introduce a bias to the middle.
Q1 Should the UK Remain or Leave?
Q2 If Leave wins, should the UK leave with May's deal, or with no deal?
Phase referendum is not fairer. It is fairer to word it according to the possible outcomes. There are three. We need to pick one.
On April we will
Remain Leave with Mays deal Leave without Mays deal.
That’s it. Pick one. Or rank them
In the Monty Hall challenge once you reject a choice it’s gone
Remain has been rejected
They shouldn’t get a second attempt
This is not a game show and the public is entitled to change its mind if it wishes. It would be absurd to exclude an option that is at least twice as popular as other options that the public is asked to consider. That really would be bringing democracy into disrepute.
Someone remind me what the Labour Brexit policy in a General Election would be? Renegotiate an agreement that the EU says cannot be renegotiated? Replace the backstop (which theoretically prevents us from leaving a Customs Union) with a permanent customs union?
That's before somebody points out that passing a VoNC does not = a General Election.
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Isn't it two choices as things stand?
There are three, remain, deal and no deal, which is the default. That’s it. Essentially one of those will happen in just four months time.
It will reduce to one or two next Tuesday. One if the Deal passes, Two if it does not (A50 withdrawal* vs No Deal).
*A50 withdrawal is not quite synonymous with Remain, though in practice is likely to be.
No it will not.
If as we expect deal falls it will still have been backed by 200 plus mps with the combined no deal/remain 400 plus. You may want to dish the deal but as Gina Miller said today it has to be all three to be fair to everyone. And I thought she was a heroine of yours
If the Deal has been voted down by MPs, then why would they ask for it to be included in a #peoplesvote?
The Deal would be dead if voted down, though as I have predicted before the Tory backbenchers are likely to funk bringing down their own government.
So you are contradicting Gina Miller now as it does not suit you
Yes, I disagree with Gina Miller. Why does that surprise you?
If May wants a threeway AV #peoplesvote then the Dec 11th vote should be postponed until afterwards.
A rightwing thinktank has been ordered by the charities watchdog to take down a pro-Brexit report on Britain’s economic prospects after it leaves the EU. The report was hailed by Jacob Rees-Mogg as the alternative to Theresa May’s proposals.
The Charity Commission told the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) to remove Plan A+: Creating a prosperous post-Brexit UK from its website and stop promoting the report.
A statement from the watchdog said the report had “overstepped the line of what is permissible charitable activity”.
Published in September, it had staunch backing from leading Brexiters including David Davis, Boris Johnson and former Treasury minister Greg Hands. Rees-Mogg, chair of the European Research Group (ERG) of Tory Brexiters, described it as the “most exciting contribution” to the debate in months.
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Or if Parliament has failed pick a new Parliament.
That’s the Labour line, but as Starmer said May has run down the clock deliberately taking alternatives off the table. So we’re left with a vote.
A General Election can be run a lot sooner than a referendum unless you want to leave the result open to endless challenge by driving a coach & horses through Electoral Commission guidelines.
A general election isn't asking a relevant question to resolving brexit.
And a general election leaves no deal in place by default. The time for a GE makes no deal almost certain
The Feb '74 election wasn't called until the beginning of the month. I realise the FTPA complicates the position. but the HoC voted on 19th April. for an election on June 8th. I suspect that if it hadn't been for the locals that time could have been reduced, although the two public holidays obviously extended things a bit.
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Isn't it two choices as things stand?
There are three, remain, deal and no deal, which is the default. That’s it. Essentially one of those will happen in just four months time.
It will reduce to one or two next Tuesday. One if the Deal passes, Two if it does not (A50 withdrawal* vs No Deal).
*A50 withdrawal is not quite synonymous with Remain, though in practice is likely to be.
No it will not.
If as we expect deal falls it will still have been backed by 200 plus mps with the combined no deal/remain 400 plus. You may want to dish the deal but as Gina Miller said today it has to be all three to be fair to everyone. And I thought she was a heroine of yours
If the Deal has been voted down by MPs, then why would they ask for it to be included in a #peoplesvote?
The Deal would be dead if voted down, though as I have predicted before the Tory backbenchers are likely to funk bringing down their own government.
So you are contradicting Gina Miller now as it does not suit you
Yes, I disagree with Gina Miller. Why does that surprise you?
If May wants a threeway AV #peoplesvote then the Dec 11th vote should be postponed until afterwards.
TM has rejected a referendum and of course the deal has to be voted. Any attempt to stop the vote now would see us spinning headlong into no deal
I think Bailey will give Khan a run for his money, especially if he goes hard on rising concern over knife crime in the city. However Khan will still likely be re elected. If Lord Sugar though ran as an independent it may be a different story
The obvious solution (given that i very much doubt that Remainers supporting a referendum favour no deal over the deal) is
1) Add an amendment to the WA vote - accept the WA subject to a referendum 2) Two stage referendum - 1) do you accept the deal 2) if no, should we Remain or leave with no deal.
Someone remind me what the Labour Brexit policy in a General Election would be? Renegotiate an agreement that the EU says cannot be renegotiated? Replace the backstop (which theoretically prevents us from leaving a Customs Union) with a permanent customs union?
That's before somebody points out that passing a VoNC does not = a General Election.
I think a GE unlikely to resolve the issue, but an incoming Labour government could reasonably ask for an A50 extension to renegotiate with quite different and much paler red lines. SM and CU for example.
Another referendum may be the only way to break the logjam. While I understand the concerns re democracy/legitimacy if Parliament were to cancel Brexit of its own volition (though it is a bit odd for those arguing for Parliamentary sovereignty vis-a-vis the EU to argue that Parliament ought not to be sovereign when it comes to this decision) if a fresh vote voted Remain then it would be just as legitimate as the first vote.
People are entitled to change their minds. And it seems to me sensible to ask people if, now - nearly 3 years later- and knowing what deal is on offer from the EU, whether they still want to go ahead with leaving the EU and take the the terms offered i.e. Remain or the deal.
I am not in favour of having a No Deal option because we don't know what No Deal means - does it mean lots of mini-deals to allow medecines in or a literal No-Deal with everything grounded or WTO or what? It is as vague as the original pro-Brexit promises of a deal in an afternoon. To have another vague option on a ballot paper is daft. Why make the same mistake again?
So my preference would be for two clear options. That means getting a statement from the EU that if Britain voted to Remain before March 29th it would be on the same terms as currently exist, even if those terms (e.g. re budget contributions) may change in the future.
I would be cheeky and ask not just to Remain on the same terms but to have a statement from the EU that Britain could opt out of ever closer union i.e. as per that bit of the Cameron deal. That is more valuable than the rebate and it also gives Britain the right to opt in should the political wind change here. Plus, from the EU's perspective, a country changing its mind is the best possible result from its perspective (rather than a bitter No-Deal outcome which could spray harm in all sorts of unexpected directions) and removing one source of the angst in the British-EU relationship might help provide the space for the fresh thinking that is so badly needed on both sides of the Channel.
I believe the only new thing that would come out of a second referendum will be nothing to do with the EU, but internal UK politics: "Who governs us, the MPs or the voters?" Which Leave would push, Remain would struggle to defuse and would result in Leave winning - even if that meant No Deal.
Mr. S, depends. One question, three answers, and you're right.
But if it's a two-phase referendum it'd be perhaps fairer, although that might introduce a bias to the middle.
Q1 Should the UK Remain or Leave?
Q2 If Leave wins, should the UK leave with May's deal, or with no deal?
Phase referendum is not fairer. It is fairer to word it according to the possible outcomes. There are three. We need to pick one.
On April we will
Remain Leave with Mays deal Leave without Mays deal.
That’s it. Pick one. Or rank them
In the Monty Hall challenge once you reject a choice it’s gone
Remain has been rejected
They shouldn’t get a second attempt
This is not a game show and the public is entitled to change its mind if it wishes. It would be absurd to exclude an option that is at least twice as popular as other options that the public is asked to consider. That really would be bringing democracy into disrepute.
Since the referendum we have had the general election where both Conservative and Labour manifesto promised to exit the EU and gained over 80% of the votes.
The Lib Dems, who's manifesto was to remain, received only 10% of the votes.
Should the Lib Dems be in government now if people have changed their minds?
Mr. Charles, that was my view too. People seemed upset that she was so successful. Bloody woman, paying huge amounts in tax and providing jobs for people.
It would be incredibly irresponsible of Remainers backing a referendum to insist on a Referendum being between Remain and no deal (or some undetermined fantasy deal). Basically they would be trying to give the voters a choice between Remain and "Economic catastrophe".
I think voters would react very badly to that, given that there is a Brexit option that does not equal economic catastrophe. Just one that is nobody's first choice.
Another referendum may be the only way to break the logjam. While I understand the concerns re democracy/legitimacy if Parliament were to cancel Brexit of its own volition (though it is a bit odd for those arguing for Parliamentary sovereignty vis-a-vis the EU to argue that Parliament ought not to be sovereign when it comes to this decision) if a fresh vote voted Remain then it would be just as legitimate as the first vote.
People are entitled to change their minds. And it seems to me sensible to ask people if, now - nearly 3 years later- and knowing what deal is on offer from the EU, whether they still want to go ahead with leaving the EU and take the the terms offered i.e. Remain or the deal.
I am not in favour of having a No Deal option because we don't know what No Deal means - does it mean lots of mini-deals to allow medecines in or a literal No-Deal with everything grounded or WTO or what? It is as vague as the original pro-Brexit promises of a deal in an afternoon. To have another vague option on a ballot paper is daft. Why make the same mistake again?
So my preference would be for two clear options. That means getting a statement from the EU that if Britain voted to Remain before March 29th it would be on the same terms as currently exist, even if those terms (e.g. re budget contributions) may change in the future.
I would be cheeky and ask not just to Remain on the same terms but to have a statement from the EU that Britain could opt out of ever closer union i.e. as per that bit of the Cameron deal. That is more valuable than the rebate and it also gives Britain the right to opt in should the political wind change here. Plus, from the EU's perspective, a country changing its mind is the best possible result from its perspective (rather than a bitter No-Deal outcome which could spray harm in all sorts of unexpected directions) and removing one source of the angst in the British-EU relationship might help provide the space for the fresh thinking that is so badly needed on both sides of the Channel.
I believe the only new thing that would come out of a second referendum will be nothing to do with the EU, but internal UK politics: "Who governs us, the MPs or the voters?" Which Leave would push, Remain would struggle to defuse and would result in Leave winning - even if that meant No Deal.
Either that or the leave camp calls for a boycott in an attempt to deny legitimacy
Another referendum may be the only way to break the logjam. While I understand the concerns re democracy/legitimacy if Parliament were to cancel Brexit of its own volition (though it is a bit odd for those arguing for Parliamentary sovereignty vis-a-vis the EU to argue that Parliament ought not to be sovereign when it comes to this decision) if a fresh vote voted Remain then it would be just as legitimate as the first vote.
People are entitled to change their minds. And it seems to me sensible to ask people if, now - nearly 3 years later- and knowing what deal is on offer from the EU, whether they still want to go ahead with leaving the EU and take the the terms offered i.e. Remain or the deal.
I am not in favour of having a No Deal option because we don't know what No Deal means - does it mean lots of mini-deals to allow medecines in or a literal No-Deal with everything grounded or WTO or what? It is as vague as the original pro-Brexit promises of a deal in an afternoon. To have another vague option on a ballot paper is daft. Why make the same mistake again?
So my preference would be for two clear options. That means getting a statement from the EU that if Britain voted to Remain before March 29th it would be on the same terms as currently exist, even if those terms (e.g. re budget contributions) may change in the future.
I would be cheeky and ask not just to Remain on the same terms but to have a statement from the EU that Britain could opt out of ever closer union i.e. as per that bit of the Cameron deal. That is more valuable than the rebate and it also gives Britain the right to opt in should the political wind change here. Plus, from the EU's perspective, a country changing its mind is the best possible result from its perspective (rather than a bitter No-Deal outcome which could spray harm in all sorts of unexpected directions) and removing one source of the angst in the British-EU relationship might help provide the space for the fresh thinking that is so badly needed on both sides of the Channel.
I believe the only new thing that would come out of a second referendum will be nothing to do with the EU, but internal UK politics: "Who governs us, the MPs or the voters?" Which Leave would push, Remain would struggle to defuse and would result in Leave winning - even if that meant No Deal.
I am not in favour of having a No Deal option because we don't know what No Deal means - does it mean lots of mini-deals to allow medecines in or a literal No-Deal with everything grounded or WTO or what? It is as vague as the original pro-Brexit promises of a deal in an afternoon. To have another vague option on a ballot paper is daft. Why make the same mistake again?
So my preference would be for two clear options. That means getting a statement from the EU that if Britain voted to Remain before March 29th it would be on the same terms as currently exist, even if those terms (e.g. re budget contributions) may change in the future.
I would be cheeky and ask not just to Remain on the same terms but to have a statement from the EU that Britain could opt out of ever closer union i.e. as per that bit of the Cameron deal. That is more valuable than the rebate and it also gives Britain the right to opt in should the political wind change here. Plus, from the EU's perspective, a country changing its mind is the best possible result from its perspective (rather than a bitter No-Deal outcome which could spray harm in all sorts of unexpected directions) and removing one source of the angst in the British-EU relationship might help provide the space for the fresh thinking that is so badly needed on both sides of the Channel.
A few points on this.
You say we don't know what No Deal would mean (and use that as a reason for not including it) but that also applies to Remain. Just saying we could ask the EU for some opt outs is as fanciful as just saying we could Leave with No Deal but ask the EU for assurances on specific areas like flights. Indeed the second is far more likely to be accepted than the first.
Moreover the problem with Cameron's supposed deal, apart from the fact it wasn't worth the paper it was written on, was that it was and is utterly impractical. The EU will and must continue to integrate. To do that it needs to make use of all of the structures and organisation of the EU. This means that in very short order our 'in but out' position would become completely unworkable and we would then be straight back to the same position again of full integration or leaving - except there would be even more issues than their are now.
It would be incredibly irresponsible of Remainers backing a referendum to insist on a Referendum being between Remain and no deal (or some undetermined fantasy deal). Basically they would be trying to give the voters a choice between Remain and "Economic catastrophe".
I think voters would react very badly to that, given that there is a Brexit option that does not equal economic catastrophe. Just one that is nobody's first choice.
It’s irresponsible to put ‘no deal’ on a ballot paper, full stop. There are two deliverable choices: ratify the withdrawal agreement or revoke Article 50. That’s what the referendum should be about.
Someone remind me what the Labour Brexit policy in a General Election would be? Renegotiate an agreement that the EU says cannot be renegotiated? Replace the backstop (which theoretically prevents us from leaving a Customs Union) with a permanent customs union?
That's before somebody points out that passing a VoNC does not = a General Election.
I think a GE unlikely to resolve the issue, but an incoming Labour government could reasonably ask for an A50 extension to renegotiate with quite different and much paler red lines. SM and CU for example.
The polls indicate that, even if there is an incoming Labour Govn’t, it would be weak and beholden to Labour rebels and (a number of) other parties.
In truth, to get through this, a Govt needs a majority of at least 30 (to cope with internal party dissent). That is of course why we had an election in 2017. It didn’t solve anything. I don’t expect another election to solve anything.
Someone remind me what the Labour Brexit policy in a General Election would be? Renegotiate an agreement that the EU says cannot be renegotiated? Replace the backstop (which theoretically prevents us from leaving a Customs Union) with a permanent customs union?
That's before somebody points out that passing a VoNC does not = a General Election.
I think a GE unlikely to resolve the issue, but an incoming Labour government could reasonably ask for an A50 extension to renegotiate with quite different and much paler red lines. SM and CU for example.
So Labour's Brexit policy in a General Election is going to be SM and CU? Even though that isn't their policy at the moment? And was categorically ruled out at the last election?
So Theresa, Pop Quiz: what do you do? Publish the full legal advice that admits the EU has an effective veto on our actually leaving the EU - or face contempt of Parliament by not publishing it?
Publish, say 'woops - I didn't notice that bit' then scrap the deal.
The bit that was specifically drawn to your attention by the Attorney General? The bit that was so sensitive, there were numbered copies of the advice given out and collected back because they were so explosive? Whoops indeed.....
Not sure I see any acceptable way out on this. The DUP won't back down, because they are the DUP. Labour won't back down because it's blood sport. The other parties want their "me too" moment. Tories who hate her deal arent going to help out if it says "May's Brexit don't mean Brexit". So you have to think that by some point this coming week, the PM has a toxic piece of advice published. Whilst she is out and about flogging her horse that isn't just dead, it's at the knackers yard being melted down for glue. Result? her "deal" dies by a majority of over two hundred....
Whoops.
And then brexit dies as we rejoin
... or never actually leave.
If the EU will let us. An important caveat too many people are forgetting and what the headbangers of the ERG and DUP seem to be gambling on.
I would expect the EU to be very anxious to have us abort Brexit, but it will only take one naysayer - say, a deeply unpopular Spanish PM looking for some cheap domestic points, or an Irish PM who doesn't understand the issues, or an ill-judged phrase from a very arrogant but not very bright German in charge of the secretariat - to wreck it and leave us with no deal at all and every flight on the planet grounded.
With that bombshell, I am needed elsewhere. Have a good morning.
Most seem to forget we are on course to leave with no deal.
That is default and without legislation it clicks in in March 19
Yes - surprisingly poor reporting from Keunsberg saying Benn’s amendment “would stop us leaving with no deal”. No it wouldn’t. For that to happen a whole raft of other things have to happen too.
Laura Kuenssberg is allowed a mistake now and again.
Someone remind me what the Labour Brexit policy in a General Election would be? Renegotiate an agreement that the EU says cannot be renegotiated? Replace the backstop (which theoretically prevents us from leaving a Customs Union) with a permanent customs union?
That's before somebody points out that passing a VoNC does not = a General Election.
I think a GE unlikely to resolve the issue, but an incoming Labour government could reasonably ask for an A50 extension to renegotiate with quite different and much paler red lines. SM and CU for example.
And when the EU says "Paler red lines? Sod off. The UK has a deal. Sign it - or No Deal Brexit...."
Mr. S, depends. One question, three answers, and you're right.
But if it's a two-phase referendum it'd be perhaps fairer, although that might introduce a bias to the middle.
Q1 Should the UK Remain or Leave?
Q2 If Leave wins, should the UK leave with May's deal, or with no deal?
Phase referendum is not fairer. It is fairer to word it according to the possible outcomes. There are three. We need to pick one.
On April we will
Remain Leave with Mays deal Leave without Mays deal.
That’s it. Pick one. Or rank them
In the Monty Hall challenge once you reject a choice it’s gone
Remain has been rejected
They shouldn’t get a second attempt
This is not a game show and the public is entitled to change its mind if it wishes. It would be absurd to exclude an option that is at least twice as popular as other options that the public is asked to consider. That really would be bringing democracy into disrepute.
Since the referendum we have had the general election where both Conservative and Labour manifesto promised to exit the EU and gained over 80% of the votes.
The Lib Dems, who's manifesto was to remain, received only 10% of the votes.
Should the Lib Dems be in government now if people have changed their minds?
I was not in favour of a fresh referendum until it became apparent that Parliament was not going to be able to agree on how to carry out Brexit. Someone has to decide and the least worst option in those circumstances is the general public.
Once you reach that point, you have to let the public choose from plausible options capable of implementation. Remain is one of them. It is also the single most popular option. Leavers should not try to rig votes to the point of fixing the ballot paper just because they’re scared of a possible outcome. They’ve had two years to make Brexit part of a consensus. They’ve failed utterly in that objective.
I spent much of the last two years drawing to Leavers’ attention that this failure was very dangerous. For my pains I got routinely snarled at. No good deed goes unpunished, I suppose.
Another referendum may be the only way to break the logjam. While I understand the concerns re democracy/legitimacy if Parliament were to cancel Brexit of its own volition (though it is a bit odd for those arguing for Parliamentary sovereignty vis-a-vis the EU to argue that Parliament ought not to be sovereign when it comes to this decision) if a fresh vote voted Remain then it would be just as legitimate as the first vote.
People are entitled to change their minds. And it seems to me sensible to ask people if, now - nearly 3 years later- and knowing what deal is on offer from the EU, whether they still want to go ahead with leaving the EU and take the the terms offered i.e. Remain or the deal.
I am not in favour of having a No Deal option because we don't know what No Deal means - does it mean lots of mini-deals to allow medecines in or a literal No-Deal with everything grounded or WTO or what? It is as vague as the original pro-Brexit promises of a deal in an afternoon. To have another vague option on a ballot paper is daft. Why make the same mistake again?
So my preference would be for two clear options. That means getting a statement from the EU that if Britain voted to Remain before March 29th it would be on the same terms as currently exist, even if those terms (e.g. re budget contributions) may change in the future.
I would be cheeky and ask not just to Remain on the same terms but to have a statement from the EU that Britain could opt out of ever closer union i.e. as per that bit of the Cameron deal. That is more valuable than the rebate and it also gives Britain the right to opt in should the political wind change here. Plus, from the EU's perspective, a country changing its mind is the best possible result from its perspective (rather than a bitter No-Deal outcome which could spray harm in all sorts of unexpected directions) and removing one source of the angst in the British-EU relationship might help provide the space for the fresh thinking that is so badly needed on both sides of the Channel.
I believe the only new thing that would come out of a second referendum will be nothing to do with the EU, but internal UK politics: "Who governs us, the MPs or the voters?" Which Leave would push, Remain would struggle to defuse and would result in Leave winning - even if that meant No Deal.
Except as Deltapoll shows the voters are far more supportive of the Deal than MPs and prefer the Deal to both Remain and No Deal
OT Bet365 seems to have stopped reverting on Pricewise. They have a £220 million salary to pay.
People have got very upset about this
The lady in question founded a very successful business and has made a lot of money
She could have set up a tax efficient structure and paid it as a dividend
But she chose to take the same amount of money as salary meaning that 47% of it goes to the taxman
I think she should be commended for that and others should be encouraged to follow her example
All well and good but why screw over the £10 or £20 Pricewise follower? Sure there may be a few arbers but it's not much in the scheme of things. It does not directly affect me but it seems at best pointless and tin-eared.
It would be incredibly irresponsible of Remainers backing a referendum to insist on a Referendum being between Remain and no deal (or some undetermined fantasy deal). Basically they would be trying to give the voters a choice between Remain and "Economic catastrophe".
I think voters would react very badly to that, given that there is a Brexit option that does not equal economic catastrophe. Just one that is nobody's first choice.
It’s irresponsible to put ‘no deal’ on a ballot paper, full stop. There are two deliverable choices: ratify the withdrawal agreement or revoke Article 50. That’s what the referendum should be about.
Presumably you mean "ask the EU for permission to revoke Article 50"?
It would be incredibly irresponsible of Remainers backing a referendum to insist on a Referendum being between Remain and no deal (or some undetermined fantasy deal). Basically they would be trying to give the voters a choice between Remain and "Economic catastrophe".
I think voters would react very badly to that, given that there is a Brexit option that does not equal economic catastrophe. Just one that is nobody's first choice.
I am not insisting on anything, just pointing out the absurdity of a sovereign parliament voting down the Deal, then passing a #peoplesvote bill that includes what they have just rejected.
Of course we are in the midst of absurdity, so anything could happen next in Britain's Ratners moment.
Mr. Charles, that was my view too. People seemed upset that she was so successful. Bloody woman, paying huge amounts in tax and providing jobs for people.
You might not believe this, but it is possible to do that without having to pay yourself £217 million.
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
There aren’t 3 paths
Think of it as a journey
We came to a fork in the road marked Remain and Leave
We chose the Leave path
Now we have come to a fork marked Deal or No Deal (we must be in Kent)
So we can choose one of those
You don’t get to scamper back up the road because you really want to ignore the fact that a majority of those who voted in the referendum voted to leave
That’s like the guy who invents a “house rule” in the middle of a card game that strangely always benefits the proposer
Someone remind me what the Labour Brexit policy in a General Election would be? Renegotiate an agreement that the EU says cannot be renegotiated? Replace the backstop (which theoretically prevents us from leaving a Customs Union) with a permanent customs union?
That's before somebody points out that passing a VoNC does not = a General Election.
I think a GE unlikely to resolve the issue, but an incoming Labour government could reasonably ask for an A50 extension to renegotiate with quite different and much paler red lines. SM and CU for example.
The EU have specifically ruled out an extension for further negotiations. They have had enough and want to move on. They have indicated they would allow a short extension for a GE or referendum but even that is uncertain as no one knows the legal position and whether one or more EU countries would object, crashing us into TM deal or no deal
Remainers will mostly rank (remain, deal, no deal) Conservative loyalists will split on 2nd prefs, but just about rank (deal, remain, no deal) Erg will tend to rank (no deal, remain, deal), but there are less than 48 of them so who cares. Other leavers will rank (no deal, deal, remain)
Deal likely to be eliminated in round one, with conservative loyalists just winning it for remain, but it will be close.
Why would Conservative loyalists vote Deal 1, Remain 2.
Yeh, they wouldn't.
Many I know would vote no deal only.
The vast majority wouldn't include Remain at all.
Interesting. The fuck business mentality has penetrated the party more than I thought. I had assumed that old school conservative bank managerial types would care more about economic impact.
Asking business to reorient are is not “fucking business”
They have to operate within the framework laid out by the democratically elected government
Someone remind me what the Labour Brexit policy in a General Election would be? Renegotiate an agreement that the EU says cannot be renegotiated? Replace the backstop (which theoretically prevents us from leaving a Customs Union) with a permanent customs union?
That's before somebody points out that passing a VoNC does not = a General Election.
I think a GE unlikely to resolve the issue, but an incoming Labour government could reasonably ask for an A50 extension to renegotiate with quite different and much paler red lines. SM and CU for example.
And when the EU says "Paler red lines? Sod off. The UK has a deal. Sign it - or No Deal Brexit...."
Either way this is about picking a path from the three alternatives for April 2019. Parliament would have failed. So it’s back to the people who have a right to choose from all three possibilities.
Isn't it two choices as things stand?
There are three, remain, deal and no deal, which is the default. That’s it. Essentially one of those will happen in just four months time.
It will reduce to one or two next Tuesday. One if the Deal passes, Two if it does not (A50 withdrawal* vs No Deal).
*A50 withdrawal is not quite synonymous with Remain, though in practice is likely to be.
No it will not. As Deltapoll shows the Deal is preferred head to head by voters to Remain or No Deal, May is going around the country as she I think could be ready to go over the heads of MPs to the voters and hold a referendum with the Deal included as a last resort
Remainers will mostly rank (remain, deal, no deal) Conservative loyalists will split on 2nd prefs, but just about rank (deal, remain, no deal) Erg will tend to rank (no deal, remain, deal), but there are less than 48 of them so who cares. Other leavers will rank (no deal, deal, remain)
Deal likely to be eliminated in round one, with conservative loyalists just winning it for remain, but it will be close.
Why would Conservative loyalists vote Deal 1, Remain 2.
Yeh, they wouldn't.
Many I know would vote no deal only.
The vast majority wouldn't include Remain at all.
I am a Tory member and I would vote Deal 1, Remain 2 and many local Tory councillors I know would do too.
Someone remind me what the Labour Brexit policy in a General Election would be? Renegotiate an agreement that the EU says cannot be renegotiated? Replace the backstop (which theoretically prevents us from leaving a Customs Union) with a permanent customs union?
That's before somebody points out that passing a VoNC does not = a General Election.
I think a GE unlikely to resolve the issue, but an incoming Labour government could reasonably ask for an A50 extension to renegotiate with quite different and much paler red lines. SM and CU for example.
And when the EU says "Paler red lines? Sod off. The UK has a deal. Sign it - or No Deal Brexit...."
....Labour signs May's deal.
It may seem like an obvious point but the Withdrawal agreement effectively retains the status quo for two years anyway. "Paler red lines" would only apply to the subsequent trade negotiations. It is difficult to see ANYTHING in the Withdrawal agreement that Labour would do differently. That's what's so ridiculous about Labour's official position.
Oppose Freedom of movement? An issue for the trade deal Favour ongoing customs union? An issue for the trade deal Pro single market for payments? An issue for the trade deal
Mr. Charles, that was my view too. People seemed upset that she was so successful. Bloody woman, paying huge amounts in tax and providing jobs for people.
You might not believe this, but it is possible to do that without having to pay yourself £217 million.
Personally, I have no problem with her salary. Bookies make profits and whether these go to shareholders or as salary bothers me very little.
I have accounts with 5 bookies, but I think Bet365 is one of the best, not least because it doesn't run shops full of FOBTs.
It would be incredibly irresponsible of Remainers backing a referendum to insist on a Referendum being between Remain and no deal (or some undetermined fantasy deal). Basically they would be trying to give the voters a choice between Remain and "Economic catastrophe".
I think voters would react very badly to that, given that there is a Brexit option that does not equal economic catastrophe. Just one that is nobody's first choice.
I am not insisting on anything, just pointing out the absurdity of a sovereign parliament voting down the Deal, then passing a #peoplesvote bill that includes what they have just rejected.
Of course we are in the midst of absurdity, so anything could happen next in Britain's Ratners moment.
So would you favour Parliament voting for WA, "subject to approval in a referendum"?
Comments
Is it THAT much odder than anything else that's happened lately?
(In whimsical Sunday morning mode, sorry)
No deal eliminated on round one I suspect.
If the next campaign is to be fought on the same mixture of Project Fear, half truths and downright lies, then why expect a different result?
Many I know would vote no deal only.
The vast majority wouldn't include Remain at all.
Given the closeness of the first vote there is a case for including Remain as one of three options.
If Parliament can’t do it’s job of implementing what people voted for in both a referendum and a General Election they’d better be pretty confident in proposing a second referendum or they’ll likely face mass redundancies at the first available opportunity.
One problem with a second referendum that is now emerging is that some of the pro-Brexit organisations will boycott it. Thereby an exercise with question marks over its legitimacy will become more illegitimate still.
Getting cold feet two years later is pathetic.
There is almost zero chance of the Tories beating him if he does run.
It isn't a slam dunk.
*A50 withdrawal is not quite synonymous with Remain, though in practice is likely to be.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46415574
Khan does look safe as houses. Not a fan of longer term bets, but there's not much risk here.
If as we expect deal falls it will still have been backed by 200 plus mps with the combined no deal/remain 400 plus. You may want to dish the deal but as Gina Miller said today it has to be all three to be fair to everyone. And I thought she was a heroine of yours
The lady in question founded a very successful business and has made a lot of money
She could have set up a tax efficient structure and paid it as a dividend
But she chose to take the same amount of money as salary meaning that 47% of it goes to the taxman
I think she should be commended for that and others should be encouraged to follow her example
I can print out any individual file. But I find I have no idea how to print a list of all the file names, short of copying them one by one. Can anyone help?
We will be back in Narnia (many people never left).
Remain has been rejected
They shouldn’t get a second attempt
Go to the relevant directory.
Then dir * > listing.txt
to get the contents into listing.txt (filenames with other info)
If you want just .doc files, then something like
dir *.doc > listing.txt
edit:
And if you want just the filenames and not filesizes:
dir *.doc /b > listing.txt
The Deal would be dead if voted down, though as I have predicted before the Tory backbenchers are likely to funk bringing down their own government.
Given the way things are going, that's almost inevitable.
It only won't happen if Parliament votes for the current deal.
If Parliament won't vote for the current deal, then unless the government obtains an extension to A50 (why would the EU agree and what would the purpose of such an extension be?) out we go without a deal on March 29th.
Another referendum may be the only way to break the logjam. While I understand the concerns re democracy/legitimacy if Parliament were to cancel Brexit of its own volition (though it is a bit odd for those arguing for Parliamentary sovereignty vis-a-vis the EU to argue that Parliament ought not to be sovereign when it comes to this decision) if a fresh vote voted Remain then it would be just as legitimate as the first vote.
People are entitled to change their minds. And it seems to me sensible to ask people if, now - nearly 3 years later- and knowing what deal is on offer from the EU, whether they still want to go ahead with leaving the EU and take the the terms offered i.e. Remain or the deal.
I am not in favour of having a No Deal option because we don't know what No Deal means - does it mean lots of mini-deals to allow medecines in or a literal No-Deal with everything grounded or WTO or what? It is as vague as the original pro-Brexit promises of a deal in an afternoon. To have another vague option on a ballot paper is daft. Why make the same mistake again?
So my preference would be for two clear options. That means getting a statement from the EU that if Britain voted to Remain before March 29th it would be on the same terms as currently exist, even if those terms (e.g. re budget contributions) may change in the future.
I would be cheeky and ask not just to Remain on the same terms but to have a statement from the EU that Britain could opt out of ever closer union i.e. as per that bit of the Cameron deal. That is more valuable than the rebate and it also gives Britain the right to opt in should the political wind change here. Plus, from the EU's perspective, a country changing its mind is the best possible result from its perspective (rather than a bitter No-Deal outcome which could spray harm in all sorts of unexpected directions) and removing one source of the angst in the British-EU relationship might help provide the space for the fresh thinking that is so badly needed on both sides of the Channel.
That's before somebody points out that passing a VoNC does not = a General Election.
If May wants a threeway AV #peoplesvote then the Dec 11th vote should be postponed until afterwards.
A rightwing thinktank has been ordered by the charities watchdog to take down a pro-Brexit report on Britain’s economic prospects after it leaves the EU. The report was hailed by Jacob Rees-Mogg as the alternative to Theresa May’s proposals.
The Charity Commission told the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) to remove Plan A+: Creating a prosperous post-Brexit UK from its website and stop promoting the report.
A statement from the watchdog said the report had “overstepped the line of what is permissible charitable activity”.
Published in September, it had staunch backing from leading Brexiters including David Davis, Boris Johnson and former Treasury minister Greg Hands. Rees-Mogg, chair of the European Research Group (ERG) of Tory Brexiters, described it as the “most exciting contribution” to the debate in months.
1) Add an amendment to the WA vote - accept the WA subject to a referendum
2) Two stage referendum - 1) do you accept the deal 2) if no, should we Remain or leave with no deal.
The Lib Dems, who's manifesto was to remain, received only 10% of the votes.
Should the Lib Dems be in government now if people have changed their minds?
I think voters would react very badly to that, given that there is a Brexit option that does not equal economic catastrophe. Just one that is nobody's first choice.
You say we don't know what No Deal would mean (and use that as a reason for not including it) but that also applies to Remain. Just saying we could ask the EU for some opt outs is as fanciful as just saying we could Leave with No Deal but ask the EU for assurances on specific areas like flights. Indeed the second is far more likely to be accepted than the first.
Moreover the problem with Cameron's supposed deal, apart from the fact it wasn't worth the paper it was written on, was that it was and is utterly impractical. The EU will and must continue to integrate. To do that it needs to make use of all of the structures and organisation of the EU. This means that in very short order our 'in but out' position would become completely unworkable and we would then be straight back to the same position again of full integration or leaving - except there would be even more issues than their are now.
It is a dangerous pipe dream.
In truth, to get through this, a Govt needs a majority of at least 30 (to cope with internal party dissent). That is of course why we had an election in 2017. It didn’t solve anything. I don’t expect another election to solve anything.
Presumably it will be SM and CU with unicorns?
As are we with spelling her name.
....Labour signs May's deal.
Once you reach that point, you have to let the public choose from plausible options capable of implementation. Remain is one of them. It is also the single most popular option. Leavers should not try to rig votes to the point of fixing the ballot paper just because they’re scared of a possible outcome. They’ve had two years to make Brexit part of a consensus. They’ve failed utterly in that objective.
I spent much of the last two years drawing to Leavers’ attention that this failure was very dangerous. For my pains I got routinely snarled at. No good deed goes unpunished, I suppose.
Of course we are in the midst of absurdity, so anything could happen next in Britain's Ratners moment.
Think of it as a journey
We came to a fork in the road marked Remain and Leave
We chose the Leave path
Now we have come to a fork marked Deal or No Deal (we must be in Kent)
So we can choose one of those
You don’t get to scamper back up the road because you really want to ignore the fact that a majority of those who voted in the referendum voted to leave
That’s like the guy who invents a “house rule” in the middle of a card game that strangely always benefits the proposer
They have to operate within the framework laid out by the democratically elected government
Oppose Freedom of movement? An issue for the trade deal
Favour ongoing customs union? An issue for the trade deal
Pro single market for payments? An issue for the trade deal
Etc etc
I have accounts with 5 bookies, but I think Bet365 is one of the best, not least because it doesn't run shops full of FOBTs.