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.
You're assuming that LEAVE was intended to be in the interests of the United Kingdom. That's not necessarily the case. Consider the following:
Of Goodwin's 3 tribes that voted LEAVE (the poor, the retired, and wealthy social conservatives), one is loosely tied to the UK and one has high mobility and can easily live elsewhere.
Such people may place their loyalty in abstractions such as "the Anglosphere", "CANZUK", "the future" or some headcanon "Commonwealth" instead of the concrete reality of the UK, with schools, roads and businesses. They may not care if the real UK is fucked up, and for some people it's deliberate.
In short, for many LEAVEers, fucking up the UK is not a problem, and for some of those it's actively desirable: a feature, not a bug.
Or maybe they feel the right to self-determination is worth more than a couple of extra points of GDP.
The job of our elected government is to implement the vote on the best possible terms for the UK. May says she has done that and it is the best option available. Whether she had done a lousy job or not is past praying for. She is factually correct that this is the deal that the elected government has managed to negotiate and it does implement the vote. MPs who were elected on the basis of implementing the vote should therefore vote for it. Anything else is dishonest.
Bang.
I would exempt only those who opposed triggering article 50. Not many.
There’s no chance no deal would get on any ballot . The Electoral Commission won’t allow such a vague question that would be open to legal challenges. And this will become divisive because the minority of the public thinking no deal is acceptable will scream betrayal . The no dealers either don’t understand the consequences or don’t care . I’m worried about another vote but no deal has no mandate , Leavers saying now people voted for no deal are liars because if no deal had been on the agenda in 2016 they wouldn’t have won the vote .
It is not a vague question. It is default in law and the law is the mandate so it has to be on the ballot unless the HOC legislates if off, but then something has to go in its place.
There are a growing number of posters, including myself, warning everyone we are within weeks of an unstoppable no deal exit
The huge majority of the Commons will not support no deal . If May goes and a new leader comes in saying their policy is no deal they will be toast . Do you seriously think MPs are going to sit there with the pound imploding , businesses heading for the exit and are going to say fine.
It'll bring back heady memories of Black wednesday
There’s no chance no deal would get on any ballot . The Electoral Commission won’t allow such a vague question that would be open to legal challenges. And this will become divisive because the minority of the public thinking no deal is acceptable will scream betrayal . The no dealers either don’t understand the consequences or don’t care . I’m worried about another vote but no deal has no mandate , Leavers saying now people voted for no deal are liars because if no deal had been on the agenda in 2016 they wouldn’t have won the vote .
It is not a vague question. It is default in law and the law is the mandate so it has to be on the ballot unless the HOC legislates if off, but then something has to go in its place.
There are a growing number of posters, including myself, warning everyone we are within weeks of an unstoppable no deal exit
The huge majority of the Commons will not support no deal . If May goes and a new leader comes in saying their policy is no deal they will be toast . Do you seriously think MPs are going to sit there with the pound imploding , businesses heading for the exit and are going to say fine.
The huge majority of the Commons has already legislated the for possibility (and indeed default) of no deal. There is no intelligence test for MPs.
Not personally, no. But the dynamics of politics are such that if half your own party votes against your flagship policy, you don’t get another go.
Plus, getting the 48 would be no problem if she tries to cling on.
I wish it weren’t so, but denying either is like suggesting that gravity doesn’t apply any more.
I'm sure you're right that the 48 can be reached. But I suspect that Tory MPs will then vote to keep her - the "no time for a novice" line of thought will reappear - and she's then secure for a year, unless they actually support a Labour VONC, which they won't. And I agree with BigG that she's just not going to say "Oh well, I give up" even if she should.
But she would be VERY unwise to take up the suggestion that she makes the first vote a vote of confidence in herself. That really would offer 48 unhappy Tory MPs an easy option - vote it down with Opposition support, feign regret at her resignation, and then nominate two Brexiteers for members to choose between.
Tricky, innit?
The leadership succession doesn't work like that Nick. If and when TM goes a full contest will take place with 6 - 8 candidates and last 2 to the members. Take a couple of months so with Xmas in the way new leader at beginning of March. Now that is chaos
I don't think May will resign if she loses the MV in a big way. But I'll be amazed if she doesn't immediately propose either a second referendum or a GE immediately after a big defeat on it. Doesn't mean either would be guaranteed to happen (it would come down to internal Conservative party politics then) but...
She can just about pretend "nothing has changed" if she loses it reasonably narrowly (sub 30-40?) and can start thinking about MV2 and some sort of fudge, but a defeat of more than 100 and she needs to have something sufficiently big to counteract that.
She's already appearing to be in some sort of campaign mode anyway - can't see what most of her recent thinking has been about if not taking her deal to the people at some point.
There’s no chance no deal would get on any ballot . The Electoral Commission won’t allow such a vague question that would be open to legal challenges. And this will become divisive because the minority of the public thinking no deal is acceptable will scream betrayal . The no dealers either don’t understand the consequences or don’t care . I’m worried about another vote but no deal has no mandate , Leavers saying now people voted for no deal are liars because if no deal had been on the agenda in 2016 they wouldn’t have won the vote .
It is not a vague question. It is default in law and the law is the mandate so it has to be on the ballot unless the HOC legislates if off, but then something has to go in its place.
There are a growing number of posters, including myself, warning everyone we are within weeks of an unstoppable no deal exit
The huge majority of the Commons will not support no deal . If May goes and a new leader comes in saying their policy is no deal they will be toast . Do you seriously think MPs are going to sit there with the pound imploding , businesses heading for the exit and are going to say fine.
Except May is not going, over 200 Tory MPs back her still and her Deal out of 318 and as long as she remains PM she controls what is put towards Parliament and indeed if there is a referendum with a Deal option
Not personally, no. But the dynamics of politics are such that if half your own party votes against your flagship policy, you don’t get another go.
Plus, getting the 48 would be no problem if she tries to cling on.
I wish it weren’t so, but denying either is like suggesting that gravity doesn’t apply any more.
I'm sure you're right that the 48 can be reached. But I suspect that Tory MPs will then vote to keep her - the "no time for a novice" line of thought will reappear - and she's then secure for a year, unless they actually support a Labour VONC, which they won't. And I agree with BigG that she's just not going to say "Oh well, I give up" even if she should.
But she would be VERY unwise to take up the suggestion that she makes the first vote a vote of confidence in herself. That really would offer 48 unhappy Tory MPs an easy option - vote it down with Opposition support, feign regret at her resignation, and then nominate two Brexiteers for members to choose between.
Tricky, innit?
The leadership succession doesn't work like that Nick. If and when TM goes a full contest will take place with 6 - 8 candidates and last 2 to the members. Take a couple of months so with Xmas in the way new leader at beginning of March. Now that is chaos
Only 6-8 candidates? The last count I read was up to 20!
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.
By that logic Remain - which has been voted down by the people - shouldn’t be included either
On Foxy’s second point, yes, there will be no VONC. But there will be a new leader.
Re new leader. Please explain to me the process, time involved, and how that benefits brexit
May will resign after losing the vote by a huge margin.
No she won't, there is no alternative leader with any other proposal and no alternative leader polls better than May and most poll worse and May still has the majority of Tory MPs behind her. May stays regardless
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
In every journey I've ever been on, I've had the right to turn around and take the other fork if I've been getting lost or if the road gets worse. And the three point turn is still taught in the driving test, I believe. The "must press on, cannot ever turn around even if the majority now want to" rule smacks more of being a made-up house rule.
If we voted remain we would never get the chance to change our minds if the majority regretted our decision 2 years later. That would be it.
This argument is purely trotted about by people who want to remain and will do or say anything to get it to happen.
By the way, my ideal result is Deal followed by EEA/EFTA after the transition period. That might not fit too well with your core assumptions and worldview, though.
That would be mine as well. I think the difference between us is that Remain is, in my mind, not just undesirable but also morally and politically unjustified after we voted to Leave in 2016.
I would be quite content with a Rejoin campaign after Brexit although of course I hope and believe it would fail. But We at least need to enact the result of the first vote before trying to change things again rather than being pushed to vote again on the back of scare stories and incompetence.
There’s no chance no deal would get on any ballot . The Electoral Commission won’t allow such a vague question that would be open to legal challenges. And this will become divisive because the minority of the public thinking no deal is acceptable will scream betrayal . The no dealers either don’t understand the consequences or don’t care . I’m worried about another vote but no deal has no mandate , Leavers saying now people voted for no deal are liars because if no deal had been on the agenda in 2016 they wouldn’t have won the vote .
It is not a vague question. It is default in law and the law is the mandate so it has to be on the ballot unless the HOC legislates if off, but then something has to go in its place.
There are a growing number of posters, including myself, warning everyone we are within weeks of an unstoppable no deal exit
The huge majority of the Commons will not support no deal . If May goes and a new leader comes in saying their policy is no deal they will be toast . Do you seriously think MPs are going to sit there with the pound imploding , businesses heading for the exit and are going to say fine.
You do not understand how serious this is.
An act of legislation has to go through parliament to stop no deal.
TM deal will do that but at present nothing else will.
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.
You're assuming that LEAVE was intended to be in the interests of the United Kingdom. That's not necessarily the case. Consider the following:
Of Goodwin's 3 tribes that voted LEAVE (the poor, the retired, and wealthy social conservatives), one is loosely tied to the UK and one has high mobility and can easily live elsewhere.
Such people may place their loyalty in abstractions such as "the Anglosphere", "CANZUK", "the future" or some headcanon "Commonwealth" instead of the concrete reality of the UK, with schools, roads and businesses. They may not care if the real UK is fucked up, and for some people it's deliberate.
In short, for many LEAVEers, fucking up the UK is not a problem, and for some of those it's actively desirable: a feature, not a bug.
That is the fate of the unflushable turd of Brexit. The 48% will be pissed off and a Brexit that fails to deliver for Hartlepool is going to piss off most of the rest.
Once again, like Iraq, the focus is heavily on the short term and very little on how Brexited Britain (or chastened Remain Britain after a #peoplesvote) addresses the issues of places like Hartlepool, Copeland, or Boston. Fail to plan? plan to fail.
1. In 2016 leavers did not know what they are voting for but they will now. 2. Parliament are blocking the Brexit negotiated by the government.
1 is nonsense. People will not know what they are voting for. The Deal does not define the future relationship and No Deal could mean many different things. As before Remain would be the only option which is defined and certain.
2 is not nonsense. It is the current situation. So, yes, that works as a practical justification.
In which case the politicians are saying to the public: "Ok. So you voted to leave the EU and we promised that we would respect your decision. However we have now decided otherwise. Sorry and all that. Have yourself another vote and get it right this time."
Not a great look. And 2 likely outcomes.
Leave wins again, maybe even in No Deal form. Dread to think. Narrow win for Remain. Dread to think.
The only 'good' outcome would be a landslide for Remain. Can't see that somehow.
Which is a pretty good summary of why I have always been implacably opposed to a second referendum (or 'people's vote' or 'the plebs got it wrong' or whatever Adonis is calling it this week).
Especially as I believe on a three way split No Deal would win.
The trouble with being against a 2nd vote, is what is the alternative?
There’s no chance no deal would get on any ballot . The Electoral Commission won’t allow such a vague question that would be open to legal challenges. And this will become divisive because the minority of the public thinking no deal is acceptable will scream betrayal . The no dealers either don’t understand the consequences or don’t care . I’m worried about another vote but no deal has no mandate , Leavers saying now people voted for no deal are liars because if no deal had been on the agenda in 2016 they wouldn’t have won the vote .
It is not a vague question. It is default in law and the law is the mandate so it has to be on the ballot unless the HOC legislates if off, but then something has to go in its place.
There are a growing number of posters, including myself, warning everyone we are within weeks of an unstoppable no deal exit
The huge majority of the Commons will not support no deal . If May goes and a new leader comes in saying their policy is no deal they will be toast . Do you seriously think MPs are going to sit there with the pound imploding , businesses heading for the exit and are going to say fine.
The huge majority of the Commons has already legislated the for possibility (and indeed default) of no deal. There is no intelligence test for MPs.
The job of our elected government is to implement the vote on the best possible terms for the UK. May says she has done that and it is the best option available. Whether she had done a lousy job or not is past praying for. She is factually correct that this is the deal that the elected government has managed to negotiate and it does implement the vote. MPs who were elected on the basis of implementing the vote should therefore vote for it. Anything else is dishonest.
Bang.
I would exempt only those who opposed triggering article 50. Not many.
Basically the SNP.
I think a case can also be made that those who want a no deal Brexit are implementing the vote. Labour's position is a disgrace.
There’s no chance no deal would get on any ballot . The Electoral Commission won’t allow such a vague question that would be open to legal challenges. And this will become divisive because the minority of the public thinking no deal is acceptable will scream betrayal . The no dealers either don’t understand the consequences or don’t care . I’m worried about another vote but no deal has no mandate , Leavers saying now people voted for no deal are liars because if no deal had been on the agenda in 2016 they wouldn’t have won the vote .
It is not a vague question. It is default in law and the law is the mandate so it has to be on the ballot unless the HOC legislates if off, but then something has to go in its place.
There are a growing number of posters, including myself, warning everyone we are within weeks of an unstoppable no deal exit
The huge majority of the Commons will not support no deal . If May goes and a new leader comes in saying their policy is no deal they will be toast . Do you seriously think MPs are going to sit there with the pound imploding , businesses heading for the exit and are going to say fine.
Well, that's what they're doing at the moment.
And if they defenestrate May they will have some awkward explaining to do if they then implement her deal or potentially a worse version of it.
Not personally, no. But the dynamics of politics are such that if half your own party votes against your flagship policy, you don’t get another go.
Plus, getting the 48 would be no problem if she tries to cling on.
I wish it weren’t so, but denying either is like suggesting that gravity doesn’t apply any more.
I'm sure you're right that the 48 can be reached. But I suspect that Tory MPs will then vote to keep her - the "no time for a novice" line of thought will reappear - and she's then secure for a year, unless they actually support a Labour VONC, which they won't. And I agree with BigG that she's just not going to say "Oh well, I give up" even if she should.
But she would be VERY unwise to take up the suggestion that she makes the first vote a vote of confidence in herself. That really would offer 48 unhappy Tory MPs an easy option - vote it down with Opposition support, feign regret at her resignation, and then nominate two Brexiteers for members to choose between.
Tricky, innit?
The leadership succession doesn't work like that Nick. If and when TM goes a full contest will take place with 6 - 8 candidates and last 2 to the members. Take a couple of months so with Xmas in the way new leader at beginning of March. Now that is chaos
Only 6-8 candidates? The last count I read was up to 20!
Thanks for that funny interlude. My good lady has been saying even I should stand bless her
1. In 2016 leavers did not know what they are voting for but they will now. 2. Parliament are blocking the Brexit negotiated by the government.
1 is nonsense. People will not know what they are voting for. The Deal does not define the future relationship and No Deal could mean many different things. As before Remain would be the only option which is defined and certain.
2 is not nonsense. It is the current situation. So, yes, that works as a practical justification.
In which case the politicians are saying to the public: "Ok. So you voted to leave the EU and we promised that we would respect your decision. However we have now decided otherwise. Sorry and all that. Have yourself another vote and get it right this time."
Not a great look. And 2 likely outcomes.
Leave wins again, maybe even in No Deal form. Dread to think. Narrow win for Remain. Dread to think.
The only 'good' outcome would be a landslide for Remain. Can't see that somehow.
Which is a pretty good summary of why I have always been implacably opposed to a second referendum (or 'people's vote' or 'the plebs got it wrong' or whatever Adonis is calling it this week).
Especially as I believe on a three way split No Deal would win.
The trouble with being against a 2nd vote, is what is the alternative?
The leadership succession doesn't work like that Nick. If and when TM goes a full contest will take place with 6 - 8 candidates and last 2 to the members. Take a couple of months so with Xmas in the way new leader at beginning of March. Now that is chaos
Only 6-8 candidates? The last count I read was up to 20!
Yes, I know, though I would think the winnowing down to 2 can be done by repeated balloting over a couple of days, and there would be some understanding if the election by members was then accelerated to happen faster than usual. I would have thought they could do it by the beginning of February.
If I were May, I wouldn't risk making the vote a "back me or sack me" drama, and it's not her style. She's much more likely to chug along until there really is no conceivable alternative, and then say "Sorry, but we don't seem to have another option, you'd better take this". As a management style it lacks elegance but it's worked for her up to now.
Not personally, no. But the dynamics of politics are such that if half your own party votes against your flagship policy, you don’t get another go.
Plus, getting the 48 would be no problem if she tries to cling on.
I wish it weren’t so, but denying either is like suggesting that gravity doesn’t apply any more.
I'm sure you're right that the 48 can be reached. But I suspect that Tory MPs will then vote to keep her - the "no time for a novice" line of thought will reappear - and she's then secure for a year, unless they actually support a Labour VONC, which they won't. And I agree with BigG that she's just not going to say "Oh well, I give up" even if she should.
But she would be VERY unwise to take up the suggestion that she makes the first vote a vote of confidence in herself. That really would offer 48 unhappy Tory MPs an easy option - vote it down with Opposition support, feign regret at her resignation, and then nominate two Brexiteers for members to choose between.
Tricky, innit?
The leadership succession doesn't work like that Nick. If and when TM goes a full contest will take place with 6 - 8 candidates and last 2 to the members. Take a couple of months so with Xmas in the way new leader at beginning of March. Now that is chaos
Only 6-8 candidates? The last count I read was up to 20!
Thanks for that funny interlude. My good lady has been saying even I should stand bless her
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.
You're assuming that LEAVE was intended to be in the interests of the United Kingdom. That's not necessarily the case. Consider the following:
Of Goodwin's 3 tribes that voted LEAVE (the poor, the retired, and wealthy social conservatives), one is loosely tied to the UK and one has high mobility and can easily live elsewhere.
Such people may place their loyalty in abstractions such as "the Anglosphere", "CANZUK", "the future" or some headcanon "Commonwealth" instead of the concrete reality of the UK, with schools, roads and businesses. They may not care if the real UK is fucked up, and for some people it's deliberate.
In short, for many LEAVEers, fucking up the UK is not a problem, and for some of those it's actively desirable: a feature, not a bug.
Or maybe they feel the right to self-determination is worth more than a couple of extra points of GDP.
Which begs another question: who is the "self" that is exercising "self-determination"? The Parliament of the UK is gaining power[1] but it is not synonymous with "the people and infrastructure of the United Kingdom" and I think the interests of the former are decoupled from the latter. As I've said before, MP's are stupid, malevolent or distanced. For such people, messing up the present, concrete UK in favour of some abstraction is not a problem.
Leave's proudest boast was that we would take control. Nobody bothered to check who the "we" were...
[1] putting aside the discussion about whether it ever lost it, but that's a different argument.
1. In 2016 leavers did not know what they are voting for but they will now. 2. Parliament are blocking the Brexit negotiated by the government.
1 is nonsense. People will not know what they are voting for. The Deal does not define the future relationship and No Deal could mean many different things. As before Remain would be the only option which is defined and certain.
2 is not nonsense. It is the current situation. So, yes, that works as a practical justification.
In which case the politicians are saying to the public: "Ok. So you voted to leave the EU and we promised that we would respect your decision. However we have now decided otherwise. Sorry and all that. Have yourself another vote and get it right this time."
Not a great look. And 2 likely outcomes.
Leave wins again, maybe even in No Deal form. Dread to think. Narrow win for Remain. Dread to think.
The only 'good' outcome would be a landslide for Remain. Can't see that somehow.
Which is a pretty good summary of why I have always been implacably opposed to a second referendum (or 'people's vote' or 'the plebs got it wrong' or whatever Adonis is calling it this week).
Especially as I believe on a three way split No Deal would win.
The trouble with being against a 2nd vote, is what is the alternative?
If the PM resigns or is forced out . In the interim period before a new leader is found the next in line would be either Liddington or Hammond . May could of course stay on as caretaker but I think that’s doubtful .
MPs will then put forward a motion seeking to extend Article 50 . Any new leader would need time to formulate their cabinet and plan .
Under the guise of that the executive will bow to the demands of MPs , the public barring the extreme no deal nutjobs will accept the need for a delay to Brexit .
Not personally, no. But the dynamics of politics are such that if half your own party votes against your flagship policy, you don’t get another go.
Plus, getting the 48 would be no problem if she tries to cling on.
I wish it weren’t so, but denying either is like suggesting that gravity doesn’t apply any more.
I'm sure you're right that the 48 can be reached. But I suspect that Tory MPs will then vote to keep her - the "no time for a novice" line of thought will reappear - and she's then secure for a year, unless they actually support a Labour VONC, which they won't. And I agree with BigG that she's just not going to say "Oh well, I give up" even if she should.
But she would be VERY unwise to take up the suggestion that she makes the first vote a vote of confidence in herself. That really would offer 48 unhappy Tory MPs an easy option - vote it down with Opposition support, feign regret at her resignation, and then nominate two Brexiteers for members to choose between.
Tricky, innit?
The leadership succession doesn't work like that Nick. If and when TM goes a full contest will take place with 6 - 8 candidates and last 2 to the members. Take a couple of months so with Xmas in the way new leader at beginning of March. Now that is chaos
Only 6-8 candidates? The last count I read was up to 20!
Thanks for that funny interlude. My good lady has been saying even I should stand bless her
1. In 2016 leavers did not know what they are voting for but they will now. 2. Parliament are blocking the Brexit negotiated by the government.
1 is nonsense. People will not know what they are voting for. The Deal does not define the future relationship and No Deal could mean many different things. As before Remain would be the only option which is defined and certain.
2 is not nonsense. It is the current situation. So, yes, that works as a practical justification.
In which case the politicians are saying to the public: "Ok. So you voted to leave the EU and we promised that we would respect your decision. However we have now decided otherwise. Sorry and all that. Have yourself another vote and get it right this time."
Not a great look. And 2 likely outcomes.
Leave wins again, maybe even in No Deal form. Dread to think. Narrow win for Remain. Dread to think.
The only 'good' outcome would be a landslide for Remain. Can't see that somehow.
Which is a pretty good summary of why I have always been implacably opposed to a second referendum (or 'people's vote' or 'the plebs got it wrong' or whatever Adonis is calling it this week).
Especially as I believe on a three way split No Deal would win.
The trouble with being against a 2nd vote, is what is the alternative?
There's no clear replacement for May if she were to be ousted.
Maybe someone like William Hague could be persuaded to steer the party through the next few months.
I have a couple of quid on exactly that, as a bit of fun bet. I'm assuming/hoping that BF will pay as long as he is permanent leader and not just for a month to get them through leadership election (i.e. a Margaret Beckett situation).
Do you seriously think MPs are going to sit there with the pound imploding , businesses heading for the exit and are going to say fine.
Yes, I think exactly that. We've had several years' worth of evidence to that effect. Stop thinking that MPs are nice or have your interest or the (real) country's interest at heart.
1. In 2016 leavers did not know what they are voting for but they will now. 2. Parliament are blocking the Brexit negotiated by the government.
1 is nonsense. People will not know what they are voting for. The Deal does not define the future relationship and No Deal could mean many different things. As before Remain would be the only option which is defined and certain.
2 is not nonsense. It is the current situation. So, yes, that works as a practical justification.
In which case the politicians are saying to the public: "Ok. So you voted to leave the EU and we promised that we would respect your decision. However we have now decided otherwise. Sorry and all that. Have yourself another vote and get it right this time."
Not a great look. And 2 likely outcomes.
Leave wins again, maybe even in No Deal form. Dread to think. Narrow win for Remain. Dread to think.
The only 'good' outcome would be a landslide for Remain. Can't see that somehow.
Which is a pretty good summary of why I have always been implacably opposed to a second referendum (or 'people's vote' or 'the plebs got it wrong' or whatever Adonis is calling it this week).
Especially as I believe on a three way split No Deal would win.
The trouble with being against a 2nd vote, is what is the alternative?
If the PM resigns or is forced out . In the interim period before a new leader is found the next in line would be either Liddington or Hammond . May could of course stay on as caretaker but I think that’s doubtful .
MPs will then put forward a motion seeking to extend Article 50 . Any new leader would need time to formulate their cabinet and plan .
Under the guise of that the executive will bow to the demands of MPs , the public barring the extreme no deal nutjobs will accept the need for a delay to Brexit .
With respect that is a bit one sided. The bigger question is will the EU and all the 27
If the PM resigns or is forced out . In the interim period before a new leader is found the next in line would be either Liddington or Hammond . May could of course stay on as caretaker but I think that’s doubtful .
MPs will then put forward a motion seeking to extend Article 50 . Any new leader would need time to formulate their cabinet and plan .
Under the guise of that the executive will bow to the demands of MPs , the public barring the extreme no deal nutjobs will accept the need for a delay to Brexit .
Under the Conservative leadership rules, she remains leader until a successor is elected.
1. In 2016 leavers did not know what they are voting for but they will now. 2. Parliament are blocking the Brexit negotiated by the government.
1 is nonsense. People will not know what they are voting for. The Deal does not define the future relationship and No Deal could mean many different things. As before Remain would be the only option which is defined and certain.
2 is not nonsense. It is the current situation. So, yes, that works as a practical justification.
In which case the politicians are saying to the public: "Ok. So you voted to leave the EU and we promised that we would respect your decision. However we have now decided otherwise. Sorry and all that. Have yourself another vote and get it right this time."
Not a great look. And 2 likely outcomes.
Leave wins again, maybe even in No Deal form. Dread to think. Narrow win for Remain. Dread to think.
The only 'good' outcome would be a landslide for Remain. Can't see that somehow.
Which is a pretty good summary of why I have always been implacably opposed to a second referendum (or 'people's vote' or 'the plebs got it wrong' or whatever Adonis is calling it this week).
Especially as I believe on a three way split No Deal would win.
The trouble with being against a 2nd vote, is what is the alternative?
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.
You're assuming that LEAVE was intended to be in the interests of the United Kingdom. That's not necessarily the case. Consider the following:
Of Goodwin's 3 tribes that voted LEAVE (the poor, the retired, and wealthy social conservatives), one is loosely tied to the UK and one has high mobility and can easily live elsewhere.
Such people may place their loyalty in abstractions such as "the Anglosphere", "CANZUK", "the future" or some headcanon "Commonwealth" instead of the concrete reality of the UK, with schools, roads and businesses. They may not care if the real UK is fucked up, and for some people it's deliberate.
In short, for many LEAVEers, fucking up the UK is not a problem, and for some of those it's actively desirable: a feature, not a bug.
Or maybe they feel the right to self-determination is worth more than a couple of extra points of GDP.
Which begs another question: who is the "self" that is exercising "self-determination"? The Parliament of the UK is gaining power[1] but it is not synonymous with "the people and infrastructure of the United Kingdom" and I think the interests of the former are decoupled from the latter. As I've said before, MP's are stupid, malevolent or distanced. For such people, messing up the present, concrete UK in favour of some abstraction is not a problem.
Leave's proudest boast was that we would take control. Nobody bothered to check who the "we" were...
[1] putting aside the discussion about whether it ever lost it, but that's a different argument.
"Self" is the people of the UK, being able to vote in and out politicians that have control over their lives. ie. not Juncker
And if we still retained our sovereignty and independence then it would be a lot easier to leave the EU than it currently is.
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.
By that logic Remain - which has been voted down by the people - shouldn’t be included either
On Foxy’s second point, yes, there will be no VONC. But there will be a new leader.
Re new leader. Please explain to me the process, time involved, and how that benefits brexit
May will resign after losing the vote by a huge margin.
No she won't, there is no alternative leader with any other proposal and no alternative leader polls better than May and most poll worse and May still has the majority of Tory MPs behind her. May stays regardless
Fancy a bet? Maybe £20 at evens, with loser donating £20 to the site coffers (we're both pretty heavy users of it, after all!)?
In the event of the MV being lost by a margin of over 100, if May stays, I donate £20 to politicalbetting coffers, if she goes, you donate £20 to pb coffers? Bet void if MV loss margin is smaller than 100.
There's no clear replacement for May if she were to be ousted.
Maybe someone like William Hague could be persuaded to steer the party through the next few months.
I have a couple of quid on exactly that, as a bit of fun bet. I'm assuming/hoping that BF will pay as long as he is permanent leader and not just for a month to get them through leadership election (i.e. a Margaret Beckett situation).
Yes and although he backs the deal, he would be more realistic and see that it has failed if/when it gets voted down by 100+ votes.
He'd then have the brains to try and extend Article 50 while reluctantly preparing for no-deal or perhaps even a referendum between no-deal and remain.
May will just sit there ignoring reality and pretending the deal is going to go through until 2 minutes before the deadline when we crash out.
You're assuming that LEAVE was intended to be in the interests of the United Kingdom. That's not necessarily the case. Consider the following:
Of Goodwin's 3 tribes that voted LEAVE (the poor, the retired, and wealthy social conservatives), one is loosely tied to the UK and one has high mobility and can easily live elsewhere.
Such people may place their loyalty in abstractions such as "the Anglosphere", "CANZUK", "the future" or some headcanon "Commonwealth" instead of the concrete reality of the UK, with schools, roads and businesses. They may not care if the real UK is fucked up, and for some people it's deliberate.
In short, for many LEAVEers, fucking up the UK is not a problem, and for some of those it's actively desirable: a feature, not a bug.
Or maybe they feel the right to self-determination is worth more than a couple of extra points of GDP.
Which begs another question: who is the "self" that is exercising "self-determination"? The Parliament of the UK is gaining power[1] but it is not synonymous with "the people and infrastructure of the United Kingdom" and I think the interests of the former are decoupled from the latter. As I've said before, MP's are stupid, malevolent or distanced. For such people, messing up the present, concrete UK in favour of some abstraction is not a problem.
Leave's proudest boast was that we would take control. Nobody bothered to check who the "we" were...
[1] putting aside the discussion about whether it ever lost it, but that's a different argument.
"Self" is the people of the UK, being able to vote in and out politicians that have control over their lives. ie. not Juncker
And if we still retained our sovereignty and independence then it would be a lot easier to leave the EU than it currently is.
1. In 2016 leavers did not know what they are voting for but they will now. 2. Parliament are blocking the Brexit negotiated by the government.
1 is nonsense. People will not know what they are voting for. The Deal does not define the future relationship and No Deal could mean many different things. As before Remain would be the only option which is defined and certain.
2 is not nonsense. It is the current situation. So, yes, that works as a practical justification.
In which case the politicians are saying to the public: "Ok. So you voted to leave the EU and we promised that we would respect your decision. However we have now decided otherwise. Sorry and all that. Have yourself another vote and get it right this time."
Not a great look. And 2 likely outcomes.
Leave wins again, maybe even in No Deal form. Dread to think. Narrow win for Remain. Dread to think.
The only 'good' outcome would be a landslide for Remain. Can't see that somehow.
Which is a pretty good summary of why I have always been implacably opposed to a second referendum (or 'people's vote' or 'the plebs got it wrong' or whatever Adonis is calling it this week).
Especially as I believe on a three way split No Deal would win.
The trouble with being against a 2nd vote, is what is the alternative?
If the PM resigns or is forced out . In the interim period before a new leader is found the next in line would be either Liddington or Hammond . May could of course stay on as caretaker but I think that’s doubtful .
MPs will then put forward a motion seeking to extend Article 50 . Any new leader would need time to formulate their cabinet and plan .
Under the guise of that the executive will bow to the demands of MPs , the public barring the extreme no deal nutjobs will accept the need for a delay to Brexit .
Under the Conservative leadership rules, she remains leader until a successor is elected.
She’s not forced to remain as leader during that period . The problem this time compared to the last is we won’t see a coronation. It’s likely the final two will include a moderate Leaver versus an ERG nutjob . The moderate will be ahead and the ERG won’t concede . This will spill over into January. Meanwhile businesses will be activating their no deal plans , consumer confidence will crash and the public will start panicking . Against this backdrop Brexit isn’t happening in March !
If the PM resigns or is forced out . In the interim period before a new leader is found the next in line would be either Liddington or Hammond . May could of course stay on as caretaker but I think that’s doubtful .
MPs will then put forward a motion seeking to extend Article 50 . Any new leader would need time to formulate their cabinet and plan .
Under the guise of that the executive will bow to the demands of MPs , the public barring the extreme no deal nutjobs will accept the need for a delay to Brexit .
Under the Conservative leadership rules, she remains leader until a successor is elected.
You're assuming that LEAVE was intended to be in the interests of the United Kingdom. That's not necessarily the case. Consider the following:
Of Goodwin's 3 tribes that voted LEAVE (the poor, the retired, and wealthy social conservatives), one is loosely tied to the UK and one has high mobility and can easily live elsewhere.
Such people may place their loyalty in abstractions such as "the Anglosphere", "CANZUK", "the future" or some headcanon "Commonwealth" instead of the concrete reality of the UK, with schools, roads and businesses. They may not care if the real UK is fucked up, and for some people it's deliberate.
In short, for many LEAVEers, fucking up the UK is not a problem, and for some of those it's actively desirable: a feature, not a bug.
Or maybe they feel the right to self-determination is worth more than a couple of extra points of GDP.
Which begs another question: who is the "self" that is exercising "self-determination"? The Parliament of the UK is gaining power[1] but it is not synonymous with "the people and infrastructure of the United Kingdom" and I think the interests of the former are decoupled from the latter. As I've said before, MP's are stupid, malevolent or distanced. For such people, messing up the present, concrete UK in favour of some abstraction is not a problem.
Leave's proudest boast was that we would take control. Nobody bothered to check who the "we" were...
[1] putting aside the discussion about whether it ever lost it, but that's a different argument.
"Self" is the people of the UK, being able to vote in and out politicians that have control over their lives. ie. not Juncker
And if we still retained our sovereignty and independence then it would be a lot easier to leave the EU than it currently is.
I know what you mean, but judging from past and present events, the "self" who is currently wielding power is Parliament not the people, and (forgive my repetition) Parliament is not acting in the interests of the people of the UK any more. The ability to vote them out in 2022 is not enough to compensate for this.
An interesting and quite amusing story from Roy Hattersley in today's Observer re- the behaviour of the Whips- 'Jack Straw – sometime foreign secretary – wrote in his autobiography of a confrontation with Walter Harrison, Labour’s deputy chief whip, as a result of disagreements over a finance bill. “He fixed both eyes upon me and as he did so I felt a pain between my legs I had not experienced since the school rugby field. His grip tightened. I rose on tiptoe as he pushed up as well.” During 33 years in the House of Commons I never heard of a whip laying a finger on a dissident MP. That may be because, unlike Mr Straw, most members would have responded with a punch on the nose.'
What would have happened had Straw responded by complaining to the House of Commons authorities - or taken the matter to the police - or spoken on the record to the broadcasters?
If the PM resigns or is forced out . In the interim period before a new leader is found the next in line would be either Liddington or Hammond . May could of course stay on as caretaker but I think that’s doubtful .
MPs will then put forward a motion seeking to extend Article 50 . Any new leader would need time to formulate their cabinet and plan .
Under the guise of that the executive will bow to the demands of MPs , the public barring the extreme no deal nutjobs will accept the need for a delay to Brexit .
Under the Conservative leadership rules, she remains leader until a successor is elected.
Doesn't mean she remains PM though.
Yes it would, in practice. Or at least, the only person to resign as PM while remaining party leader in recent history was Neville Chamberlain under somewhat unusual circumtances. For Cameron, Blair, Wilson, Thatcher and Macmillan it was the other way around.
Even Edward Heath continued as leader until Thatcher's election was confirmed, although he started his four decade sulk promptly by getting Robert Carr to chair the one meeting of the Shadow Cabinet that took place in that time.
An interesting and quite amusing story from Roy Hattersley in today's Observer re- the behaviour of the Whips- 'Jack Straw – sometime foreign secretary – wrote in his autobiography of a confrontation with Walter Harrison, Labour’s deputy chief whip, as a result of disagreements over a finance bill. “He fixed both eyes upon me and as he did so I felt a pain between my legs I had not experienced since the school rugby field. His grip tightened. I rose on tiptoe as he pushed up as well.” During 33 years in the House of Commons I never heard of a whip laying a finger on a dissident MP. That may be because, unlike Mr Straw, most members would have responded with a punch on the nose.'
What would have happened had Straw responded by complaining to the House of Commons authorities - or taken the matter to the police - or spoken on the record to the broadcasters?
When was this?
If it was in the 1980s I assume nothing would have happened.
If it was in 2008 you would have thought a charge of sexual assault would have been one option open to the police.
If the PM resigns or is forced out . In the interim period before a new leader is found the next in line would be either Liddington or Hammond . May could of course stay on as caretaker but I think that’s doubtful .
MPs will then put forward a motion seeking to extend Article 50 . Any new leader would need time to formulate their cabinet and plan .
Under the guise of that the executive will bow to the demands of MPs , the public barring the extreme no deal nutjobs will accept the need for a delay to Brexit .
Under the Conservative leadership rules, she remains leader until a successor is elected.
Doesn't mean she remains PM though.
Yes it would, in practice. Or at least, the only person to resign as PM while remaining party leader in recent history was Neville Chamberlain under somewhat unusual circumtances. For Cameron, Blair, Wilson, Thatcher and Macmillan it was the other way around.
Even Edward Heath continued as leader until Thatcher's election was confirmed, although he started his four decade sulk promptly by getting Robert Carr to chair the one meeting of the Shadow Cabinet that took place in that time.
It was the Chamberlain precedent I had in mind. These are also unusual circumstances but I really can't see May staying as caretaker if her deal has been rejected. If she declines to serve an alternative will have to be found.
An interesting and quite amusing story from Roy Hattersley in today's Observer re- the behaviour of the Whips- 'Jack Straw – sometime foreign secretary – wrote in his autobiography of a confrontation with Walter Harrison, Labour’s deputy chief whip, as a result of disagreements over a finance bill. “He fixed both eyes upon me and as he did so I felt a pain between my legs I had not experienced since the school rugby field. His grip tightened. I rose on tiptoe as he pushed up as well.” During 33 years in the House of Commons I never heard of a whip laying a finger on a dissident MP. That may be because, unlike Mr Straw, most members would have responded with a punch on the nose.'
What would have happened had Straw responded by complaining to the House of Commons authorities - or taken the matter to the police - or spoken on the record to the broadcasters?
When was this?
If it was in the 1980s I assume nothing would have happened.
If it was in 2008 you would have thought a charge of sexual assault would have been one option open to the police.
I think such behaviour would have amounted to a criminal offence in the 1980s! Straw was elected in 1979.
You're assuming that LEAVE was intended to be in the interests of the United Kingdom. That's not necessarily the case. Consider the following:
Of Goodwin's 3 tribes that voted LEAVE (the poor, the retired, and wealthy social conservatives), one is loosely tied to the UK and one has high mobility and can easily live elsewhere.
Such people may place their loyalty in abstractions such as "the Anglosphere", "CANZUK", "the future" or some headcanon "Commonwealth" instead of the concrete reality of the UK, with schools, roads and businesses. They may not care if the real UK is fucked up, and for some people it's deliberate.
In short, for many LEAVEers, fucking up the UK is not a problem, and for some of those it's actively desirable: a feature, not a bug.
Or maybe they feel the right to self-determination is worth more than a couple of extra points of GDP.
Which begs another question: who is the "self" that is exercising "self-determination"? The Parliament of the UK is gaining power[1] but it is not synonymous with "the people and infrastructure of the United Kingdom" and I think the interests of the former are decoupled from the latter. As I've said before, MP's are stupid, malevolent or distanced. For such people, messing up the present, concrete UK in favour of some abstraction is not a problem.
Leave's proudest boast was that we would take control. Nobody bothered to check who the "we" were...
[1] putting aside the discussion about whether it ever lost it, but that's a different argument.
"Self" is the people of the UK, being able to vote in and out politicians that have control over their lives. ie. not Juncker
And if we still retained our sovereignty and independence then it would be a lot easier to leave the EU than it currently is.
I know what you mean, but judging from past and present events, the "self" who is currently wielding power is Parliament not the people, and (forgive my repetition) Parliament is not acting in the interests of the people of the UK any more. The ability to vote them out in 2022 is not enough to compensate for this.
You would prefer to be ruled by politicians we can't vote out rather than ones we can?
I find this attitude completely bizarre and surprisingly prevalent.
An interesting and quite amusing story from Roy Hattersley in today's Observer re- the behaviour of the Whips- 'Jack Straw – sometime foreign secretary – wrote in his autobiography of a confrontation with Walter Harrison, Labour’s deputy chief whip, as a result of disagreements over a finance bill. “He fixed both eyes upon me and as he did so I felt a pain between my legs I had not experienced since the school rugby field. His grip tightened. I rose on tiptoe as he pushed up as well.” During 33 years in the House of Commons I never heard of a whip laying a finger on a dissident MP. That may be because, unlike Mr Straw, most members would have responded with a punch on the nose.'
What would have happened had Straw responded by complaining to the House of Commons authorities - or taken the matter to the police - or spoken on the record to the broadcasters?
When was this?
If it was in the 1980s I assume nothing would have happened.
If it was in 2008 you would have thought a charge of sexual assault would have been one option open to the police.
I think such behaviour would have amounted to a criminal offence in the 1980s! Straw was elected in 1979.
Yes.
And so did the paedophile networks run by the likes of Bernie Bain, Frank Beck and Mark Trotter, but nothing was actually done about any of them (except, very belatedly, Beck).
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.
By that logic Remain - which has been voted down by the people - shouldn’t be included either
On Foxy’s second point, yes, there will be no VONC. But there will be a new leader.
Re new leader. Please explain to me the process, time involved, and how that benefits brexit
May will resign after losing the vote by a huge margin.
No she won't, there is no alternative leader with any other proposal and no alternative leader polls better than May and most poll worse and May still has the majority of Tory MPs behind her. May stays regardless
Fancy a bet? Maybe £20 at evens, with loser donating £20 to the site coffers (we're both pretty heavy users of it, after all!)?
In the event of the MV being lost by a margin of over 100, if May stays, I donate £20 to politicalbetting coffers, if she goes, you donate £20 to pb coffers? Bet void if MV loss margin is smaller than 100.
An interesting and quite amusing story from Roy Hattersley in today's Observer re- the behaviour of the Whips- 'Jack Straw – sometime foreign secretary – wrote in his autobiography of a confrontation with Walter Harrison, Labour’s deputy chief whip, as a result of disagreements over a finance bill. “He fixed both eyes upon me and as he did so I felt a pain between my legs I had not experienced since the school rugby field. His grip tightened. I rose on tiptoe as he pushed up as well.” During 33 years in the House of Commons I never heard of a whip laying a finger on a dissident MP. That may be because, unlike Mr Straw, most members would have responded with a punch on the nose.'
What would have happened had Straw responded by complaining to the House of Commons authorities - or taken the matter to the police - or spoken on the record to the broadcasters?
When was this?
If it was in the 1980s I assume nothing would have happened.
If it was in 2008 you would have thought a charge of sexual assault would have been one option open to the police.
I think such behaviour would have amounted to a criminal offence in the 1980s! Straw was elected in 1979.
Yes.
And so did the paedophile networks run by the likes of Bernie Bain, Frank Beck and Mark Trotter, but nothing was actually done about any of them (except, very belatedly, Beck).
Indeed - but if Straw had pressed charges I suspect there would have repercussions - particularly if he had made himself available for extended interviews with broadcasters etc.
An interesting and quite amusing story from Roy Hattersley in today's Observer re- the behaviour of the Whips- 'Jack Straw – sometime foreign secretary – wrote in his autobiography of a confrontation with Walter Harrison, Labour’s deputy chief whip, as a result of disagreements over a finance bill. “He fixed both eyes upon me and as he did so I felt a pain between my legs I had not experienced since the school rugby field. His grip tightened. I rose on tiptoe as he pushed up as well.” During 33 years in the House of Commons I never heard of a whip laying a finger on a dissident MP. That may be because, unlike Mr Straw, most members would have responded with a punch on the nose.'
What would have happened had Straw responded by complaining to the House of Commons authorities - or taken the matter to the police - or spoken on the record to the broadcasters?
Presumably he wouldn't have become Foreign Secretary...
I think a case can also be made that those who want a no deal Brexit are implementing the vote. Labour's position is a disgrace.
I disagree. My hierarchy of dishonour is as below:
Worst. The BoJos and JoJos. Acting purely for personal careerist self promotion.
Next. The Chukkas. Working to overturn the Ref by whatever means possible.
Next. The Moggs. Dishonouring the Ref but at least out of sincere zealotry.
Next. Labour leadership. Prioritizing getting a Lab govt over anything else.
The Conservative MPs were elected on a manifesto of implementing the vote (as were Labour of course). The means of implementing the vote was supposed to be the deal with the EU. It must be implicit in that that no satisfactory deal can be reached, especially when the PM is on repeat stating that no deal is better than a bad deal.
I therefore think that those who oppose the deal because they genuinely think that no deal is better are being consistent with the mandate that they received. Of course those opposing the deal for careerist reasons are contemptible. This certainly covers some of the resigners and certainly includes the Labour leadership. Similarly those who lied to their constituents and were happy to be elected on a manifesto which said the vote should be implemented.
An interesting and quite amusing story from Roy Hattersley in today's Observer re- the behaviour of the Whips- 'Jack Straw – sometime foreign secretary – wrote in his autobiography of a confrontation with Walter Harrison, Labour’s deputy chief whip, as a result of disagreements over a finance bill. “He fixed both eyes upon me and as he did so I felt a pain between my legs I had not experienced since the school rugby field. His grip tightened. I rose on tiptoe as he pushed up as well.” During 33 years in the House of Commons I never heard of a whip laying a finger on a dissident MP. That may be because, unlike Mr Straw, most members would have responded with a punch on the nose.'
What would have happened had Straw responded by complaining to the House of Commons authorities - or taken the matter to the police - or spoken on the record to the broadcasters?
Presumably he wouldn't have become Foreign Secretary...
Walter Harrison would surely have ceased to be Deputy Chief Whip had the matter gone to trial.
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
In every journey I've ever been on, I've had the right to turn around and take the other fork if I've been getting lost or if the road gets worse. And the three point turn is still taught in the driving test, I believe. The "must press on, cannot ever turn around even if the majority now want to" rule smacks more of being a made-up house rule.
If we voted remain we would never get the chance to change our minds if the majority regretted our decision 2 years later. That would be it.
This argument is purely trotted about by people who want to remain and will do or say anything to get it to happen.
By the way, my ideal result is Deal followed by EEA/EFTA after the transition period. That might not fit too well with your core assumptions and worldview, though.
That would be mine as well. I think the difference between us is that Remain is, in my mind, not just undesirable but also morally and politically unjustified after we voted to Leave in 2016.
I would be quite content with a Rejoin campaign after Brexit although of course I hope and believe it would fail. But We at least need to enact the result of the first vote before trying to change things again rather than being pushed to vote again on the back of scare stories and incompetence.
We've got different worldviews on referendums, certainly. I've banged on enough about mine and I'm not likely to persuade you around. As it happens, in an alternate future where Remain had won, if the EU had reneged in any way on the Cameron Deal, or if the outcome had proven significantly different from what had been promised by Remain, I'd have strongly supported a second referendum there as well, and for very similar reasons. I hope I've been consistent enough that you believe me on this.
The Conservative MPs were elected on a manifesto of implementing the vote (as were Labour of course). The means of implementing the vote was supposed to be the deal with the EU. It must be implicit in that that no satisfactory deal can be reached, especially when the PM is on repeat stating that no deal is better than a bad deal.
I therefore think that those who oppose the deal because they genuinely think that no deal is better are being consistent with the mandate that they received. Of course those opposing the deal for careerist reasons are contemptible. This certainly covers some of the resigners and certainly includes the Labour leadership. Similarly those who lied to their constituents and were happy to be elected on a manifesto which said the vote should be implemented.
That's the viewpoint of someone who feels that Brexit is All That Matters. There are an awful lot of people, from people wrestling with Universal Credit to the Labour leadership, who simply don't see it that way. They want a Labour government because so many people are facing enormous problems while the myopic Brexit-obsessed government lets them rot. Whether we are in the EU or "nearly" in the EU (aka as the May deal) is a second-order issue for them.
We've got different worldviews on referendums, certainly. I've banged on enough about mine and I'm not likely to persuade you around. As it happens, in an alternate future where Remain had won, if the EU had reneged in any way on the Cameron Deal, or if the outcome had proven significantly different from what had been promised by Remain, I'd have strongly supported a second referendum there as well, and for very similar reasons. I hope I've been consistent enough that you believe me on this.
Indeed. I just don't think the politicians - who are overwhelmingly Europhile - would have shared your integrity. Nor do I think they will if we don't leave this time.
Comments
I would exempt only those who opposed triggering article 50. Not many.
She can just about pretend "nothing has changed" if she loses it reasonably narrowly (sub 30-40?) and can start thinking about MV2 and some sort of fudge, but a defeat of more than 100 and she needs to have something sufficiently big to counteract that.
She's already appearing to be in some sort of campaign mode anyway - can't see what most of her recent thinking has been about if not taking her deal to the people at some point.
I would be quite content with a Rejoin campaign after Brexit although of course I hope and believe it would fail. But We at least need to enact the result of the first vote before trying to change things again rather than being pushed to vote again on the back of scare stories and incompetence.
An act of legislation has to go through parliament to stop no deal.
TM deal will do that but at present nothing else will.
Once again, like Iraq, the focus is heavily on the short term and very little on how Brexited Britain (or chastened Remain Britain after a #peoplesvote) addresses the issues of places like Hartlepool, Copeland, or Boston. Fail to plan? plan to fail.
I think a case can also be made that those who want a no deal Brexit are implementing the vote. Labour's position is a disgrace.
And if they defenestrate May they will have some awkward explaining to do if they then implement her deal or potentially a worse version of it.
If I were May, I wouldn't risk making the vote a "back me or sack me" drama, and it's not her style. She's much more likely to chug along until there really is no conceivable alternative, and then say "Sorry, but we don't seem to have another option, you'd better take this". As a management style it lacks elegance but it's worked for her up to now.
Leave's proudest boast was that we would take control. Nobody bothered to check who the "we" were...
[1] putting aside the discussion about whether it ever lost it, but that's a different argument.
MPs will then put forward a motion seeking to extend Article 50 . Any new leader would need time to formulate their cabinet and plan .
Under the guise of that the executive will bow to the demands of MPs , the public barring the extreme no deal nutjobs will accept the need for a delay to Brexit .
Maybe someone like William Hague could be persuaded to steer the party through the next few months.
Meanwhile, it is in their very firm interests to refuse it in the hope of concentrating minds on this deal.
And if we still retained our sovereignty and independence then it would be a lot easier to leave the EU than it currently is.
An emphatic +1
In the event of the MV being lost by a margin of over 100, if May stays, I donate £20 to politicalbetting coffers, if she goes, you donate £20 to pb coffers? Bet void if MV loss margin is smaller than 100.
He'd then have the brains to try and extend Article 50 while reluctantly preparing for no-deal or perhaps even a referendum between no-deal and remain.
May will just sit there ignoring reality and pretending the deal is going to go through until 2 minutes before the deadline when we crash out.
Worst. The BoJos and JoJos. Acting purely for personal careerist self promotion.
Next. The Chukkas. Working to overturn the Ref by whatever means possible.
Next. The Moggs. Dishonouring the Ref but at least out of sincere zealotry.
Next. Labour leadership. Prioritizing getting a Lab govt over anything else.
'Jack Straw – sometime foreign secretary – wrote in his autobiography of a confrontation with Walter Harrison, Labour’s deputy chief whip, as a result of disagreements over a finance bill. “He fixed both eyes upon me and as he did so I felt a pain between my legs I had not experienced since the school rugby field. His grip tightened. I rose on tiptoe as he pushed up as well.” During 33 years in the House of Commons I never heard of a whip laying a finger on a dissident MP. That may be because, unlike Mr Straw, most members would have responded with a punch on the nose.'
What would have happened had Straw responded by complaining to the House of Commons authorities - or taken the matter to the police - or spoken on the record to the broadcasters?
Even Edward Heath continued as leader until Thatcher's election was confirmed, although he started his four decade sulk promptly by getting Robert Carr to chair the one meeting of the Shadow Cabinet that took place in that time.
If it was in the 1980s I assume nothing would have happened.
If it was in 2008 you would have thought a charge of sexual assault would have been one option open to the police.
NEW THREAD
I find this attitude completely bizarre and surprisingly prevalent.
And so did the paedophile networks run by the likes of Bernie Bain, Frank Beck and Mark Trotter, but nothing was actually done about any of them (except, very belatedly, Beck).
I therefore think that those who oppose the deal because they genuinely think that no deal is better are being consistent with the mandate that they received. Of course those opposing the deal for careerist reasons are contemptible. This certainly covers some of the resigners and certainly includes the Labour leadership. Similarly those who lied to their constituents and were happy to be elected on a manifesto which said the vote should be implemented.
As it happens, in an alternate future where Remain had won, if the EU had reneged in any way on the Cameron Deal, or if the outcome had proven significantly different from what had been promised by Remain, I'd have strongly supported a second referendum there as well, and for very similar reasons.
I hope I've been consistent enough that you believe me on this.