All the ERG need to do to head this whole thing off is vote for TMay's deal - I know she loses the DUP but I guess she picks up a few rebel / oddball votes here and there, right? Voting it down and letting (remain-majority) parliament have a go doesn't look like a great gamble for them, are we sure they'll stay opposed?
Your logic is impeccable, but it's too late. If they'd supported the deal originally, with a few token reservations, it would have gone through parliament and we'd be leaving the EU in 16 weeks' time. By trashing the deal so effectively, and especially by saying it's worse than staying in the EU, and by undermining the PM so comprehensively, they've whipped up opposition from moderate Tories who won't now row back.
The world of business has largely ignored Brexit. This is either a smart move as it is a lot of noise without substance or a recipe for disaster. In business TM would quickly accept her plan was dead but Government tends to continue with an idea long after it has become clear the concept is wrong. I look at Hinkley B as a prime example. This white elephant will almost certainly never generate electricity but billions will have been spent unwisely before it is shelved.
There are good reasons for some kind of Brexit such as fish, CAP, we pay too much and the lack of democracy at the executive level. However other reasons cited such as EC immigration and wanting to negotiate our own trade deals have been shown to be straw men. As such the plan is a mess and emotions have overtaken logical analysis. There is no other course but to cancel Article 50 and start again with a new plan.
Will this happen? Who knows but my hunch is the people are beginning to decide and it is all over for Brexit short term although long term they may well win the argument.
Now that the betting's moving towards a 2nd referendum, there's enough value in "no referendum before 2020" to start having a bet. Although I'm against Brexit and do wonder if it might be paused or stopped, I still think the path to a 2nd referendum is strewn with obstacles. First, neither the Tory nor Labour leader will (currently) propose one; that means it'd have to be put forward by another MP, which would be unprecedented, or there'll have to be a new leader. Secondly, even if we ignore the indirect threats of civil disturbance, the idea is likely to become less popular again when MPs consider how it might or might not work. The potentially low turnout is a factor, but the biggest threat is a boycott, and there's really no point calling a referendum if it's going to be boycotted.
I won't be surprised if May proposes one on or before Tuesday, to be held before 29 March. You don't mention the Grieve amendment. Who do you think will do the whingeing about difficulties of implementation? I doubt the ERG will. They will say "bring it on", even as they talk of traitorous stabs in the back. Also who do you think will call for a boycott? That's a bad look for a politician.
Following on from my previous thought, what do Remainers intend to say in any upcoming referendum about immigration? I have seen no signs of fresh thinking on that front.
I imagine they will continue to call anyone who has concerns about mass immigration as horrible racists.
I’m looking forward to the posters saying. Last time we told you it would be difficult now we can see it’s impossible to leave . Vote remain. That would go down well
Last time we all swore (with our fingers crossed) that the influence of the EU on our laws and democracy were grossly over exaggerated by the Brexit loons. This time we say given the extent of their control leaving is just too difficult.
You really do have a blind spot about this David. It's not control, it's integration and association. If you are Peugeot and you decide you don't want to use Michelin tyres any more then you need to have worked out your alternatives before you tell them it's over*.
*no idea if Peugeot uses or used Michelin tyres.
Very true, the remain campaign has been astonishingly poor at pushing this though. Like the truth about immigration it's a good line to push to appeal to the non converted.
Following on from my previous thought, what do Remainers intend to say in any upcoming referendum about immigration? I have seen no signs of fresh thinking on that front.
I imagine they will continue to call anyone who has concerns about mass immigration as horrible racists.
I’m looking forward to the posters saying. Last time we told you it would be difficult now we can see it’s impossible to leave . Vote remain. That would go down well
Last time we all swore (with our fingers crossed) that the influence of the EU on our laws and democracy were grossly over exaggerated by the Brexit loons. This time we say given the extent of their control leaving is just too difficult.
You really do have a blind spot about this David. It's not control, it's integration and association. If you are Peugeot and you decide you don't want to use Michelin tyres any more then you need to have worked out your alternatives before you tell them it's over*.
*no idea if Peugeot uses or used Michelin tyres.
Again not sure that’s a positive. Integration and association via an opaque EU over which Britain cannot act. It much easier to say that we expect Laws in the country to be made and changed by the government we elect, and if we don’t like it we can elect a different government. The Leave campaign writes itself. The remain campaign would be better if it had a positive vision of what continuing membership of the EU means.
The polls are simply staggering at the moment. I can't remember a time when a Government was getting so much bad coverage that it is was still ahead/level/just behind in the polls. Labour should have double digit leads at least at the moment.
The situation is febrile. If she can find an honest whip who tells her that her deal is going down by 200 votes will she really insist on one final public humiliation?
If (huge If) May had formed in June 2016, as she intimated yesterday she was doing now, a coalition from "all sides of the house" and then had the negotiations amongst each side play out in complete transparency in public so that at each stage, for example, the public could have seen JRM ask for a North Korea-style Brexit, and Shami Chakrabati ask for a ***-free Brexit, I mean membership of the single market-type Brexit, then May could have been the sage above it all and any compromise would more likely to have been accepted.
Mr. Dadge, the odds on a second referendum, on Ladbrokes, prior to 2020 were still 1.57 when I checked an hour or two ago. I'd want a bit more than that, probably.
Following on from my previous thought, what do Remainers intend to say in any upcoming referendum about immigration? I have seen no signs of fresh thinking on that front.
Most of our immigration is from outside the EU. That has always been under our control. Even treating immigrants as criminals (Windrush) does not seem to put people off.
Conversations about immigration are not necessarily confined to Brexit
They are central to Brexit. I don't want to bang on about it but the critical point in the pre-Referendum campaign was Hoey vs Herbert on DP. Hoey asked point blank what could be done about EU immigration if we remained and answer had Herbert none.
Indeed, but the correct response should have been "It is not EU immigration that we should be worrying about". IIRC, 2/3rds of our immigration is non-EU
Not a good look, not to say unsayable for an MP. "It's not them you need to worry about, it's the other lot."
It not a question of "Good looks", it is a question about how to manage immigration and the strains it can place on various authorities and systems.
Actually I think it is purely a question of "good looks" for our politicians. Immigration from some countries outperforms others (in terms of employment rate, crime rate, integration, etc.), so it makes sense to have more from the former and less from the latter.
But any politician suggesting this would be called racist and have their career ended, so they all just pretend that it's not the case.
The situation is febrile. If she can find an honest whip who tells her that her deal is going down by 200 votes will she really insist on one final public humiliation?
It depends on that tin ear of hers. She appears to be very good at ignoring anything she does not like.
Following on from my previous thought, what do Remainers intend to say in any upcoming referendum about immigration? I have seen no signs of fresh thinking on that front.
Perhaps that it has dropped massively (from the EU, at least), and that we would avail ourselves of the ability to take emergency measures in any future crisis ?
Spot the way the meme is changing? Whinge whinge whinge. "The Commons' decision was wrong but we'll grudgingly abide by it".
It is almost as if they resent Parliament being sovereign and taking back control.
What happened yesterday really is a dangerous precedent, you try and find a lawyer to give complex legal advice to the Government in the future when they know that this advice will be made public. The funny thing is Keir Starmer is likely to be Attorney General if Labour win.
The situation is febrile. If she can find an honest whip who tells her that her deal is going down by 200 votes will she really insist on one final public humiliation?
There’s rumours that the ERG will now back the deal.
Yesterday’s intervention by the advocate general has focused minds.
The situation is febrile. If she can find an honest whip who tells her that her deal is going down by 200 votes will she really insist on one final public humiliation?
There’s rumours that the ERG will now back the deal.
Yesterday’s intervention by the advocate general has focused minds.
Too late. they've lost Brexit alltogether for their purism.
Quite. And many millions will agree with you. Extremists like Mortimer who were born with a Union Jack stuck up their backsides are dying out. He is a young fogey, but there aren’t many of them.
Mortimer is young? I always assumed he was about 87 from his output on here.
He’s a youngster who prefers sovereignty to going clubbing.
I'll be sad if Brexit fails, because it will mean that we, as a nation, had all these lofty plans for stuffing convention and going it alone but were ultimately found wanting. What a debacle. Everyone will regard us as the country that flew too close to the sun.
The situation is febrile. If she can find an honest whip who tells her that her deal is going down by 200 votes will she really insist on one final public humiliation?
There’s rumours that the ERG will now back the deal.
Yesterday’s intervention by the advocate general has focused minds.
That's important information amid the swirl of minor stuff. If they swung in favour as a bloc that could give the Deal a chance, at least at a second attempt. But they don't seem to march in lockstep and I'd guess they will divide down the middle, leaving a majority against the deal of ?50? - anyone have a better guess?
The situation is febrile. If she can find an honest whip who tells her that her deal is going down by 200 votes will she really insist on one final public humiliation?
There’s rumours that the ERG will now back the deal.
Yesterday’s intervention by the advocate general has focused minds.
If you are trying to say that Labour broke 40% despite people not turning out to vote Labour because of Corbyn I would be very surprised. Corbyn did really well to ride the plucky underdog wagon, and avoid significant scrutiny of the fantasy manifesto. I have said this before on this forum. Elections are often a reaction to the previous election. People were surprised when Cameron got a majority and the polling had Theresa May 20 points ahead. The media reported Corbyn had no chance. As a Labour supporter, even if I didn’t like Corbyn and wanted a hard Brexit, would I personally want to vote for May when she was going to win anyway? I think that saw a swing to Labour.
I meant exactly what I quoted you saying (or the opposite that I mentioned)
Polling showed that those who voted Labour were actually more likely to do so as they thought Labour were more likely to win.
It probably represents a problem in understanding because you feel personally so differently to Corbyn but people weren't voting hoping to lose.
To the other points which I didn't make....
All parties have people who vote for them despite not being enthusiastic about the leader. The idea that Corbyn had this especially and other political leaders throughout time have had only enthusiastic voters who believed in them is nonsense. Labour and the Tories had a similar share of votes cast negatively (against others) in their favour.
For the other parts I liked Corbyn's suggestion that the Daily Mail make it 26 pages next time. The right wing papers should hold no fear for Labour.
It’s easy to vote for someone who has abhorrent views on Jews and the IRA when you are stopping a super majority for May to implement Brexit. Less so when Corbyn might have to run something. There also seems to be an idea amongst labour supporters that they will increase by 20 points during the next campaign too. I would argue this is unlikely but believe what you want. And if Corbyn really is going to be PM then it matters about if Diane Abbott can add up, and the associations of McDonnell and some of his other key allies.
I make no bones about it I would never ever vote for Corbyn, his associations with the IRA are beyond belief to me, and the town I grew up in was bombed by the IRA.
Quite. And many millions will agree with you. Extremists like Mortimer who were born with a Union Jack stuck up their backsides are dying out. He is a young fogey, but there aren’t many of them.
Mortimer is young? I always assumed he was about 87 from his output on here.
He’s a youngster who prefers sovereignty to going clubbing.
Meanwhile, the only dyed in the wool Remain at any costers that I know are middle aged, middle class, white men.
All my mates, largely Labour voting, largely Remain voting, have moved on....
Sometimes stereotypes just don't play out in the real world.
Leave would have a more difficult pitch - they would be saying "we know that Leaving has proved much more difficult than expected and almost everything we said at the last referendum has been proved wrong but we should go ahead with it anyway.
If I was them I'd do: 1) A process argument about voting twice to get it through their thick heads etc 2) A general "everything will work out, it's just Project Fear again" kind of argument, featuring things Remain supporters predicted would happen right after the referendum that didn't
I think Remain would be odds-on but this isn't terrible ground for Leave to fight on.
In my mind, what I'd do for the Leave campaign would be:
Images of the first referendum, with a voiceover saying something like "The largest vote ever recorded in the United Kingdom...", cut to David Cameron saying "Whatever you decide, we will implement," cut to the result of the count and the bald announcement from a newscaster, "The United Kingdom has voted to Leave the European Union."
Then the screen fades to black, and the voice asks, "So what part of 'Leave' did they not understand?"
A ballot paper fades in with the "X" in the appropriate place. "On [whatever date], vote to Leave the European Union. Again."
And as the paper fades away again, the voice mutters, "Maybe this time they'll bloody listen..."
For the Remain campaign, I'd do something like:
"Fool me once?" Images/videos of prominent Leavers saying things like "The easiest trade deal in history," "The EU will be falling over themselves to sign a deal," "...Joining a free trade area from Turkey to Iceland," "£350 million for the NHS," all interleaved with flashes of news about the difficulties of Brexit (plenty to choose from over the past two years), Leavers saying "It's all Project Fear" with newscasters talking about the pound crashing, or economic reversals* and so on, then stuff about "36% of all the food we eat comes through Dover" over news pieces on the M2 and M20 being designated car parks for Dover, then news about things like the Mini factory being closed for the month after Brexit.
Image of JRM, Boris, Farage, and the words "Shame on you" emblazoned on them.
Then the words "Fool me twice?"
A pause.
Fade to black, the ballot paper fades in with the "X" in the appropriate place. "We're allowed to change our minds - once. On [whatever date], vote to Remain in the European Union. Their lies won't work twice."
As the paper fades away again, the voice murmurs, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
The situation is febrile. If she can find an honest whip who tells her that her deal is going down by 200 votes will she really insist on one final public humiliation?
There’s rumours that the ERG will now back the deal.
Yesterday’s intervention by the advocate general has focused minds.
I said on Saturday I’d expect (No Deal) Leave to win again.
I’m playing the long game.
We Leave without a deal and we Rejoin within a decade.
Leavers cannot say they weren’t denied democracy and the rest of us can point and laugh at them when things go mammary glands up.
No Deal will destroy them the way the 1939/1940 destroyed the appeasers.
No deal followed by rejoin is the only viable path. May's deal is dead. Norway is balls that pleases almost nobody. Nobody can remember what the fuck Chequers was even about. Remain without the cleansing flames of pas d'entente will cause leavers to have even more sand in their manginas.
A referendum which included the option of no deal, and saw it rejected, would deal with that.
And the irreconcilables won't be happy however their least favourite outcome is arrived at, even by the uncomfortable route you suggest.
The situation is febrile. If she can find an honest whip who tells her that her deal is going down by 200 votes will she really insist on one final public humiliation?
There’s rumours that the ERG will now back the deal.
Yesterday’s intervention by the advocate general has focused minds.
That's important information amid the swirl of minor stuff. If they swung in favour as a bloc that could give the Deal a chance, at least at a second attempt. But they don't seem to march in lockstep and I'd guess they will divide down the middle, leaving a majority against the deal of ?50? - anyone have a better guess?
If it fails by <50 in the first vote there's every chance it could pass on the second.
The situation is febrile. If she can find an honest whip who tells her that her deal is going down by 200 votes will she really insist on one final public humiliation?
There’s rumours that the ERG will now back the deal.
Yesterday’s intervention by the advocate general has focused minds.
That's important information amid the swirl of minor stuff. If they swung in favour as a bloc that could give the Deal a chance, at least at a second attempt. But they don't seem to march in lockstep and I'd guess they will divide down the middle, leaving a majority against the deal of ?50? - anyone have a better guess?
Sounds reasonable. Part of the problem for May is that many Tory MV rebels (of bothe sides) have painted themselves into a corner by their outspoken criticism of the deal... she really needs to give them something they can save face with but it's hard to see what that could be (since the EU would have to, and won't, agree to anything significant.)
So, whilst I expect the rebel numbers to crumble, I can't see them crumbling enough for May to win through that route.
The way she can win is to offer something concrete to Labour to get them to allow their side to abstain. Something that guarantees a spring GE would do it but FTPA makes that very difficult. The other option, say for MV2, might be to amend the MV to request approval subject to a referendum Deal v Remain.
The remain campaign would be better if it had a positive vision of what continuing membership of the EU means.
How about
We won't run out of essential food and medicine?
In the Radio 4 interview with Matt Hancock that I heard, the interviewer said that could he guarantee that we would not see any disruption to medical supplies? He obviously didn’t guarantee this as it would be a complete hostage to fortune. This has morphed into we will run out of essential medicine.
Interestingly there is a treaty between Britain and France where both sides have a duty to keep borders flowing between Dover and Calais and channel tunnel. Perhaps we can’t rely on France?
Spot the way the meme is changing? Whinge whinge whinge. "The Commons' decision was wrong but we'll grudgingly abide by it".
It is almost as if they resent Parliament being sovereign and taking back control.
What happened yesterday really is a dangerous precedent, you try and find a lawyer to give complex legal advice to the Government in the future when they know that this advice will be made public. The funny thing is Keir Starmer is likely to be Attorney General if Labour win.
I do not think it is dangerous in the slightest. Perhaps advice will be more open and straightforward if it is regularly published. The "smoke filled rooms" belong in the past.
I said on Saturday I’d expect (No Deal) Leave to win again.
I’m playing the long game.
We Leave without a deal and we Rejoin within a decade.
Leavers cannot say they weren’t denied democracy and the rest of us can point and laugh at them when things go mammary glands up.
No Deal will destroy them the way the 1939/1940 destroyed the appeasers.
No deal followed by rejoin is the only viable path. May's deal is dead. Norway is balls that pleases almost nobody. Nobody can remember what the fuck Chequers was even about. Remain without the cleansing flames of pas d'entente will cause leavers to have even more sand in their manginas.
A referendum which included the option of no deal, and saw it rejected, would deal with that.
And the irreconcilables won't be happy however their least favourite outcome is arrived at, even by the uncomfortable route you suggest.
But as I pointed out earlier our AV voting system will push things towards the popular (at first glance) extreme options with the middle of the road options removed early on...
Following on from my previous thought, what do Remainers intend to say in any upcoming referendum about immigration? I have seen no signs of fresh thinking on that front.
Most of our immigration is from outside the EU. That has always been under our control. Even treating immigrants as criminals (Windrush) does not seem to put people off.
Conversations about immigration are not necessarily confined to Brexit
They are central to Brexit. I don't want to bang on about it but the critical point in the pre-Referendum campaign was Hoey vs Herbert on DP. Hoey asked point blank what could be done about EU immigration if we remained and answer had Herbert none.
Indeed, but the correct response should have been "It is not EU immigration that we should be worrying about". IIRC, 2/3rds of our immigration is non-EU
Not a good look, not to say unsayable for an MP. "It's not them you need to worry about, it's the other lot."
It not a question of "Good looks", it is a question about how to manage immigration and the strains it can place on various authorities and systems.
Actually I think it is purely a question of "good looks" for our politicians. Immigration from some countries outperforms others (in terms of employment rate, crime rate, integration, etc.), so it makes sense to have more from the former and less from the latter.
But any politician suggesting this would be called racist and have their career ended, so they all just pretend that it's not the case.
Perhaps they need to grow some backbone and reply that talking about frameworks for logistics and economics is not racist - it is their job as legislators.
Spot the way the meme is changing? Whinge whinge whinge. "The Commons' decision was wrong but we'll grudgingly abide by it".
It is almost as if they resent Parliament being sovereign and taking back control.
What happened yesterday really is a dangerous precedent, you try and find a lawyer to give complex legal advice to the Government in the future when they know that this advice will be made public. The funny thing is Keir Starmer is likely to be Attorney General if Labour win.
I do not think it is dangerous in the slightest. Perhaps advice will be more open and straightforward if it is regularly published. The "smoke filled rooms" belong in the past.
Legal advice to the Government has been given confidential for centuries. Lawyers won't give advice to them in the future.
The remain campaign would be better if it had a positive vision of what continuing membership of the EU means.
How about
We won't run out of essential food and medicine?
In the Radio 4 interview with Matt Hancock that I heard, the interviewer said that could he guarantee that we would not see any disruption to medical supplies? He obviously didn’t guarantee this as it would be a complete hostage to fortune. This has morphed into we will run out of essential medicine.
Interestingly there is a treaty between Britain and France where both sides have a duty to keep borders flowing between Dover and Calais and channel tunnel. Perhaps we can’t rely on France?
Reminiscent of Kamel Ahmed asking Mark Carney if he could rule out a recession following a vote to leave the EU.
The situation is febrile. If she can find an honest whip who tells her that her deal is going down by 200 votes will she really insist on one final public humiliation?
There’s rumours that the ERG will now back the deal.
Yesterday’s intervention by the advocate general has focused minds.
That's important information amid the swirl of minor stuff. If they swung in favour as a bloc that could give the Deal a chance, at least at a second attempt. But they don't seem to march in lockstep and I'd guess they will divide down the middle, leaving a majority against the deal of ?50? - anyone have a better guess?
Paddys have a market on how many votes for the deal and the prices haven't moved since they put it out. 220-229 fav at 7/2. Yesterday morning I thought that was probably right but now I can see her getting more Tory leavers on her side. I dont like betting with such narrow bands but 250-259 At 16/1 looks more tempting now. If she can almost the whole party onside 300-309 is 20/1.
Following on from my previous thought, what do Remainers intend to say in any upcoming referendum about immigration? I have seen no signs of fresh thinking on that front.
The smart move would be to layout all the things that a government can do as a member of the EU, and what a government can do as a member of the EFTA and how in both cases it was as much the structure of our economy and welfare state acting as a pull as anything else driving abnormally high levels of immigration.
I can actually beat that. I got £2 at 999/1 on Betfair on 15 April 2018 for him to be next Prime Minister (I also have bet on him for lower three figure amounts at other times).
I've got quite a few bets on him in high three figures for next Conservative leader but that must be more of a long shot.
Spot the way the meme is changing? Whinge whinge whinge. "The Commons' decision was wrong but we'll grudgingly abide by it".
It is almost as if they resent Parliament being sovereign and taking back control.
What happened yesterday really is a dangerous precedent, you try and find a lawyer to give complex legal advice to the Government in the future when they know that this advice will be made public. The funny thing is Keir Starmer is likely to be Attorney General if Labour win.
I do not think it is dangerous in the slightest. Perhaps advice will be more open and straightforward if it is regularly published. The "smoke filled rooms" belong in the past.
Legal advice to the Government has been given confidential for centuries. Lawyers won't give advice to them in the future.
Lawyers will give advice to anyone who pays them. They may charge more, but that is lawyers for you.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
I can actually beat that. I got £2 at 999/1 on Betfair on 15 April 2018 for him to be next Prime Minister (I also have bet on him for lower three figure amounts at other times).
I've got quite a few bets on him in high three figures for next Conservative leader but that must be more of a long shot.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
Still a while yet before you start to take responsibility for your own failings then. If Leavers had sought to reach out to open-minded Remainers, they wouldn't be in the mess they're in now. But they spent the period after the referendum seeking to grind their opponents into the dust instead. Big mistake.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
Spot the way the meme is changing? Whinge whinge whinge. "The Commons' decision was wrong but we'll grudgingly abide by it".
It is almost as if they resent Parliament being sovereign and taking back control.
What happened yesterday really is a dangerous precedent, you try and find a lawyer to give complex legal advice to the Government in the future when they know that this advice will be made public. The funny thing is Keir Starmer is likely to be Attorney General if Labour win.
I do not think it is dangerous in the slightest. Perhaps advice will be more open and straightforward if it is regularly published. The "smoke filled rooms" belong in the past.
Legal advice to the Government has been given confidential for centuries. Lawyers won't give advice to them in the future.
Lawyers will give advice to anyone who pays them. They may charge more, but that is lawyers for you.
The government have been trying to present the Attorney General as if he is someone they hire at a law firm. He's in-house. Is he even covered by professional insurance for the advice he gives to the government? And anyway as member of the cabinet he shares responsibility for whether or not his own advice his accepted: he's part of the "client".
Why is it important? The referendum result stands. Are you saying that midway through a parliament if the Governemnt poll ratings are low they should immeditely leave office or call a GE?
Spot the way the meme is changing? Whinge whinge whinge. "The Commons' decision was wrong but we'll grudgingly abide by it".
It is almost as if they resent Parliament being sovereign and taking back control.
What happened yesterday really is a dangerous precedent, you try and find a lawyer to give complex legal advice to the Government in the future when they know that this advice will be made public. The funny thing is Keir Starmer is likely to be Attorney General if Labour win.
I do not think it is dangerous in the slightest. Perhaps advice will be more open and straightforward if it is regularly published. The "smoke filled rooms" belong in the past.
Legal advice to the Government has been given confidential for centuries. Lawyers won't give advice to them in the future.
Lawyers will give advice to anyone who pays them. They may charge more, but that is lawyers for you.
The precedent seems limited to me. How many governments are going to lose votes like this? How many governments are going to try to keep MPs uninformed on a vote like Brexit?
The situation is febrile. If she can find an honest whip who tells her that her deal is going down by 200 votes will she really insist on one final public humiliation?
There’s rumours that the ERG will now back the deal.
Yesterday’s intervention by the advocate general has focused minds.
That's important information amid the swirl of minor stuff. If they swung in favour as a bloc that could give the Deal a chance, at least at a second attempt. But they don't seem to march in lockstep and I'd guess they will divide down the middle, leaving a majority against the deal of ?50? - anyone have a better guess?
Sounds reasonable. Part of the problem for May is that many Tory MV rebels (of bothe sides) have painted themselves into a corner by their outspoken criticism of the deal... she really needs to give them something they can save face with but it's hard to see what that could be (since the EU would have to, and won't, agree to anything significant.)
So, whilst I expect the rebel numbers to crumble, I can't see them crumbling enough for May to win through that route.
The way she can win is to offer something concrete to Labour to get them to allow their side to abstain. Something that guarantees a spring GE would do it but FTPA makes that very difficult. The other option, say for MV2, might be to amend the MV to request approval subject to a referendum Deal v Remain.
Tory backbenchers would not support an early election so that option is not open to May, offing a referendum is the only possible way forward in that scenario.
I can actually beat that. I got £2 at 999/1 on Betfair on 15 April 2018 for him to be next Prime Minister (I also have bet on him for lower three figure amounts at other times).
I've got quite a few bets on him in high three figures for next Conservative leader but that must be more of a long shot.
I can't see him becoming next leader.
No, sadly for the Meeks bank balance. He would be a fabulous choice from that narrow perspective.
Why is it important? The referendum result stands. Are you saying that midway through a parliament if the Governemnt poll ratings are low they should immeditely leave office or call a GE?
Theresa May called a snap election based on poll ratings as recently as last year. Let's not pretend politicians don't read the papers.
Quite. And many millions will agree with you. Extremists like Mortimer who were born with a Union Jack stuck up their backsides are dying out. He is a young fogey, but there aren’t many of them.
Mortimer is young? I always assumed he was about 87 from his output on here.
He’s a youngster who prefers sovereignty to going clubbing.
Meanwhile, the only dyed in the wool Remain at any costers that I know are middle aged, middle class, white men.
All my mates, largely Labour voting, largely Remain voting, have moved on....
Sometimes stereotypes just don't play out in the real world.
Have they moved on far enough to riot in the streets if Brexit is halted?
Hmm. If Liddington's a caretaker, that's fine. Be miffed if he's permanent Con leader, though.
Janitor rather, and not fine unless you have a stake on it.
If May walks away (and she may need to as things will need to be fixed in a hurry) it needs to be someone who isn't likely to be part of the leadership election that kicks off at about the same time. Lidington is the most plausible candidate (and just about the only one) and the odds of May having to leave next Tuesday / Wednesday are surely less than the 100-1 betfred are offering.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
Still a while yet before you start to take responsibility for your own failings then. If Leavers had sought to reach out to open-minded Remainers, they wouldn't be in the mess they're in now. But they spent the period after the referendum seeking to grind their opponents into the dust instead. Big mistake.
Now that the betting's moving towards a 2nd referendum, there's enough value in "no referendum before 2020" to start having a bet. Although I'm against Brexit and do wonder if it might be paused or stopped, I still think the path to a 2nd referendum is strewn with obstacles. First, neither the Tory nor Labour leader will (currently) propose one; that means it'd have to be put forward by another MP, which would be unprecedented, or there'll have to be a new leader. Secondly, even if we ignore the indirect threats of civil disturbance, the idea is likely to become less popular again when MPs consider how it might or might not work. The potentially low turnout is a factor, but the biggest threat is a boycott, and there's really no point calling a referendum if it's going to be boycotted.
I won't be surprised if May proposes one on or before Tuesday, to be held before 29 March. You don't mention the Grieve amendment. Who do you think will do the whingeing about difficulties of implementation? I doubt the ERG will. They will say "bring it on", even as they talk of traitorous stabs in the back. Also who do you think will call for a boycott? That's a bad look for a politician.
May will never call for a 2nd referendum.
The ERG will be split over a 2nd referendum. And, whilst in public they might say "Bring it on", in private I'm sure they'd be doing everything they can to scupper it.
If I were the Leave campaign, I'd definitely call for a boycott. I can't see how it's a bad look for a politician in this particular case, i.e. after saying day after day for two years that the result of the first vote has to be respected. If the campaigners believe that a 2nd referendum is illegitimate, boycotting it is absolutely the right thing to do. Makes a Remain vote worthless. And saves a lot of campaigning costs and legwork.
Spot the way the meme is changing? Whinge whinge whinge. "The Commons' decision was wrong but we'll grudgingly abide by it".
It is almost as if they resent Parliament being sovereign and taking back control.
What happened yesterday really is a dangerous precedent, you try and find a lawyer to give complex legal advice to the Government in the future when they know that this advice will be made public. The funny thing is Keir Starmer is likely to be Attorney General if Labour win.
I do not think it is dangerous in the slightest. Perhaps advice will be more open and straightforward if it is regularly published. The "smoke filled rooms" belong in the past.
Legal advice to the Government has been given confidential for centuries. Lawyers won't give advice to them in the future.
Lawyers will give advice to anyone who pays them. They may charge more, but that is lawyers for you.
The precedent seems limited to me. How many governments are going to lose votes like this? How many governments are going to try to keep MPs uninformed on a vote like Brexit?
There is no way now that a future government will not have to publish legal advvice. This precedent is forever.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
Spot the way the meme is changing? Whinge whinge whinge. "The Commons' decision was wrong but we'll grudgingly abide by it".
It is almost as if they resent Parliament being sovereign and taking back control.
What happened yesterday really is a dangerous precedent, you try and find a lawyer to give complex legal advice to the Government in the future when they know that this advice will be made public. The funny thing is Keir Starmer is likely to be Attorney General if Labour win.
I do not think it is dangerous in the slightest. Perhaps advice will be more open and straightforward if it is regularly published. The "smoke filled rooms" belong in the past.
Legal advice to the Government has been given confidential for centuries. Lawyers won't give advice to them in the future.
Lawyers will give advice to anyone who pays them. They may charge more, but that is lawyers for you.
The precedent seems limited to me. How many governments are going to lose votes like this? How many governments are going to try to keep MPs uninformed on a vote like Brexit?
There is no way now that a future government will not have to publish legal advvice. This precedent is forever.
Surely bollox. The Government will only have to publish advice if the HoC passes motion to that effect. Normally a government would expect to defeat such motions.
Now that the betting's moving towards a 2nd referendum, there's enough value in "no referendum before 2020" to start having a bet. Although I'm against Brexit and do wonder if it might be paused or stopped, I still think the path to a 2nd referendum is strewn with obstacles. First, neither the Tory nor Labour leader will (currently) propose one; that means it'd have to be put forward by another MP, which would be unprecedented, or there'll have to be a new leader. Secondly, even if we ignore the indirect threats of civil disturbance, the idea is likely to become less popular again when MPs consider how it might or might not work. The potentially low turnout is a factor, but the biggest threat is a boycott, and there's really no point calling a referendum if it's going to be boycotted.
I won't be surprised if May proposes one on or before Tuesday, to be held before 29 March. You don't mention the Grieve amendment. Who do you think will do the whingeing about difficulties of implementation? I doubt the ERG will. They will say "bring it on", even as they talk of traitorous stabs in the back. Also who do you think will call for a boycott? That's a bad look for a politician.
May will never call for a 2nd referendum.
The ERG will be split over a 2nd referendum. And, whilst in public they might say "Bring it on", in private I'm sure they'd be doing everything they can to scupper it.
If I were the Leave campaign, I'd definitely call for a boycott. I can't see how it's a bad look for a politician in this particular case, i.e. after saying day after day for two years that the result of the first vote has to be respected. If the campaigners believe that a 2nd referendum is illegitimate, boycotting it is absolutely the right thing to do. Makes a Remain vote worthless. And saves a lot of campaigning costs and legwork.
But boycotting the referendum could put us back in the EU and leaves leavers with potentially little to do except shout and protest... Especially if the ECJ decide afterwards that implementing A50 a second time was abuse of the process.
What's the odds of any non-voter (who couild actually vote) in 2016 actually voting this time around...
Quite high I'd say. Plenty in their 20s were shocked by the 2016 vote and regretted not voting.
Do we have evidence to back that up? In my experience those in the 20s who were shocked and regretted the result were the politically engaged who voted already, not the unengaged who'd rather live/watch Geordie Shore than discuss politics.
Leavers at some point will start asking themselves why they made no attempt to forge a consensus. But not yet, I fancy.
And we know why many remainers decided instead of trying to honour the result and be part of the process of negotiating our exit from the EU, they spent the time salting the earth and begging the EU to give us a punishment beating.
Spot the way the meme is changing? Whinge whinge whinge. "The Commons' decision was wrong but we'll grudgingly abide by it".
It is almost as if they resent Parliament being sovereign and taking back control.
What happened yesterday really is a dangerous precedent, you try and find a lawyer to give complex legal advice to the Government in the future when they know that this advice will be made public. The funny thing is Keir Starmer is likely to be Attorney General if Labour win.
I do not think it is dangerous in the slightest. Perhaps advice will be more open and straightforward if it is regularly published. The "smoke filled rooms" belong in the past.
Legal advice to the Government has been given confidential for centuries. Lawyers won't give advice to them in the future.
Lawyers will give advice to anyone who pays them. They may charge more, but that is lawyers for you.
The precedent seems limited to me. How many governments are going to lose votes like this? How many governments are going to try to keep MPs uninformed on a vote like Brexit?
There is no way now that a future government will not have to publish legal advvice. This precedent is forever.
Surely bollox. The Government will only have to publish advice if the HoC passes motion to that effect. Normally a government would expect to defeat such motions.
Sorry but how could a government refuse, what are they going to say? Our advice is much more secret than the brexit advice so you are not allowed to see it. Andre Leadsom made this point yesterday.
Spot the way the meme is changing? Whinge whinge whinge. "The Commons' decision was wrong but we'll grudgingly abide by it".
It is almost as if they resent Parliament being sovereign and taking back control.
What happened yesterday really is a dangerous precedent, you try and find a lawyer to give complex legal advice to the Government in the future when they know that this advice will be made public. The funny thing is Keir Starmer is likely to be Attorney General if Labour win.
I do not think it is dangerous in the slightest. Perhaps advice will be more open and straightforward if it is regularly published. The "smoke filled rooms" belong in the past.
Legal advice to the Government has been given confidential for centuries. Lawyers won't give advice to them in the future.
Lawyers will give advice to anyone who pays them. They may charge more, but that is lawyers for you.
The precedent seems limited to me. How many governments are going to lose votes like this? How many governments are going to try to keep MPs uninformed on a vote like Brexit?
There is no way now that a future government will not have to publish legal advvice. This precedent is forever.
In future, governments will vote against such motions in the Commons rather than abstaining and pretending they don't apply to them.
I said on Saturday I’d expect (No Deal) Leave to win again.
I’m playing the long game.
We Leave without a deal and we Rejoin within a decade.
Leavers cannot say they weren’t denied democracy and the rest of us can point and laugh at them when things go mammary glands up.
No Deal will destroy them the way the 1939/1940 destroyed the appeasers.
No deal followed by rejoin is the only viable path. May's deal is dead. Norway is balls that pleases almost nobody. Nobody can remember what the fuck Chequers was even about. Remain without the cleansing flames of pas d'entente will cause leavers to have even more sand in their manginas.
There won't be a "no deal".
As far as leaving and rejoining is concerned, I think people should be (made) aware that it wouldn't be possible to rejoin on the same membership terms we have now. For example, it's very difficult for a new member to be accepted without joining the Eurozone. So, although there will probably be a majority soon after leaving for rejoining, rejoining would actually mean a majority of the public would be less happy about being a member. (And thus the merry-go-round will continue.)
The obvious conclusion from this is that we shouldn't be leaving in the first place. Ever since the referendum I've said that parliament should be honest about this and keep us in the EU despite the vote. I still think today that it's what our MPs should do. They aren't brave enough, of course.
What's the odds of any non-voter (who couild actually vote) in 2016 actually voting this time around...
Quite high I'd say. Plenty in their 20s were shocked by the 2016 vote and regretted not voting.
Do we have evidence to back that up? In my experience those in the 20s who were shocked and regretted the result were the politically engaged who voted already, not the unengaged who'd rather live/watch Geordie Shore than discuss politics.
It's anecdotal of course. And there is something in what you say.
Still, the way to prove it is to have another referendum.
I don't believe that they do think there's a majority for a harder Brexit. They think (or thought, they might have changed their minds) that they can bamboozle the country towards one because No Deal is the legal default. That's probably a miscalculation, but there's a risk that they are right.
Comments
There are good reasons for some kind of Brexit such as fish, CAP, we pay too much and the lack of democracy at the executive level. However other reasons cited such as EC immigration and wanting to negotiate our own trade deals have been shown to be straw men. As such the plan is a mess and emotions have overtaken logical analysis. There is no other course but to cancel Article 50 and start again with a new plan.
Will this happen? Who knows but my hunch is the people are beginning to decide and it is all over for Brexit short term although long term they may well win the argument.
It much easier to say that we expect Laws in the country to be made and changed by the government we elect, and if we don’t like it we can elect a different government. The Leave campaign writes itself. The remain campaign would be better if it had a positive vision of what continuing membership of the EU means.
The polls are simply staggering at the moment. I can't remember a time when a Government was getting so much bad coverage that it is was still ahead/level/just behind in the polls. Labour should have double digit leads at least at the moment.
The situation is febrile. If she can find an honest whip who tells her that her deal is going down by 200 votes will she really insist on one final public humiliation?
But any politician suggesting this would be called racist and have their career ended, so they all just pretend that it's not the case.
Interesting.
We won't run out of essential food and medicine?
Yesterday’s intervention by the advocate general has focused minds.
May might not be PM by then anyway.
I make no bones about it I would never ever vote for Corbyn, his associations with the IRA are beyond belief to me, and the town I grew up in was bombed by the IRA.
Surprisingly yesterday Lidington had better odds for next PM than he did for next leader.
All my mates, largely Labour voting, largely Remain voting, have moved on....
Sometimes stereotypes just don't play out in the real world.
*Well, if we were back in a standard universe with semi competent politcians motivated by rationality & pragmatism.
Images of the first referendum, with a voiceover saying something like "The largest vote ever recorded in the United Kingdom...", cut to David Cameron saying "Whatever you decide, we will implement," cut to the result of the count and the bald announcement from a newscaster, "The United Kingdom has voted to Leave the European Union."
Then the screen fades to black, and the voice asks, "So what part of 'Leave' did they not understand?"
A ballot paper fades in with the "X" in the appropriate place. "On [whatever date], vote to Leave the European Union. Again."
And as the paper fades away again, the voice mutters, "Maybe this time they'll bloody listen..."
For the Remain campaign, I'd do something like:
"Fool me once?"
Images/videos of prominent Leavers saying things like "The easiest trade deal in history," "The EU will be falling over themselves to sign a deal," "...Joining a free trade area from Turkey to Iceland," "£350 million for the NHS," all interleaved with flashes of news about the difficulties of Brexit (plenty to choose from over the past two years), Leavers saying "It's all Project Fear" with newscasters talking about the pound crashing, or economic reversals* and so on, then stuff about "36% of all the food we eat comes through Dover" over news pieces on the M2 and M20 being designated car parks for Dover, then news about things like the Mini factory being closed for the month after Brexit.
Image of JRM, Boris, Farage, and the words "Shame on you" emblazoned on them.
Then the words "Fool me twice?"
A pause.
Fade to black, the ballot paper fades in with the "X" in the appropriate place. "We're allowed to change our minds - once. On [whatever date], vote to Remain in the European Union. Their lies won't work twice."
As the paper fades away again, the voice murmurs, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
There’ll be plenty smug git emojis going around.
And the irreconcilables won't be happy however their least favourite outcome is arrived at, even by the uncomfortable route you suggest.
So, whilst I expect the rebel numbers to crumble, I can't see them crumbling enough for May to win through that route.
The way she can win is to offer something concrete to Labour to get them to allow their side to abstain. Something that guarantees a spring GE would do it but FTPA makes that very difficult. The other option, say for MV2, might be to amend the MV to request approval subject to a referendum Deal v Remain.
Interestingly there is a treaty between Britain and France where both sides have a duty to keep borders flowing between Dover and Calais and channel tunnel. Perhaps we can’t rely on France?
DNSR Liam Fox says there’s a danger MPs might steal Brexit from the public.
Plus we all know Jeremy Hunt is nailed on to succeed Mrs May.
https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1070263954121912320
If TMay had won the 80+ majority she was hoping for, where would we be now? Passing her deal with ease or heading for No Deal driven by a rampant ERG?
I've got quite a few bets on him in high three figures for next Conservative leader but that must be more of a long shot.
The ERG will be split over a 2nd referendum. And, whilst in public they might say "Bring it on", in private I'm sure they'd be doing everything they can to scupper it.
If I were the Leave campaign, I'd definitely call for a boycott. I can't see how it's a bad look for a politician in this particular case, i.e. after saying day after day for two years that the result of the first vote has to be respected. If the campaigners believe that a 2nd referendum is illegitimate, boycotting it is absolutely the right thing to do. Makes a Remain vote worthless. And saves a lot of campaigning costs and legwork.
As far as leaving and rejoining is concerned, I think people should be (made) aware that it wouldn't be possible to rejoin on the same membership terms we have now. For example, it's very difficult for a new member to be accepted without joining the Eurozone. So, although there will probably be a majority soon after leaving for rejoining, rejoining would actually mean a majority of the public would be less happy about being a member. (And thus the merry-go-round will continue.)
The obvious conclusion from this is that we shouldn't be leaving in the first place. Ever since the referendum I've said that parliament should be honest about this and keep us in the EU despite the vote. I still think today that it's what our MPs should do. They aren't brave enough, of course.
Still, the way to prove it is to have another referendum.