Has a single Labour MP in the Commons debate said they will support May's deal?
According to the Guardian's graphic, there is one.
If the Government adopt the Mann/Snell amendment (It looks allowable on the surface) there might be more.
Been away doing family stuff and Christmas markets for a few days, so trying to get back up to speed. In a nutshell, what does the Mann/Snell amendment do please?
"Seeks to ensure that leaving the EU will not result in lower employment, environmental, and health and safety standards after exit day."
Thanks.
So the government would have zero room to negotiate to deviate from SM regulations, anywhere, ever.
Except we aren't going to lower our enviromental, employment or health and safety standards after we leave. The Gov't has said this all along.
Is there some weird definition of the word "lower" I'm trying to look for here ?
' Any evidence that 'not very bright' students get into Oxbridge?'
I suspect that until circa 1950 that was true of many of the entrants who obtained 'places' rather than Scholarships or Exhibitions.Very few Grammar School applicants were able to afford the fees associated with a mere 'place' , and as a result Oxbridge was widely seen as a Finishing School for the public schools. Many of those from feepaying schools who obtained a place in that period would be unlikely to have gained entry from circa 1960 onwards.
Prior to 1950 (say) how many University places were there, relative to numbers of young people?
I would find that information very interesting. Certainly relatively few pupils were in the market for a university place at all at that time - those that were came disproportionately from the public schools. The majority of Grammar School pupils left school at 16 having taken the School Certificate - equivalent to O levels. Only a minority considered staying on to sit the Higher Certificate - A level equivalent - at 18.
Indeed. I was at a Grammar School in the 50's. Many of my 5th form contemporaries left after O levels to pursue careers in the law, in accountancy, the City or banking. Conversely I was in the top stream but asked the Careers master about options. He looked puzzled and said; but you're in the A stream; you'll be going to University.
Has a single Labour MP in the Commons debate said they will support May's deal?
According to the Guardian's graphic, there is one.
If the Government adopt the Mann/Snell amendment (It looks allowable on the surface) there might be more.
Been away doing family stuff and Christmas markets for a few days, so trying to get back up to speed. In a nutshell, what does the Mann/Snell amendment do please?
"Seeks to ensure that leaving the EU will not result in lower employment, environmental, and health and safety standards after exit day."
Thanks.
So the government would have zero room to negotiate to deviate from SM regulations, anywhere, ever.
Except we aren't going to lower our enviromental, employment or health and safety standards after we leave. The Gov't has said this all along.
Is there some weird definition of the word "lower" I'm trying to look for here ?
Not remotely a surprise. I said last week that I expected resignations from the Govt. payroll. No point voting for something you hate to support a PM who's remaining term is measured "in hours"....
At this point, the remaining time on May's premiership is being measured in hours.
If she really does believe that her deal must pass, all else be damned, then she has nothing to lose from proposing the referendum. Yes, her party will VONC her so hard her eyes will bleed, but at least there's a chance for he deal to happen.
Not a big chance, mind. But a chance.
And still not certain ERG vnoc would win. There are only 100 max who are likely to vnoc in her
If she proposes a referendum, her party will dump her like a shot. But if she considers her deal to be more important than her job, she should risk it.
It's now out of control of the government and the Conservative Party.
I wonder what the majority of MPs who want to remain will vote to happen.
For a second referendum. The ERG have given them democratic cover to no longer respect the first referendum result.
I don't think the majority of people who want to leave the EU will see it like that.
They'll see an unacceptable deal rightfully rejected and then a political stitch up to remain.
There is no democratic cover. Unless you want a referendum with a no deal option, but I'm guessing you don't want that allowed either.
Has a single Labour MP in the Commons debate said they will support May's deal?
According to the Guardian's graphic, there is one.
If the Government adopt the Mann/Snell amendment (It looks allowable on the surface) there might be more.
Been away doing family stuff and Christmas markets for a few days, so trying to get back up to speed. In a nutshell, what does the Mann/Snell amendment do please?
"Seeks to ensure that leaving the EU will not result in lower employment, environmental, and health and safety standards after exit day."
Thanks.
So the government would have zero room to negotiate to deviate from SM regulations, anywhere, ever.
Except we aren't going to lower our enviromental, employment or health and safety standards after we leave. The Gov't has said this all along.
Is there some weird definition of the word "lower" I'm trying to look for here ?
You believe them?
Gotta get those chlorinated American chickens somehow.
She doesn't. Which is why the logic leads inexorably to a referendum between the EU's deal (to give it its proper name) and revoking Article 50, assuming that is possible.
As for mechanism, the excellent @Black_Rook (welcome back, BTW!) is right that it is awkward. But if, as I think is likely, MPs vote by a large margin for asking for an Article 50 extension and a referendum, it is hard to see the (replacement) government refusing to hold it.
Edit: Of course this is a trap which the ERG dug for themselves and then jumped into. No-one else had thought of it. It's rather pleasing.
I stand to be corrected by events (my predictions have all the validity of Mystic Meg's crystal ball, after all,) but why do we necessarily think there'll be an overwhelming vote in Parliament for a second referendum, or that any likely successor to May wouldn't face it down even if there were?
That portion of the Parliamentary Conservative Party that is pragmatically, rather than fanatically, in favour of staying in (i.e. most of them) knows that voting with the Opposition to try to force a second referendum will risk splitting their own party, enraging most of their party members and their voters as well, and possibly cause the DUP to sit on its hands in the event of a confidence motion and allow Labour to gather enough votes to throw their own Government out and precipitate a General Election. It's a tremendously desperate gamble. Many of them may, and probably will, prove willing to say that a negotiation was tried but failed, so they're going to back delivery of the Leave vote by the only means available and go without a deal. As opposed to opting for a second referendum, which in truth will resolve nothing and probably make the toxic political situation in this country even worse.
Even if the vote does pass, the next Prime Minister will almost inevitably be a dyed in the wool Tory Brexiteer - or, at the very least, an ambitious cabinet minister willing to entertain No Deal to secure power. They would be beholden to the party membership, and have every incentive to stare the rebels down. There is recent precedent. Most of the Parliamentary Labour Party actively tried to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn, but the numbers didn't matter. Other circumstances weighed against them, they failed, and they gave up.
Those numbers are only heading one way. Reunification looks like just a matter of time now, given the much higher catholic birth rate.
Indeed. The switch of nationalists and non aligned to reunification is remarkable. Before the Brexit vote there was little support for unification, even amongst nationalists.
I think the United Kingdom will no longer exist in 20 years. It'll just be the Kingdom of England and Wales, and even Wales will be dangling by a thread.
Great article. This is a function of the US's great withdrawing. In years to come we will probably look at the election of Donald Trump as a critical staging point on the ending of the US's world hegemony. As it has become increasingly apparent that the US is going to leave Europe to look to its own defences, Europe is duly doing so.
It would have happened regardless of Trump, thanks to sheer economic necessity. The US withdrawing from Europe to fund the pivot towards the new peer enemy across the Pacific is very similar to the UK withdrawing from the Pacific and Med at the turn of the 20th century to fund a pivot towards the new peer enemy across the North Sea.
Very similar drivers - a global superpower responding to the change to a more multipolar world, as military strength follows new economic strength, which meant a change in strategy from global policeman to more concentrated, high-end forces.
Despite the talk, there's not been a particular acceleration of the pivot under Trump.
At this point, the remaining time on May's premiership is being measured in hours.
If she really does believe that her deal must pass, all else be damned, then she has nothing to lose from proposing the referendum. Yes, her party will VONC her so hard her eyes will bleed, but at least there's a chance for he deal to happen.
Not a big chance, mind. But a chance.
And still not certain ERG vnoc would win. There are only 100 max who are likely to vnoc in her
If she proposes a referendum, her party will dump her like a shot. But if she considers her deal to be more important than her job, she should risk it.
It's now out of control of the government and the Conservative Party.
I wonder what the majority of MPs who want to remain will vote to happen.
For a second referendum. The ERG have given them democratic cover to no longer respect the first referendum result.
I don't think the majority of people who want to leave the EU will see it like that.
They'll see an unacceptable deal rightfully rejected and then a political stitch up to remain.
There is no democratic cover. Unless you want a referendum with a no deal option, but I'm guessing you don't want that allowed either.
There is no such option.
There would have to be a deal of some sort for the country to run properly (and the EU hasn't offered such a deal).
That fanatics like you refuse to recognise this simple fact is why your dream is rapidly turning into a nightmare of your own making.
Those numbers are only heading one way. Reunification looks like just a matter of time now, given the much higher catholic birth rate.
If there's no deal, 55% support a united Ireland including 11% of people who identify as unionists.
The DUP's best outcome by far is Remain.
NI receives significant public subsidy per head from the rUK. Reunification with the Irish Republic is not guaranteed once the implications of leaving are fully understood. However if people want to leave they should be allowed to. I am not a hypocrite.
I can't think of any environmental or wider standards that have ever decreased in my lifetime.
Here's one that'll go up post Brexit: "Environment secretary Michael Gove said that once Britain leaves the EU, the country could ban the export of thousands of live farm animals to mainland Europe."
At this point, the remaining time on May's premiership is being measured in hours.
If she really does believe that her deal must pass, all else be damned, then she has nothing to lose from proposing the referendum. Yes, her party will VONC her so hard her eyes will bleed, but at least there's a chance for he deal to happen.
Not a big chance, mind. But a chance.
And still not certain ERG vnoc would win. There are only 100 max who are likely to vnoc in her
If she proposes a referendum, her party will dump her like a shot. But if she considers her deal to be more important than her job, she should risk it.
It's now out of control of the government and the Conservative Party.
I wonder what the majority of MPs who want to remain will vote to happen.
For a second referendum. The ERG have given them democratic cover to no longer respect the first referendum result.
I don't think the majority of people who want to leave the EU will see it like that.
They'll see an unacceptable deal rightfully rejected and then a political stitch up to remain.
There is no democratic cover. Unless you want a referendum with a no deal option, but I'm guessing you don't want that allowed either.
There is no such option.
There would have to be a deal of some sort for the country to run properly (and the EU hasn't offered such a deal).
That fanatics like you refuse to recognise this simple fact is why your dream is rapidly turning into a nightmare of your own making.
If I'm just a fanatic then the no deal option will lose easily so there's no harm in putting it on the ballot.
' Any evidence that 'not very bright' students get into Oxbridge?'
I suspect that until circa 1950 that was true of many of the entrants who obtained 'places' rather than Scholarships or Exhibitions.Very few Grammar School applicants were able to afford the fees associated with a mere 'place' , and as a result Oxbridge was widely seen as a Finishing School for the public schools. Many of those from feepaying schools who obtained a place in that period would be unlikely to have gained entry from circa 1960 onwards.
Prior to 1950 (say) how many University places were there, relative to numbers of young people?
I would find that information very interesting. Certainly relatively few pupils were in the market for a university place at all at that time - those that were came disproportionately from the public schools. The majority of Grammar School pupils left school at 16 having taken the School Certificate - equivalent to O levels. Only a minority considered staying on to sit the Higher Certificate - A level equivalent - at 18.
Indeed. I was at a Grammar School in the 50's. Many of my 5th form contemporaries left after O levels to pursue careers in the law, in accountancy, the City or banking. Conversely I was in the top stream but asked the Careers master about options. He looked puzzled and said; but you're in the A stream; you'll be going to University.
I attended a Grammar School from the mid-1960s and entered the 6th Form in the early 70s. By that time the 6th form was growing with more pupils opting to sit A levels. Even at that time,though, many had no wish to continue education beyond 18 and were intent on entering the workplace post A level.Also quite a few were applying to Teacher Training Colleges/Art Colleges.Probably no more than 50% were applying for degree places at Universities & Polytechnics.
At this point, the remaining time on May's premiership is being measured in hours.
If she really does believe that her deal must pass, all else be damned, then she has nothing to lose from proposing the referendum. Yes, her party will VONC her so hard her eyes will bleed, but at least there's a chance for he deal to happen.
Not a big chance, mind. But a chance.
And still not certain ERG vnoc would win. There are only 100 max who are likely to vnoc in her
If she proposes a referendum, her party will dump her like a shot. But if she considers her deal to be more important than her job, she should risk it.
It's now out of control of the government and the Conservative Party.
I wonder what the majority of MPs who want to remain will vote to happen.
For a second referendum. The ERG have given them democratic cover to no longer respect the first referendum result.
I don't think the majority of people who want to leave the EU will see it like that.
They'll see an unacceptable deal rightfully rejected and then a political stitch up to remain.
There is no democratic cover. Unless you want a referendum with a no deal option, but I'm guessing you don't want that allowed either.
If there’s still a majority who want to leave, won’t they vote not to remain in the referendum? In that case, job done. If there isn’t a majority for a specific form of leaving, then those erstwhile leavers who have decided they don’t want to leave on that way will presumably be delighted that they were given a choice to make that clear and prevent something they opposed from proceeding.
I can't think of any environmental or wider standards that have ever decreased in my lifetime.
Here's one that'll go up post Brexit: "Environment secretary Michael Gove said that once Britain leaves the EU, the country could ban the export of thousands of live farm animals to mainland Europe."
If we have zero desire to deviate from EU standards on ANYTHING AT ALL, remind me again why May wants us to crash out of the single market?
I can't think of any environmental or wider standards that have ever decreased in my lifetime.
Here's one that'll go up post Brexit: "Environment secretary Michael Gove said that once Britain leaves the EU, the country could ban the export of thousands of live farm animals to mainland Europe."
When I hear the word 'could' from a pol my first instinct is to think whatever they say 'could' happen isn't likely to. Gove is very much not the exception to this.
At this point, the remaining time on May's premiership is being measured in hours.
If she really does believe that her deal must pass, all else be damned, then she has nothing to lose from proposing the referendum. Yes, her party will VONC her so hard her eyes will bleed, but at least there's a chance for he deal to happen.
Not a big chance, mind. But a chance.
And still not certain ERG vnoc would win. There are only 100 max who are likely to vnoc in her
If she proposes a referendum, her party will dump her like a shot. But if she considers her deal to be more important than her job, she should risk it.
It's now out of control of the government and the Conservative Party.
I wonder what the majority of MPs who want to remain will vote to happen.
For a second referendum. The ERG have given them democratic cover to no longer respect the first referendum result.
I don't think the majority of people who want to leave the EU will see it like that.
They'll see an unacceptable deal rightfully rejected and then a political stitch up to remain.
There is no democratic cover. Unless you want a referendum with a no deal option, but I'm guessing you don't want that allowed either.
There is no such option.
There would have to be a deal of some sort for the country to run properly (and the EU hasn't offered such a deal).
That fanatics like you refuse to recognise this simple fact is why your dream is rapidly turning into a nightmare of your own making.
If I'm just a fanatic then the no deal option will lose easily so there's no harm in putting it on the ballot.
The sheer level of ignorance about what No Deal actually means means only an utterly irresponsible crackpot would ever put it on the ballot.
I can't think of any environmental or wider standards that have ever decreased in my lifetime.
Here's one that'll go up post Brexit: "Environment secretary Michael Gove said that once Britain leaves the EU, the country could ban the export of thousands of live farm animals to mainland Europe."
I can't think of any environmental or wider standards that have ever decreased in my lifetime.
Here's one that'll go up post Brexit: "Environment secretary Michael Gove said that once Britain leaves the EU, the country could ban the export of thousands of live farm animals to mainland Europe."
If we have zero desire to deviate from EU standards on ANYTHING AT ALL, remind me again why May wants us to crash out of the single market?
She didn't. But she's following the will of the people, who are apparently prepared to pay £1000/year so that the curvature of cucumbers can be decided by an unelected official in Westminster rather than an unelected official in Brussels.
At this point, the remaining time on May's premiership is being measured in hours.
If she really does believe that her deal must pass, all else be damned, then she has nothing to lose from proposing the referendum. Yes, her party will VONC her so hard her eyes will bleed, but at least there's a chance for he deal to happen.
Not a big chance, mind. But a chance.
And still not certain ERG vnoc would win. There are only 100 max who are likely to vnoc in her
If she proposes a referendum, her party will dump her like a shot. But if she considers her deal to be more important than her job, she should risk it.
It's now out of control of the government and the Conservative Party.
Parliament insisted on a say. So far the only thing they can agree on is trashing the deal. After Tuesday's vote it will be up to them to say what they do want, not what they don't want.
What do they want?
To avoid taking a decision, while they point the finger of blame at each other.
At this point, the remaining time on May's premiership is being measured in hours.
If she really does believe that her deal must pass, all else be damned, then she has nothing to lose from proposing the referendum. Yes, her party will VONC her so hard her eyes will bleed, but at least there's a chance for he deal to happen.
Not a big chance, mind. But a chance.
And still not certain ERG vnoc would win. There are only 100 max who are likely to vnoc in her
If she proposes a referendum, her party will dump her like a shot. But if she considers her deal to be more important than her job, she should risk it.
It's now out of control of the government and the Conservative Party.
Parliament insisted on a say. So far the only thing they can agree on is trashing the deal. After Tuesday's vote it will be up to them to say what they do want, not what they don't want.
That's the key point that I've never quite grasped - parliament has to agree on *a specific thing* to avert no deal, doesn't it? Can it?
I can't think of any environmental or wider standards that have ever decreased in my lifetime.
Here's one that'll go up post Brexit: "Environment secretary Michael Gove said that once Britain leaves the EU, the country could ban the export of thousands of live farm animals to mainland Europe."
If we have zero desire to deviate from EU standards on ANYTHING AT ALL, remind me again why May wants us to crash out of the single market?
Single market standards can be altered after we leave, it's not just a case of agreeing to the same standards in good faith. I believe she's explored this path and it simply isn't good enough for the EU. Also SM regulations may change in the future. This amendment does not state that we must change with those regulations (Though in practice we will because of the size of the EU market) The big one though is freedom of movement.
Staying in the Single market this amendment ain't.
At this point, the remaining time on May's premiership is being measured in hours.
If she really does believe that her deal must pass, all else be damned, then she has nothing to lose from proposing the referendum. Yes, her party will VONC her so hard her eyes will bleed, but at least there's a chance for he deal to happen.
Not a big chance, mind. But a chance.
And still not certain ERG vnoc would win. There are only 100 max who are likely to vnoc in her
If she proposes a referendum, her party will dump her like a shot. But if she considers her deal to be more important than her job, she should risk it.
The only Referendum that stands a chance of getting May's deal through is May's Deal v No Deal. But how the hell does she get that through the House?
She doesn't. Which is why the logic leads inexorably to a referendum between the EU's deal (to give it its proper name) and revoking Article 50, assuming that is possible.
As for mechanism, the excellent @Black_Rook (welcome back, BTW!) is right that it is awkward. But if, as I think is likely, MPs vote by a large margin for asking for an Article 50 extension and a referendum, it is hard to see the (replacement) government refusing to hold it.
Edit: Of course this is a trap which the ERG dug for themselves and then jumped into. No-one else had thought of it. It's rather pleasing.
Would MPs really vote by any margin at all, still less a large one, to discard the 2016 result and tell people who voted Leave "you now need to vote to Leave for a second time to get it, and then it won't really be Leaving"?
I can't think of any environmental or wider standards that have ever decreased in my lifetime.
Here's one that'll go up post Brexit: "Environment secretary Michael Gove said that once Britain leaves the EU, the country could ban the export of thousands of live farm animals to mainland Europe."
If we have zero desire to deviate from EU standards on ANYTHING AT ALL, remind me again why May wants us to crash out of the single market?
At this point, the remaining time on May's premiership is being measured in hours.
If she really does believe that her deal must pass, all else be damned, then she has nothing to lose from proposing the referendum. Yes, her party will VONC her so hard her eyes will bleed, but at least there's a chance for he deal to happen.
Not a big chance, mind. But a chance.
And still not certain ERG vnoc would win. There are only 100 max who are likely to vnoc in her
If she proposes a referendum, her party will dump her like a shot. But if she considers her deal to be more important than her job, she should risk it.
The only Referendum that stands a chance of getting May's deal through is May's Deal v No Deal. But how the hell does she get that through the House?
She doesn't. Which is why the logic leads inexorably to a referendum between the EU's deal (to give it its proper name) and revoking Article 50, assuming that is possible.
As for mechanism, the excellent @Black_Rook (welcome back, BTW!) is right that it is awkward. But if, as I think is likely, MPs vote by a large margin for asking for an Article 50 extension and a referendum, it is hard to see the (replacement) government refusing to hold it.
Edit: Of course this is a trap which the ERG dug for themselves and then jumped into. No-one else had thought of it. It's rather pleasing.
Would MPs really vote by any margin at all, still less a large one, to discard the 2016 result and tell people who voted Leave "you now need to vote to Leave for a second time to get it, and then it won't really be Leaving"?
Judging by the mental gymnastics on here by remainers justifying it I would say definitely.
They've got "democratic cover" from the few MPs who want to leave properly apparently.
I can't think of any environmental or wider standards that have ever decreased in my lifetime.
Here's one that'll go up post Brexit: "Environment secretary Michael Gove said that once Britain leaves the EU, the country could ban the export of thousands of live farm animals to mainland Europe."
If we have zero desire to deviate from EU standards on ANYTHING AT ALL, remind me again why May wants us to crash out of the single market?
We might move to better standards than the EU.
Indeed. In many areas, not least animal welfare, we already have higher standards than most of the rest of the EU.
I can't think of any environmental or wider standards that have ever decreased in my lifetime.
Here's one that'll go up post Brexit: "Environment secretary Michael Gove said that once Britain leaves the EU, the country could ban the export of thousands of live farm animals to mainland Europe."
When I hear the word 'could' from a pol my first instinct is to think whatever they say 'could' happen isn't likely to. Gove is very much not the exception to this.
"Could" is always a cue to ignore. Almost anything "could" happen.
At this point, the remaining time on May's premiership is being measured in hours.
If she really does believe that her deal must pass, all else be damned, then she has nothing to lose from proposing the referendum. Yes, her party will VONC her so hard her eyes will bleed, but at least there's a chance for he deal to happen.
Not a big chance, mind. But a chance.
And still not certain ERG vnoc would win. There are only 100 max who are likely to vnoc in her
If she proposes a referendum, her party will dump her like a shot. But if she considers her deal to be more important than her job, she should risk it.
The only Referendum that stands a chance of getting May's deal through is May's Deal v No Deal. But how the hell does she get that through the House?
She doesn't. Which is why the logic leads inexorably to a referendum between the EU's deal (to give it its proper name) and revoking Article 50, assuming that is possible.
As for mechanism, the excellent @Black_Rook (welcome back, BTW!) is right that it is awkward. But if, as I think is likely, MPs vote by a large margin for asking for an Article 50 extension and a referendum, it is hard to see the (replacement) government refusing to hold it.
Edit: Of course this is a trap which the ERG dug for themselves and then jumped into. No-one else had thought of it. It's rather pleasing.
Would MPs really vote by any margin at all, still less a large one, to discard the 2016 result and tell people who voted Leave "you now need to vote to Leave for a second time to get it, and then it won't really be Leaving"?
Yes, I suggest you watch the speeches from the Labour benches during the debate. There is a palpable contempt for the electorate.
***Emerges blinking into sunlight after 18 months***
It's not just the public that's hopelessly split. So is Parliament, of course.
It looks very much like we're going to end up with a Hard Brexit by default, because after May's deal gets voted down there will be nothing to replace it. The Government can't change course under May, if May goes she will be replaced by a Brexiteer, and the pro-EU Tories can't repeal the EU Withdrawal Act without splitting their own party in two *and* persuading the pro-EU Labourites to do likewise. No centre-right politician will vote to put Jeremy Corbyn into No.10 regardless of the circumstances, and anyway Jeremy Corbyn is a (very thinly disguised) Brexiteer himself.
Without a friendly Prime Minister to allow their legislation to pass, pro-EU MPs are entirely impotent. All they can do is vote for non-binding motions and continue to make manifest their misery in fruitless debates.
To borrow from Dan Hodges, Parliament hasn't taken back control of the Brexit flight with its criticism of the May deal, or its impending revolt against it - it's just tied up the pilot, that's all. Nobody is at the controls now.
Absent a complete realignment of the party political system (which is theoretically possible but seems highly unlikely,) the autopilot is therefore in charge and will fly us the rest of the way to Brexitland by March. Or am I missing an obvious alternative here?
Oh, and good afternoon.
Where I think your argument breaks is the Tory party holding together. They have a long history of loyalty to party above leader, but I suspect that enough remain stalwarts would not stomach a true faith Brexiteer leader that they would resign the whip.
Doesn't matter - unless they can persuade the Labour Party to destroy itself as well. They can't force a change of direction unless they vote their own Prime Minister out of office, which then leaves them with two choices: vote Jeremy Corbyn into office (which they won't) or refuse to back any Government and trigger a General Election (in which they would all lose their seats.)
I can't think of any environmental or wider standards that have ever decreased in my lifetime.
Here's one that'll go up post Brexit: "Environment secretary Michael Gove said that once Britain leaves the EU, the country could ban the export of thousands of live farm animals to mainland Europe."
If we have zero desire to deviate from EU standards on ANYTHING AT ALL, remind me again why May wants us to crash out of the single market?
We might move to better standards than the EU.
Indeed. In many areas, not least animal welfare, we already have higher standards than most of the rest of the EU.
Well quite, the amendment sets out that as a country we'll hold ourselves to very high standards indeed. I'd hope it is adopted if as set out by the website I looked at. Obviously if it changes the Withdrawal Agreement then it is a very weird wrecking amendment - but it doesn't appear to do so.
"I think you would mess it all up for us, the way you have messed it all up for yourselves."
WHY WOULD YOU THINK THAT?!
Because she is a Eurofanatic who spends her time bemoaning the fact that her own country won't join the EU as she desperately wants them to. She is so brainwashed she is incapable of understanding why anyone would want to leave.
At this point, the remaining time on May's premiership is being measured in hours.
If she really does believe that her deal must pass, all else be damned, then she has nothing to lose from proposing the referendum. Yes, her party will VONC her so hard her eyes will bleed, but at least there's a chance for he deal to happen.
Not a big chance, mind. But a chance.
And still not certain ERG vnoc would win. There are only 100 max who are likely to vnoc in her
If she proposes a referendum, her party will dump her like a shot. But if she considers her deal to be more important than her job, she should risk it.
It's now out of control of the government and the Conservative Party.
Parliament insisted on a say. So far the only thing they can agree on is trashing the deal. After Tuesday's vote it will be up to them to say what they do want, not what they don't want.
That's the key point that I've never quite grasped - parliament has to agree on *a specific thing* to avert no deal, doesn't it? Can it?
Yes and I certainly hope so. But a major problem at present is parliament may agree things which are not necessarily within their power, such as securing concessions from the EU.
Hold on!!! Take away the bogeyman of an EU army in blue and gold uniforms, with new recruits swearing fealty to Jean-Claude Juncker and receiving EUR10 on acceptance, and where does that leave the mad frothing armchair eurosceptic generals?
I shall watch them fighting the Russians in Ukraine with great interest and much armchair.
Has a single Labour MP in the Commons debate said they will support May's deal?
According to the Guardian's graphic, there is one.
If the Government adopt the Mann/Snell amendment (It looks allowable on the surface) there might be more.
Been away doing family stuff and Christmas markets for a few days, so trying to get back up to speed. In a nutshell, what does the Mann/Snell amendment do please?
"Seeks to ensure that leaving the EU will not result in lower employment, environmental, and health and safety standards after exit day."
Thanks.
So the government would have zero room to negotiate to deviate from SM regulations, anywhere, ever.
Except we aren't going to lower our enviromental, employment or health and safety standards after we leave. The Gov't has said this all along.
Is there some weird definition of the word "lower" I'm trying to look for here ?
You believe them?
Gotta get those chlorinated American chickens somehow.
I stand to be corrected by events (my predictions have all the validity of Mystic Meg's crystal ball, after all,) but why do we necessarily think there'll be an overwhelming vote in Parliament for a second referendum, or that any likely successor to May wouldn't face it down even if there were?
That portion of the Parliamentary Conservative Party that is pragmatically, rather than fanatically, in favour of staying in (i.e. most of them) knows that voting with the Opposition to try to force a second referendum will risk splitting their own party, enraging most of their party members and their voters as well, and possibly cause the DUP to sit on its hands in the event of a confidence motion and allow Labour to gather enough votes to throw their own Government out and precipitate a General Election. It's a tremendously desperate gamble. Many of them may, and probably will, prove willing to say that a negotiation was tried but failed, so they're going to back delivery of the Leave vote by the only means available and go without a deal. As opposed to opting for a second referendum, which in truth will resolve nothing and probably make the toxic political situation in this country even worse.
Even if the vote does pass, the next Prime Minister will almost inevitably be a dyed in the wool Tory Brexiteer - or, at the very least, an ambitious cabinet minister willing to entertain No Deal to secure power. They would be beholden to the party membership, and have every incentive to stare the rebels down. There is recent precedent. Most of the Parliamentary Labour Party actively tried to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn, but the numbers didn't matter. Other circumstances weighed against them, they failed, and they gave up.
Most of that is true, but what's the alternative? If you're a pragmatic Tory MP, you'll have noticed that the ultras are teaming up with Labour to reject the only deal on the table (and moreover a deal which is bang slap in the middle of what the Leave campaign said they wanted). No Deal is absolutely unthinkable; not only would it be disastrous for the country, it would fatal for the Conservative Party, tarred for a generation with the folk-memory of the utter chaos they allowed.
The way out of this utter ERG-created mess is not an easy one, but the nearest to an acceptable solution is to be reluctantly forced to hold another referendum. The bottom line is that there are perhaps 80-100 MPs prepared to jump into the No Deal abyss, and about 400+ who'd really rather prefer to revoke Article 50 if the alternative is no deal, even if they'd originally believed the first referendum result should be respected.
Dunno if it will work - there's still a substantial risk that we'll crash out. Corbyn then takes over in chaos.
I can't think of any environmental or wider standards that have ever decreased in my lifetime.
Here's one that'll go up post Brexit: "Environment secretary Michael Gove said that once Britain leaves the EU, the country could ban the export of thousands of live farm animals to mainland Europe."
It may not be obvious but the EU has been responsible for a series of hugely damaging environmental policies through the CAP which have devastated insect and bird populations and done irreparable damage to many archaeological sites.
Those numbers are only heading one way. Reunification looks like just a matter of time now, given the much higher catholic birth rate.
I don't know if that will be the reason, but I do think the direction of travel is pretty strong at this point. That's said, but if that is what the majority want hopefully ROI can handle the area better than we can.
Mr. 43, no. They may genuinely believe we're better off in the EU, and that May's deal is horrendous, and that leaving without any deal is horrendous.
However, I think they dramatically underestimate the huge damage that would do to faith in politics, as well as the potential for the electorate to vote to leave anyway.
If the choice is May's Deal versus Remain, then we'd have two options, both of which had already been rejected (by the Commons and the electorate, respectively).
It's why I think (and wrote in my article for PB a few weeks ago) that whatever happens, this is going to rumble on for decades.
At this point, the remaining time on May's premiership is being measured in hours.
If she really does believe that her deal must pass, all else be damned, then she has nothing to lose from proposing the referendum. Yes, her party will VONC her so hard her eyes will bleed, but at least there's a chance for he deal to happen.
Not a big chance, mind. But a chance.
And still not certain ERG vnoc would win. There are only 100 max who are likely to vnoc in her
If she proposes a referendum, her party will dump her like a shot. But if she considers her deal to be more important than her job, she should risk it.
It's now out of control of the government and the Conservative Party.
I wonder what the majority of MPs who want to remain will vote to happen.
For a second referendum. The ERG have given them democratic cover to no longer respect the first referendum result.
Yep. Fair enough, if they can recognise that if they think this deal is worse than remaining that it is legitimate for people to suggest that, even though the ERG themselves would prefer an alternative leave.
At this point, the remaining time on May's premiership is being measured in hours.
If she really does believe that her deal must pass, all else be damned, then she has nothing to lose from proposing the referendum. Yes, her party will VONC her so hard her eyes will bleed, but at least there's a chance for he deal to happen.
Not a big chance, mind. But a chance.
And still not certain ERG vnoc would win. There are only 100 max who are likely to vnoc in her
If she proposes a referendum, her party will dump her like a shot. But if she considers her deal to be more important than her job, she should risk it.
It's now out of control of the government and the Conservative Party.
Parliament insisted on a say. So far the only thing they can agree on is trashing the deal. After Tuesday's vote it will be up to them to say what they do want, not what they don't want.
That's the key point that I've never quite grasped - parliament has to agree on *a specific thing* to avert no deal, doesn't it? Can it?
Yes and I certainly hope so. But a major problem at present is parliament may agree things which are not necessarily within their power, such as securing concessions from the EU.
Very little is in their power. In any case junking the 2016 result won't solve anything - at this stage about the only thing that would is a referendum on a straight choice between in everything and out of everything. Not a prospect I look on kindly...!
A "deal v Remain" referendum would likely have the same problem as the 2016 referendum - parliament should only call a referendum between options it's willing to implement. If it's not willing to implement the deal, why kick the decision to the electorate?
However, I think they dramatically underestimate the huge damage that would do to faith in politics, as well as the potential for the electorate to vote to leave anyway. .
They don't underestimate it, they ignore it completely, because remaining is the only sane thing to do so it must win and must win now, rather than seek to rejoin or have a soft brexit.
I fully support an EU army. As opposed to the myths being peddled by the anti EU brigade it’s not replacing but complimenting existing armed forces . Sadly some people just hate anything with Europe in the name .
I must admit that I take most of Dura Ace's pronouncements with a large pinch of salt considering his false claims a few weeks ago about forces currently operating under the NATO banner in Somalia. They are not. In fact it is an EU run force that is operating there.
Most of that is true, but what's the alternative? If you're a pragmatic Tory MP, you'll have noticed that the ultras are teaming up with Labour to reject the only deal on the table (and moreover a deal which is bang slap in the middle of what the Leave campaign said they wanted). No Deal is absolutely unthinkable; not only would it be disastrous for the country, it would fatal for the Conservative Party, tarred for a generation with the folk-memory of the utter chaos they allowed.
The way out of this utter ERG-created mess is not an easy one, but the nearest to an acceptable solution is to be reluctantly forced to hold another referendum. The bottom line is that there are perhaps 80-100 MPs prepared to jump into the No Deal abyss, and about 400+ who'd really rather prefer to revoke Article 50 if the alternative is no deal, even if they'd originally believed the first referendum result should be respected.
Dunno if it will work - there's still a substantial risk that we'll crash out. Corbyn then takes over in chaos.
If no deal is "unthinkable" and "an abyss", that's a terrible indictment of Cameron and May's performance since the referendum was called. That should have been planned for literally years ago. Certainly before Parliament voted for it to be the default option.
In any case I'm not convinced the deal is "in the middle of what the Leave campaign said they wanted", I don't recall anyone proposing locking ourselves in a straitjacket we'd need the EU to let us out of.
If Parliament wants to revoke No Deal it should really do it itself. Be honest about how they are nullifying the 2016 result. Be honest that the people won't be allowed to have what they voted for. Because for all the problems with "no deal", it has one clear benefit - it is definitely consistent with the 2016 result.
Trump's an odd one on the military, he ran on broadly a non interventionist platform, yet planned to boost military spending; and went for more air strikes in Syria than Obama did (I think !). Like Obama he was far less interventionist than the Bushes in the Levant. A real hodge podge of a strategy.
With Trump I doubt that there is a strategy. It is about his satisfying his infantile 'urges' and little else. These include (i) trying to make Obama look bad and (ii) behaving like a big tough important man. Spending loads on the military and doing his air strikes in Syria ticked both of those boxes. Least in his 'mind' they would have.
Has a single Labour MP in the Commons debate said they will support May's deal?
According to the Guardian's graphic, there is one.
If the Government adopt the Mann/Snell amendment (It looks allowable on the surface) there might be more.
Been away doing family stuff and Christmas markets for a few days, so trying to get back up to speed. In a nutshell, what does the Mann/Snell amendment do please?
"Seeks to ensure that leaving the EU will not result in lower employment, environmental, and health and safety standards after exit day."
Thanks.
So the government would have zero room to negotiate to deviate from SM regulations, anywhere, ever.
Except we aren't going to lower our enviromental, employment or health and safety standards after we leave. The Gov't has said this all along.
Is there some weird definition of the word "lower" I'm trying to look for here ?
You believe them?
Gotta get those chlorinated American chickens somehow.
I can't think of any environmental or wider standards that have ever decreased in my lifetime.
Here's one that'll go up post Brexit: "Environment secretary Michael Gove said that once Britain leaves the EU, the country could ban the export of thousands of live farm animals to mainland Europe."
If we have zero desire to deviate from EU standards on ANYTHING AT ALL, remind me again why May wants us to crash out of the single market?
She didn't. But she's following the will of the people, who are apparently prepared to pay £1000/year so that the curvature of cucumbers can be decided by an unelected official in Westminster rather than an unelected official in Brussels.
Being pedantic it will be neither an unelected official in Westminster or Brussels that will decide. Cucumber regs are set by the UNECE.
At this point, the remaining time on May's premiership is being measured in hours.
If she really does believe that her deal must pass, all else be damned, then she has nothing to lose from proposing the referendum. Yes, her party will VONC her so hard her eyes will bleed, but at least there's a chance for he deal to happen.
Not a big chance, mind. But a chance.
And still not certain ERG vnoc would win. There are only 100 max who are likely to vnoc in her
If she proposes a referendum, her party will dump her like a shot. But if she considers her deal to be more important than her job, she should risk it.
It's now out of control of the government and the Conservative Party.
I wonder what the majority of MPs who want to remain will vote to happen.
For a second referendum. The ERG have given them democratic cover to no longer respect the first referendum result.
I don't think the majority of people who want to leave the EU will see it like that.
They'll see an unacceptable deal rightfully rejected and then a political stitch up to remain.
There is no democratic cover. Unless you want a referendum with a no deal option, but I'm guessing you don't want that allowed either.
There is no such option.
There would have to be a deal of some sort for the country to run properly (and the EU hasn't offered such a deal).
That fanatics like you refuse to recognise this simple fact is why your dream is rapidly turning into a nightmare of your own making.
If I'm just a fanatic then the no deal option will lose easily so there's no harm in putting it on the ballot.
The sheer level of ignorance about what No Deal actually means means only an utterly irresponsible crackpot would ever put it on the ballot.
Well that doesn't rule it out. But as stupid as it would be I think the deal makes the ballot simply because something has to be up against remain, and better to face accusations of a fix up than risking no deal would be the reasoning.
At this point, the remaining time on May's premiership is being measured in hours.
If she really does believe that her deal must pass, all else be damned, then she has nothing to lose from proposing the referendum. Yes, her party will VONC her so hard her eyes will bleed, but at least there's a chance for he deal to happen.
Not a big chance, mind. But a chance.
And still not certain ERG vnoc would win. There are only 100 max who are likely to vnoc in her
If she proposes a referendum, her party will dump her like a shot. But if she considers her deal to be more important than her job, she should risk it.
It's now out of control of the government and the Conservative Party.
I wonder what the majority of MPs who want to remain will vote to happen.
For a second referendum. The ERG have given them democratic cover to no longer respect the first referendum result.
Yep. Fair enough, if they can recognise that if they think this deal is worse than remaining that it is legitimate for people to suggest that, even though the ERG themselves would prefer an alternative leave.
'Why the idea of a united Ireland is back in play'
NI has become an economic basket case, all in the name of 'The Union'. It's cruel and unusual punishment for what was once one of the jewels in Britain's crown. Time to let it go to its natural home. I think there's reasonable ground to believe that if the question were put to the Irish on both sides of the border, there would be a positive response. As an added incentive, we'll throw in Pembrokeshire.
How would a devious Conservative politician use this to their advantage?
Try to get Labour to split as well?
Deal is voted down. TM resigns but who has the confidence of Parliament?
Could you get a government of national unity? Who would lead it? Is there a Labour MP who could be a unifying figure and achieve a split in both parties?
Those numbers are only heading one way. Reunification looks like just a matter of time now, given the much higher catholic birth rate.
And that is why, although the NI backstop appears to be a stumbling block for many MPs supporting May's deal, it wouldn't matter in the medium-to-long term. The NI backstop problem can be solved by Irish re-unification.
I fully support an EU army. As opposed to the myths being peddled by the anti EU brigade it’s not replacing but complimenting existing armed forces . Sadly some people just hate anything with Europe in the name .
To be honest it is doing neither. Until the EU countries actually start spending a lot more on their defence they will always be relying on the US to do all the heavy lifting both in terms of defending Europe and overseas interventions. Saying that the EU is second only to the US in defence spending as Dura Ace does is somewhat misleading when the EU is spending less than a third of what the US spends but still expects the US to defend them.
Most of that is true, but what's the alternative? If you're a pragmatic Tory MP, you'll have noticed that the ultras are teaming up with Labour to reject the only deal on the table (and moreover a deal which is bang slap in the middle of what the Leave campaign said they wanted). No Deal is absolutely unthinkable; not only would it be disastrous for the country, it would fatal for the Conservative Party, tarred for a generation with the folk-memory of the utter chaos they allowed.
The way out of this utter ERG-created mess is not an easy one, but the nearest to an acceptable solution is to be reluctantly forced to hold another referendum. The bottom line is that there are perhaps 80-100 MPs prepared to jump into the No Deal abyss, and about 400+ who'd really rather prefer to revoke Article 50 if the alternative is no deal, even if they'd originally believed the first referendum result should be respected.
Dunno if it will work - there's still a substantial risk that we'll crash out. Corbyn then takes over in chaos.
If no deal is "unthinkable" and "an abyss", that's a terrible indictment of Cameron and May's performance since the referendum was called. That should have been planned for literally years ago. Certainly before Parliament voted for it to be the default option.
In any case I'm not convinced the deal is "in the middle of what the Leave campaign said they wanted", I don't recall anyone proposing locking ourselves in a straitjacket we'd need the EU to let us out of.
If Parliament wants to revoke No Deal it should really do it itself. Be honest about how they are nullifying the 2016 result. Be honest that the people won't be allowed to have what they voted for. Because for all the problems with "no deal", it has one clear benefit - it is definitely consistent with the 2016 result.
In the scenario I'm outlining, they can have what they voted for. They just need to overrule the ERG loons and vote in a referendum to confirm that we are leaving on the terms available. If they do that, they get:
- An end to Freedom of Movement - An end to the ECJ having direct jurisdiction over UK law - An end to the CFP - An end to the CAP - An end to paying vast sums to the EU - A smooth transition, protecting jobs - Joining a free trade area from Ireland to Turkey
All as promised by Vote Leave. No Deal, in contrast, is certainly nothing like compatible with the promises made by the Leave campaigns, who assured us again and again that it would be a smooth transition, no jobs would be lost, there would be no difficulties with customs, and the EU would sign a trade deal with us.
In any case, it's not me you need to convince. It's MPs. I'm just looking at the parliamentary numbers.
How would a devious Conservative politician use this to their advantage?
Try to get Labour to split as well?
Deal is voted down. TM resigns but who has the confidence of Parliament?
Could you get a government of national unity? Who would lead it? Is there a Labour MP who could be a unifying figure and achieve a split in both parties?
Step forward EMICIPM and a coalition of chaos.
There would be some frantic negotiating behind closed doors between the DUP and Tories to agree a PM they could support in a confidence vote, I assume.
- An end to Freedom of Movement - An end to the ECJ having direct jurisdiction over UK law - An end to the CFP - An end to the CAP - An end to paying vast sums to the EU - A smooth transition, protecting jobs - Joining a free trade area from Ireland to Turkey
The way out of this utter ERG-created mess is not an easy one, but the nearest to an acceptable solution is to be reluctantly forced to hold another referendum. The bottom line is that there are perhaps 80-100 MPs prepared to jump into the No Deal abyss, and about 400+ who'd really rather prefer to revoke Article 50 if the alternative is no deal, even if they'd originally believed the first referendum result should be respected.
Dunno if it will work - there's still a substantial risk that we'll crash out. Corbyn then takes over in chaos.
I entirely agree that the bulk of the Commons would love to cancel Brexit. Indeed, the more realistic ones amongst them will be thinking that the way to go is not through a referendum (which they are likely to lose, and then what?) but through forming a National Government, revoking A50 on their own authority, and then submitting themselves to the judgement of the electorate once the job is done.
If they are that convinced that Brexit is a catastrophe, and they REALLY do believe that it's in the national interest to do it, then that's what MPs would do. It would be brave and it would be responsible.
However, this doesn't get around the fact that (a) the pro-EU MPs would have to split from their own parties, abandon decades of loyalty, and fight their ex-colleagues and party rank-and-file to the political death in the General Election that would inevitably follow; and (b) that your typical MP isn't brave and responsible, they're duplicitous and calculating.
Also, whilst I've no particular interest in defending the ERG, I don't subscribe to the notion that all of this is the Brexiteers' fault. The pro-EU MPs - or, more precisely, the large bulk of them that also sat in the previous Parliament and voted for the EU Referendum Bill to pass - are ultimately responsible for their own predicament. If they really thought Brexit a catastrophe, and if they had any comprehension of how differently the EU was viewed in the country at large, outside their own narrow social circle, then they ought to have done what the SNP did and refused to vote for the referendum to take place. Instead, they legislated for a plebiscite which included an option that they stupidly assumed most people would not vote for, and which they had no desire (and probably, in truth, no intention) to implement.
They fashioned the rod for their own backs. I have no sympathy for them at all.
O(ff)T(opic) Wind, just now is supplying about 28 percent of the national electricity. It's not a toy, and averages, crudely estimated by eye, something like ten percent. http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Or, the vote will be pulled Sunday evening and we can all get back to writing xmas cards.
Why would the vote be pulled? Given the number publicly against it it is not as though further junior resignations will scupper it.
And seriously, if they are resigning over the backstop why the flying fuck have they not already resigned? Absolute cretins. Even if it is right that, despite all this, the EU will get rid of it, even just including since the publication of the WA the government's position of including it has been clear, and therefore they are morons.
The way out of this utter ERG-created mess is not an easy one, but the nearest to an acceptable solution is to be reluctantly forced to hold another referendum. The bottom line is that there are perhaps 80-100 MPs prepared to jump into the No Deal abyss, and about 400+ who'd really rather prefer to revoke Article 50 if the alternative is no deal, even if they'd originally believed the first referendum result should be respected.
Dunno if it will work - there's still a substantial risk that we'll crash out. Corbyn then takes over in chaos.
I entirely agree that the bulk of the Commons would love to cancel Brexit. Indeed, the more realistic ones amongst them will be thinking that the way to go is not through a referendum (which they are likely to lose, and then what?) but through forming a National Government, revoking A50 on their own authority, and then submitting themselves to the judgement of the electorate once the job is done.
If they are that convinced that Brexit is a catastrophe, and they REALLY do believe that it's in the national interest to do it, then that's what MPs would do. It would be brave and it would be responsible.
However, this doesn't get around the fact that (a) the pro-EU MPs would have to split from their own parties, abandon decades of loyalty, and fight their ex-colleagues and party rank-and-file to the political death in the General Election that would inevitably follow; and (b) that your typical MP isn't brave and responsible, they're duplicitous and calculating.
Also, whilst I've no particular interest in defending the ERG, I don't subscribe to the notion that all of this is the Brexiteers' fault. The pro-EU MPs - or, more precisely, the large bulk of them that also sat in the previous Parliament and voted for the EU Referendum Bill to pass - are ultimately responsible for their own predicament. If they really thought Brexit a catastrophe, and if they had any comprehension of how differently the EU was viewed in the country at large, outside their own narrow social circle, then they ought to have done what the SNP did and refused to vote for the referendum to take place. Instead, they legislated for a plebiscite which included an option that they stupidly assumed most people would not vote for, and which they had no desire (and probably, in truth, no intention) to implement.
They fashioned the rod for their own backs. I have no sympathy for them at all.
I have respect for Remain MPs who voted against triggering A50, and for those who voted in favour, not because they wanted it, but in order to respect the result.
I have none for those who voted to trigger it, potentially leading to an outcome they think is catastrophic, while seeking to overturn the result.
They just need to overrule the ERG loons and vote in a referendum to confirm that we are leaving on the terms available. If they do that, they get:
- An end to Freedom of Movement - An end to the ECJ having direct jurisdiction over UK law - An end to the CFP - An end to the CAP - An end to paying vast sums to the EU - A smooth transition, protecting jobs - Joining a free trade area from Ireland to Turkey
They're going to vote down May's deal, leading to either:
1) Referendum between remain and May's deal 2) A cross-party move towards a genuine BINO (Norway+ or whatever the acronym of the day is)
No deal simply isn't going to happen now, but the ERG types are so consumed by their obsession they haven't noticed the change in the weather.
The way out of this utter ERG-created mess is not an easy one, but the nearest to an acceptable solution is to be reluctantly forced to hold another referendum. The bottom line is that there are perhaps 80-100 MPs prepared to jump into the No Deal abyss, and about 400+ who'd really rather prefer to revoke Article 50 if the alternative is no deal, even if they'd originally believed the first referendum result should be respected.
Dunno if it will work - there's still a substantial risk that we'll crash out. Corbyn then takes over in chaos.
I entirely agree that the bulk of the Commons would love to cancel Brexit. Indeed, the more realistic ones amongst them will be thinking that the way to go is not through a referendum (which they are likely to lose, and then what?) but through forming a National Government, revoking A50 on their own authority, and then submitting themselves to the judgement of the electorate once the job is done.
If they are that convinced that Brexit is a catastrophe, and they REALLY do believe that it's in the national interest to do it, then that's what MPs would do. It would be brave and it would be responsible.
However, this doesn't get around the fact that (a) the pro-EU MPs would have to split from their own parties, abandon decades of loyalty, and fight their ex-colleagues and party rank-and-file to the political death in the General Election that would inevitably follow; and (b) that your typical MP isn't brave and responsible, they're duplicitous and calculating.
Also, whilst I've no particular interest in defending the ERG, I don't subscribe to the notion that all of this is the Brexiteers' fault. The pro-EU MPs - or, more precisely, the large bulk of them that also sat in the previous Parliament and voted for the EU Referendum Bill to pass - are ultimately responsible for their own predicament. If they really thought Brexit a catastrophe, and if they had any comprehension of how differently the EU was viewed in the country at large, outside their own narrow social circle, then they ought to have done what the SNP did and refused to vote for the referendum to take place. Instead, they legislated for a plebiscite which included an option that they stupidly assumed most people would not vote for, and which they had no desire (and probably, in truth, no intention) to implement.
They fashioned the rod for their own backs. I have no sympathy for them at all.
The biggest culprit is, of course, David Cameron who could have approached the referendum in such a way that would have resolved the issue but instead chose all his actions based on a desire to win the referendum.
In the scenario I'm outlining, they can have what they voted for. They just need to overrule the ERG loons and vote in a referendum to confirm that we are leaving on the terms available. If they do that, they get:
- An end to Freedom of Movement - An end to the ECJ having direct jurisdiction over UK law - An end to the CFP - An end to the CAP - An end to paying vast sums to the EU - A smooth transition, protecting jobs - Joining a free trade area from Ireland to Turkey
All as promised by Vote Leave. No Deal, in contrast, is certainly nothing like compatible with the promises made by the Leave campaigns, who assured us again and again that it would be a smooth transition, no jobs would be lost, there would be no difficulties with customs, and the EU would sign a trade deal with us.
In any case, it's not me you need to convince. It's MPs. I'm just looking at the parliamentary numbers.
In addition I don't think the backstop is any where near as onerous or likely as people make out. The EU really, really don't want us in a CU for free for any length of time and the technological systems being suggested under Smart Border 2 by the EU would render the whole issue moot pretty quickly. The only issue with them has ben the length of time they will take to implement. Well now we have another 2 years of the transition so that is certainly enough time to get the system in place.
Or, the vote will be pulled Sunday evening and we can all get back to writing xmas cards.
Why would the vote be pulled? Given the number publicly against it it is not as though further junior resignations will scupper it.
And seriously, if they are resigning over the backstop why the flying fuck have they not already resigned? Absolute cretins. Even if it is right that, despite all this, the EU will get rid of it, even just including since the publication of the WA the government's position of including it has been clear, and therefore they are morons.
The way out of this utter ERG-created mess is not an easy one, but the nearest to an acceptable solution is to be reluctantly forced to hold another referendum. The bottom line is that there are perhaps 80-100 MPs prepared to jump into the No Deal abyss, and about 400+ who'd really rather prefer to revoke Article 50 if the alternative is no deal, even if they'd originally believed the first referendum result should be respected.
Dunno if it will work - there's still a substantial risk that we'll crash out. Corbyn then takes over in chaos.
I entirely agree that the bulk of the Commons would love to cancel Brexit. Indeed, the more realistic ones amongst them will be thinking that the way to go is not through a referendum (which they are likely to lose, and then what?) but through forming a National Government, revoking A50 on their own authority, and then submitting themselves to the judgement of the electorate once the job is done.
If they are that convinced that Brexit is a catastrophe, and they REALLY do believe that it's in the national interest to do it, then that's what MPs would do. It would be brave and it would be responsible.
However, this doesn't get around the fact that (a) the pro-EU MPs would have to split from their own parties, abandon decades of loyalty, and fight their ex-colleagues and party rank-and-file to the political death in the General Election that would inevitably follow; and (b) that your typical MP isn't brave and responsible, they're duplicitous and calculating.
Also, whilst I've no particular interest in defending the ERG, I don't subscribe to the notion that all of this is the Brexiteers' fault. The pro-EU MPs - or, more precisely, the large bulk of them that also sat in the previous Parliament and voted for the EU Referendum Bill to pass - are ultimately responsible for their own predicament. If they really thought Brexit a catastrophe, and if they had any comprehension of how differently the EU was viewed in the country at large, outside their own narrow social circle, then they ought to have done what the SNP did and refused to vote for the referendum to take place. Instead, they legislated for a plebiscite which included an option that they stupidly assumed most people would not vote for, and which they had no desire (and probably, in truth, no intention) to implement.
They fashioned the rod for their own backs. I have no sympathy for them at all.
A good post. MPs have some tough choices to make if they did not think it acceptable to leave in any form, very tough indeed. But some made that choice. Whatever idiocy comes from the other side of the debate, all MPs are responsible for their own actions and yet even now are still seeking to avoid taking the decision they clearly want to make, instead gambling on what they believe to be a catastrophic outcome.
Neither Ben Stokes nor Alex Hales will miss any further England matches as a result of their part in a fight outside a Bristol nightclub in September 2017.
Both men faced England and Wales Cricket Board charges over that incident and social media posts, but the subsequent bans were adjudged to be either suspended or already served.
Stokes, who was cleared of affray in August, has been fined a total of £30,000 and batsman Hales £17,500, £10,000 of which is suspended for 12 months from now.
They just need to overrule the ERG loons and vote in a referendum to confirm that we are leaving on the terms available. If they do that, they get:
- An end to Freedom of Movement - An end to the ECJ having direct jurisdiction over UK law - An end to the CFP - An end to the CAP - An end to paying vast sums to the EU - A smooth transition, protecting jobs - Joining a free trade area from Ireland to Turkey
They're going to vote down May's deal, leading to either:
1) Referendum between remain and May's deal 2) A cross-party move towards a genuine BINO (Norway+ or whatever the acronym of the day is)
No deal simply isn't going to happen now, but the ERG types are so consumed by their obsession they haven't noticed the change in the weather.
Most likely is
3) A new Con PM who eventually secures May+++++fudge
I entirely agree that the bulk of the Commons would love to cancel Brexit. Indeed, the more realistic ones amongst them will be thinking that the way to go is not through a referendum (which they are likely to lose, and then what?) but through forming a National Government, revoking A50 on their own authority, and then submitting themselves to the judgement of the electorate once the job is done.
If they are that convinced that Brexit is a catastrophe, and they REALLY do believe that it's in the national interest to do it, then that's what MPs would do. It would be brave and it would be responsible.
However, this doesn't get around the fact that (a) the pro-EU MPs would have to split from their own parties, abandon decades of loyalty, and fight their ex-colleagues and party rank-and-file to the political death in the General Election that would inevitably follow; and (b) that your typical MP isn't brave and responsible, they're duplicitous and calculating.
Also, whilst I've no particular interest in defending the ERG, I don't subscribe to the notion that all of this is the Brexiteers' fault. The pro-EU MPs - or, more precisely, the large bulk of them that also sat in the previous Parliament and voted for the EU Referendum Bill to pass - are ultimately responsible for their own predicament. If they really thought Brexit a catastrophe, and if they had any comprehension of how differently the EU was viewed in the country at large, outside their own narrow social circle, then they ought to have done what the SNP did and refused to vote for the referendum to take place. Instead, they legislated for a plebiscite which included an option that they stupidly assumed most people would not vote for, and which they had no desire (and probably, in truth, no intention) to implement.
They fashioned the rod for their own backs. I have no sympathy for them at all.
I think what you are missing is that a large number of MPs don't think Brexit is a catastrophe (although many of them think it's a mistake), they think that No Deal is a catastrophe. Big difference. Their reasoning will be: Of the three options, Revoke is unfortunate starting from here (because of the democratic legitimacy argument), Deal is unattractive but can be lived with in order to respect the referendum result, and No Deal is an unmitigated disaster. If the deal can't be approved by parliament because of an unholy alliance between the Ultras, the LibDems, the SNP and the cynical Labour Party, pragmatists are forced into trying to find a way to engineer things to avoid the unmitigated disaster, and a referendum is the face-saving way of doing that which might get through parliament.
In the scenario I'm outlining, they can have what they voted for. They just need to overrule the ERG loons and vote in a referendum to confirm that we are leaving on the terms available. If they do that, they get:
- An end to Freedom of Movement - An end to the ECJ having direct jurisdiction over UK law - An end to the CFP - An end to the CAP - An end to paying vast sums to the EU - A smooth transition, protecting jobs - Joining a free trade area from Ireland to Turkey
All as promised by Vote Leave. No Deal, in contrast, is certainly nothing like compatible with the promises made by the Leave campaigns, who assured us again and again that it would be a smooth transition, no jobs would be lost, there would be no difficulties with customs, and the EU would sign a trade deal with us.
In any case, it's not me you need to convince. It's MPs. I'm just looking at the parliamentary numbers.
In addition I don't think the backstop is any where near as onerous or likely as people make out. The EU really, really don't want us in a CU for free for any length of time and the technological systems being suggested under Smart Border 2 by the EU would render the whole issue moot pretty quickly. The only issue with them has ben the length of time they will take to implement. Well now we have another 2 years of the transition so that is certainly enough time to get the system in place.
Those technological solutions will *never* apply on the Irish border itself but down the Irish sea.
The way out of this utter ERG-created mess is not an easy one, but the nearest to an acceptable solution is to be reluctantly forced to hold another referendum. The bottom line is that there are perhaps 80-100 MPs prepared to jump into the No Deal abyss, and about 400+ who'd really rather prefer to revoke Article 50 if the alternative is no deal, even if they'd originally believed the first referendum result should be respected.
Dunno if it will work - there's still a substantial risk that we'll crash out. Corbyn then takes over in chaos.
I entirely agree that the bulk of the Commons would love to cancel Brexit. Indeed, the more realistic ones amongst them will be thinking that the way to go is not through a referendum (which they are likely to lose, and then what?) but through forming a National Government, revoking A50 on their own authority, and then submitting themselves to the judgement of the electorate once the job is done.
If they are that convinced that Brexit is a catastrophe, and they REALLY do believe that it's in the national interest to do it, then that's what MPs would do. It would be brave and it would be responsible.
They fashioned the rod for their own backs. I have no sympathy for them at all.
A good post. MPs have some tough choices to make if they did not think it acceptable to leave in any form, very tough indeed. But some made that choice. Whatever idiocy comes from the other side of the debate, all MPs are responsible for their own actions and yet even now are still seeking to avoid taking the decision they clearly want to make, instead gambling on what they believe to be a catastrophic outcome.
And that is the fundamental flaw in a referendum which pits Remain v No Deal. Why would MPs rubber-stamp legislation to implement something which they hate?
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/government-aides-tell-may-they-plan-to-quit-over-her-brexit-deal-mike-wood
Is there some weird definition of the word "lower" I'm trying to look for here ?
Conversely I was in the top stream but asked the Careers master about options. He looked puzzled and said; but you're in the A stream; you'll be going to University.
"It's kind of like having an abusive partner ...."
"I think you would mess it all up for us, the way you have messed it up for yourselves."
https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/344146403081167/
They'll see an unacceptable deal rightfully rejected and then a political stitch up to remain.
There is no democratic cover. Unless you want a referendum with a no deal option, but I'm guessing you don't want that allowed either.
I stand to be corrected by events (my predictions have all the validity of Mystic Meg's crystal ball, after all,) but why do we necessarily think there'll be an overwhelming vote in Parliament for a second referendum, or that any likely successor to May wouldn't face it down even if there were?
That portion of the Parliamentary Conservative Party that is pragmatically, rather than fanatically, in favour of staying in (i.e. most of them) knows that voting with the Opposition to try to force a second referendum will risk splitting their own party, enraging most of their party members and their voters as well, and possibly cause the DUP to sit on its hands in the event of a confidence motion and allow Labour to gather enough votes to throw their own Government out and precipitate a General Election. It's a tremendously desperate gamble. Many of them may, and probably will, prove willing to say that a negotiation was tried but failed, so they're going to back delivery of the Leave vote by the only means available and go without a deal. As opposed to opting for a second referendum, which in truth will resolve nothing and probably make the toxic political situation in this country even worse.
Even if the vote does pass, the next Prime Minister will almost inevitably be a dyed in the wool Tory Brexiteer - or, at the very least, an ambitious cabinet minister willing to entertain No Deal to secure power. They would be beholden to the party membership, and have every incentive to stare the rebels down. There is recent precedent. Most of the Parliamentary Labour Party actively tried to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn, but the numbers didn't matter. Other circumstances weighed against them, they failed, and they gave up.
Very similar drivers - a global superpower responding to the change to a more multipolar world, as military strength follows new economic strength, which meant a change in strategy from global policeman to more concentrated, high-end forces.
Despite the talk, there's not been a particular acceleration of the pivot under Trump.
There would have to be a deal of some sort for the country to run properly (and the EU hasn't offered such a deal).
That fanatics like you refuse to recognise this simple fact is why your dream is rapidly turning into a nightmare of your own making.
Here's one that'll go up post Brexit:
"Environment secretary Michael Gove said that once Britain leaves the EU, the country could ban the export of thousands of live farm animals to mainland Europe."
I wonder if Dura Ace is a cyclist.
Anyway, to say the obvious, this article is carefully constructed, well written, and thought provoking.
To avoid taking a decision, while they point the finger of blame at each other.
https://order-order.com/2018/12/07/jacob-rees-mogg-caroline-lucas-feature-channel-4-debate/
The big one though is freedom of movement.
Staying in the Single market this amendment ain't.
The students were demonstrating outside a school in Mantes-la-Jolie, west of Paris, which ended in clashes with police and more than 140 arrests."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46481397?ocid=socialflow_twitter
They've got "democratic cover" from the few MPs who want to leave properly apparently.
I'd hope it is adopted if as set out by the website I looked at. Obviously if it changes the Withdrawal Agreement then it is a very weird wrecking amendment - but it doesn't appear to do so.
Another Europhobe delusion that doesn’t stand up to the facts.
The way out of this utter ERG-created mess is not an easy one, but the nearest to an acceptable solution is to be reluctantly forced to hold another referendum. The bottom line is that there are perhaps 80-100 MPs prepared to jump into the No Deal abyss, and about 400+ who'd really rather prefer to revoke Article 50 if the alternative is no deal, even if they'd originally believed the first referendum result should be respected.
Dunno if it will work - there's still a substantial risk that we'll crash out. Corbyn then takes over in chaos.
However, I think they dramatically underestimate the huge damage that would do to faith in politics, as well as the potential for the electorate to vote to leave anyway.
If the choice is May's Deal versus Remain, then we'd have two options, both of which had already been rejected (by the Commons and the electorate, respectively).
It's why I think (and wrote in my article for PB a few weeks ago) that whatever happens, this is going to rumble on for decades.
A "deal v Remain" referendum would likely have the same problem as the 2016 referendum - parliament should only call a referendum between options it's willing to implement. If it's not willing to implement the deal, why kick the decision to the electorate?
Won't everybody be too busy watching I'm a Celeb just like the Supreme Leader?
In any case I'm not convinced the deal is "in the middle of what the Leave campaign said they wanted", I don't recall anyone proposing locking ourselves in a straitjacket we'd need the EU to let us out of.
If Parliament wants to revoke No Deal it should really do it itself. Be honest about how they are nullifying the 2016 result. Be honest that the people won't be allowed to have what they voted for. Because for all the problems with "no deal", it has one clear benefit - it is definitely consistent with the 2016 result.
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trade/agr/standard/standard/fresh/FFV-Std/English/15_Cucumbers.pdf
https://www.ft.com/content/7d5244a0-f22d-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d
Otherwise search on::
'Why the idea of a united Ireland is back in play'
NI has become an economic basket case, all in the name of 'The Union'. It's cruel and unusual punishment for what was once one of the jewels in Britain's crown. Time to let it go to its natural home. I think there's reasonable ground to believe that if the question were put to the Irish on both sides of the border, there would be a positive response. As an added incentive, we'll throw in Pembrokeshire.
The Conservatives are split.
How would a devious Conservative politician use this to their advantage?
Try to get Labour to split as well?
Deal is voted down. TM resigns but who has the confidence of Parliament?
Could you get a government of national unity? Who would lead it? Is there a Labour MP who could be a unifying figure and achieve a split in both parties?
Step forward EMICIPM and a coalition of chaos.
You are fixated on Jeremy Corbyn it seems.
Every other post of yours has a detrimental comment about him.
We get it you hate him.
For gods sake get a life , and move on.
Calm down, its a joke.
As for every other post, I post huge numbers of links from a wide range of sources, much of which has nothing to do with Jezza.
- An end to Freedom of Movement
- An end to the ECJ having direct jurisdiction over UK law
- An end to the CFP
- An end to the CAP
- An end to paying vast sums to the EU
- A smooth transition, protecting jobs
- Joining a free trade area from Ireland to Turkey
All as promised by Vote Leave. No Deal, in contrast, is certainly nothing like compatible with the promises made by the Leave campaigns, who assured us again and again that it would be a smooth transition, no jobs would be lost, there would be no difficulties with customs, and the EU would sign a trade deal with us.
In any case, it's not me you need to convince. It's MPs. I'm just looking at the parliamentary numbers.
If they are that convinced that Brexit is a catastrophe, and they REALLY do believe that it's in the national interest to do it, then that's what MPs would do. It would be brave and it would be responsible.
However, this doesn't get around the fact that (a) the pro-EU MPs would have to split from their own parties, abandon decades of loyalty, and fight their ex-colleagues and party rank-and-file to the political death in the General Election that would inevitably follow; and (b) that your typical MP isn't brave and responsible, they're duplicitous and calculating.
Also, whilst I've no particular interest in defending the ERG, I don't subscribe to the notion that all of this is the Brexiteers' fault. The pro-EU MPs - or, more precisely, the large bulk of them that also sat in the previous Parliament and voted for the EU Referendum Bill to pass - are ultimately responsible for their own predicament. If they really thought Brexit a catastrophe, and if they had any comprehension of how differently the EU was viewed in the country at large, outside their own narrow social circle, then they ought to have done what the SNP did and refused to vote for the referendum to take place. Instead, they legislated for a plebiscite which included an option that they stupidly assumed most people would not vote for, and which they had no desire (and probably, in truth, no intention) to implement.
They fashioned the rod for their own backs. I have no sympathy for them at all.
Or, the vote will be pulled Sunday evening and we can all get back to writing xmas cards.
Wind, just now is supplying about 28 percent of the national electricity. It's not a toy, and averages, crudely estimated by eye, something like ten percent.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
https://order-order.com/2018/12/07/20-back-second-referendum-deal-voted/
And seriously, if they are resigning over the backstop why the flying fuck have they not already resigned? Absolute cretins. Even if it is right that, despite all this, the EU will get rid of it, even just including since the publication of the WA the government's position of including it has been clear, and therefore they are morons.
I have none for those who voted to trigger it, potentially leading to an outcome they think is catastrophic, while seeking to overturn the result.
They're going to vote down May's deal, leading to either:
1) Referendum between remain and May's deal
2) A cross-party move towards a genuine BINO (Norway+ or whatever the acronym of the day is)
No deal simply isn't going to happen now, but the ERG types are so consumed by their obsession they haven't noticed the change in the weather.
Both men faced England and Wales Cricket Board charges over that incident and social media posts, but the subsequent bans were adjudged to be either suspended or already served.
Stokes, who was cleared of affray in August, has been fined a total of £30,000 and batsman Hales £17,500, £10,000 of which is suspended for 12 months from now.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/46486977
Can't even call that a slap on the wrist, more like a tickle with a feather duster.
3) A new Con PM who eventually secures May+++++fudge