This is going to finish with a game of chicken. May's plan is clearly to spin things along and arrive at a point where the choice before Parliament is accepting her deal or crashing out. The alternative plans - remain, referendum, more time - all require the government to initiate them, and all parliament can do is pass an amendment asking the government to do one of them (and that presumes that such a majority exists). If the government ignores any such demand, the clock keeps ticking, and the question becomes whether parliament blinks and accepts the deal, whether the government blinks and brings forward proposals to satisfy parliament, or no-one blinks and the train runs over us all.
The only hope is that Parliament can a) sort out an alternative that can command a majority, and b) get it voted through early enough that there is sufficient time for public and political pressure to push the government into changing course.
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland.
But surely a British PM has embarked on that path. May embarked on that path when she invoked A50. She went further down the path when she got the Withdrawal Act through Parliament. She went even further down that path when she betrayed the DUP. She got dangerously close to the end of the path when she signed off on the backstop before realising the depth of hatred for it in her party.
May has gone a very, very long way down the path.
There was always going to be a deal. So the fact that she went down the path bluffing the whole way is irrelevant. It was always a bluff and we have seen that most clearly with the reversal of the no deal/bad deal mantra.
Now of course the last thing 96.5% of the people thought about when they marked their cross against "Leave" was Northern Ireland but it nevertheless represents (yet) one more example of people deciding not to investigate the implications of their vote. No shame in that, but these are the consequences.
Given the possible economic consequences of leaving, by default a deal which mitigates the worst effects is always going to be better than no deal so cannot be by definition bad.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Parliament doesn’t want to do anything. Sub majority parts of it want desperately to do many mutually contradictory things.
Quite so. So we need a series of votes to flush out the contradictions.
That's actually a good idea, and surely has to be the solution.
Parliament doesn't want TMay's deal. Well, what do they want?
TMay should present to MPs the various options you describe.
1 A new referendum (and if they choose that, then a 2nd vote to decide the question) 2. No Deal 3. Revoke A50 and Remain 4. TMay's deal after all
Let the House of Commons, as a whole, select its preferred option. That will then be the will of the British people, as expressed in parliament. I have no idea how you do this within parliamentary rules, but it has to be done. No one could argue it. The MPs would have the final say they have always wanted, and then what's done is done.
Go for it Theresa. I literally see no other way out.
And if the House of Commons rejects them all, then the default is number 2: No Deal. That will concentrate minds.
Do it, PM, do it.
The question is whether or not article 50 and remain can and should be voted on when both labour and conservatives stood on manifesto commitments to implement the result of the 2016 referendum.
Assuming - and I think it's likely - Parliament plumped for this option, what happens next?
1) Completely disagree. If preparations are needed then they will have to be paid for, saying it is impossible because some people promised otherwise years ago is nonsense. Also if it is an option in a new referendum then this can be explained in advance.
2) Well why not explain why.
Sorry - the gym called.
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland. Why no hard border? Because that would inflame tensions the like of which we haven't seen for 20 years and the Belfast Agreement.
Well it seems we can't leave properly without a hard border.
So it's either keep the country in a organisation heading towards political union against the wishes of the majority or manage inflamed tensions in NI until a better solution to the border is found.
The former is worse than the latter in my opinion.
“properly”.
Well describe a clean break from the EU that doesn't involve a hard border?
Theresa May’s Deal is Brexit. The EEA would be Brexit.
You don’t get to define Brexit. And you don’t get to assert that your mad priorities somehow have a mandate when they do not.
Doesn't the phrase "clean break" sound very North Korean?
Here's what Kim-Il Sung said in 1955 about the foundational fundamentalist philosophy of self-reliance ('juche') of the DPRK:
To make revolution in Korea we must know Korean history and geography as well as the customs of the Korean people. Only then is it possible to educate our people in a way that suits them and to inspire in them an ardent love for their native place and their motherland.[20]
In the speech "On Socialist Construction and the South Korean Revolution in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea" given on 14 April 1965, Kim Il-sung outlined the three fundamental principles of Juche:
May’s Deal is much better than that. I’d rather stay in the EU than have Norway+ and I don’t know why some Leavers are saying the precise opposite.
I can only presume they don’t understand May’s deal.
Which is about as perfect an illustration as you could want of the absurdities of any particular Brexiteer claiming that their preferred option, as opposed to any other, has a mandate from the referendum vote.
1) Completely disagree. If preparations are needed then they will have to be paid for, saying it is impossible because some people promised otherwise years ago is nonsense. Also if it is an option in a new referendum then this can be explained in advance.
2) Well why not explain why.
Sorry - the gym called.
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland. Why no hard border? Because that would inflame tensions the like of which we haven't seen for 20 years and the Belfast Agreement.
Well it seems we can't leave properly without a hard border.
So it's either keep the country in a organisation heading towards political union against the wishes of the majority or manage inflamed tensions in NI until a better solution to the border is found.
The former is worse than the latter in my opinion.
The former is impossible. Sorry, but it is simply not going to happen. Do you hear any Brexiter talking about it at all any more a la JRM not so long ago? Nope. You hear them talk about technology and away-from-the-border checks. Even they seem to have realised this simple truth.
Now, will there be technology? Who knows - it would be a brave man who ruled out technology solving a currently intractable problem but as everyone bar Owen Paterson seems to agree, if there is a technological solution, it doesn't seem to exist as of now.
A hard border is impossible? That clearly isn't true.
Perhaps it isn't desirable or worth it compared to other options, but it is definitely possible.
But we no deal by default of Parliament can't agree on anything - the referendum would be a means of preventing No Deal.
We are not going to no deal by default.
Then how is it to be avoided? The General Election route becomes non-viable in a few weeks because of the timescales involved, the referendum route is blocked by a hostile Prime Minister and by its advocates being scattered across party lines and in a minority, and it seems that there is no chance of May passing her deal (and the DUP would topple the Government if she showed real signs of succeeding.)
If an outright majority of MPs is desperate enough to stop the process then they could remove the Government and install one made up of themselves to do it, but the bar to that solution is very high. So how anyone can sound so completely confident that No Deal won't happen is beyond me.
As per my post below May intends to arrive at a vote on her deal at the last possible moment and trust that MPs will vote it through to save the country from no deal.
But we no deal by default of Parliament can't agree on anything - the referendum would be a means of preventing No Deal.
We are not going to no deal by default.
Then how is it to be avoided? The General Election route becomes non-viable in a few weeks because of the timescales involved, the referendum route is blocked by a hostile Prime Minister and by its advocates being scattered across party lines and in a minority, and it seems that there is no chance of May passing her deal (and the DUP would topple the Government if she showed real signs of succeeding.)
If an outright majority of MPs is desperate enough to stop the process then they could remove the Government and install one made up of themselves to do it, but the bar to that solution is very high. So how anyone can sound so completely confident that No Deal won't happen is beyond me.
A combination of the EU Withdrawal Act, a disapplication of Standing Order 24B (Section 13 of the EWWA), and the Grieve amendment.
Now, anything parliament decided upon might not be legally binding but, as the Institute for Government says, they would be "politically significant".
Then how is it to be avoided? The General Election route becomes non-viable in a few weeks because of the timescales involved, the referendum route is blocked by a hostile Prime Minister and by its advocates being scattered across party lines and in a minority, and it seems that there is no chance of May passing her deal (and the DUP would topple the Government if she showed real signs of succeeding.)
That last scenario sounds as though it should be quite tempting for Labour. Reluctantly support the deal to prevent the Tory loonies from sabotaging the economy, and in the process bring down the government and - with JC portrayed as the sviour - fight an election against a Tory party in a state of civil war.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Maybe she should just put all the options to the vote Parliament (her deal, No Deal, a new referendum, revoking Article 50), and commit herself that if any of the options get a majority, she'll implement it. She's got nothing to lose at this point.
Somebody on here suggested that we have a carousel, where May just keeps putting all the options to a vote of the House, in a endless cycle, until one of them gets a majority.
I wonder how many goes around it would take.
The US House of Representatives once toom about sixty attempts to elect a Speaker, IIRC.
Of course, the canonical (sic) example of a body that takes multiple rounds of votes to reach a decision is the College of Cardinals. So the solution is clear: lock the Commons up in Westminster Abbey until they make a decision. I’m sure the Royal Logistic Corps could rustle up some black and white smoke bombs.
But we no deal by default of Parliament can't agree on anything - the referendum would be a means of preventing No Deal.
We are not going to no deal by default.
Then how is it to be avoided? The General Election route becomes non-viable in a few weeks because of the timescales involved, the referendum route is blocked by a hostile Prime Minister and by its advocates being scattered across party lines and in a minority, and it seems that there is no chance of May passing her deal (and the DUP would topple the Government if she showed real signs of succeeding.)
If an outright majority of MPs is desperate enough to stop the process then they could remove the Government and install one made up of themselves to do it, but the bar to that solution is very high. So how anyone can sound so completely confident that No Deal won't happen is beyond me.
I very much like @Nemtynakht's idea for a referendum, which places the WA as the first option (and if not approved, a choice between remain and no deal).
It could be legislated for in advance by Parliament, subject to the granting of an A50 extension by the EU (which extension would correspondingly be subject to a referendum being held within a fixed timeframe, on those terms).
It would act as a backstop, triggerable at very short notice, up to March 29th, but expiring thereafter, if Parliament was unable to achieve a majority for any other course of action.
This meets the EU's objectives as well if not better than any other alternative. It gives May a chance of getting her deal through - and if would give the nation a chance to decide if it wanted to crash out of the EU without a deal.
I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
Because there is no one to replace her that will get a better result. They know that. As for the likelihood of Mr. Thicky Corbyn being able to renegotiate, that prospect is absolutely laughable.
Quite. What's the point in replacing her when she is so keen to soak up all the punishment of Brexit; and who else REALLY wants to do that job, especially when there is no obvious way of doing a superior job?
Let her be the punchbag for public anger on Brexit. Then she can resign, taking the bruises with her, and the Tories can elect a post-Brexit PM ready to start afresh, untainted by the horrors of the last two years.
And who might this untainted Tory be? The Archangel Gabriel?
Ken Clarke? He might be the nearest they have. Sadly, given his age, he might be rubbing shoulders with the Archangel Gabriel before too long...
Yes: the Tories made a big mistake not electing him as leader. In the last few days and weeks every time he speaks I'm reminded of what a grown up politician sounds like. Then someone like Steve Baker comes on and my skin crawls.......
Are there any politicians that are advocating Brexit that sound like grownups? No, funny that!
But we no deal by default of Parliament can't agree on anything - the referendum would be a means of preventing No Deal.
We are not going to no deal by default.
Then how is it to be avoided? The General Election route becomes non-viable in a few weeks because of the timescales involved, the referendum route is blocked by a hostile Prime Minister and by its advocates being scattered across party lines and in a minority, and it seems that there is no chance of May passing her deal (and the DUP would topple the Government if she showed real signs of succeeding.)
If an outright majority of MPs is desperate enough to stop the process then they could remove the Government and install one made up of themselves to do it, but the bar to that solution is very high. So how anyone can sound so completely confident that No Deal won't happen is beyond me.
As per my post below May intends to arrive at a vote on her deal at the last possible moment and trust that MPs will vote it through to save the country from no deal.
This seems most likely. She didn't become PM just to have achieved nothing, she'll only settle for her deal getting through parliament so she has a legacy. Remain or No Deal would just lead to her being remembered as another Brown or Eden.
I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
When you look at the absolute state of the alternatives, leaving her in post was the only viable option.
That's what I've been saying for a while. Dunno what she does about the DUP, though, nor how she avoids splitting the Conservative Party in that scenario. I suppose it would be OK if the Labour Party split at the same time!
1) Completely disagree. If preparations are needed then they will have to be paid for, saying it is impossible because some people promised otherwise years ago is nonsense. Also if it is an option in a new referendum then this can be explained in advance.
2) Well why not explain why.
Sorry - the gym called.
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland. Why no hard border? Because that would inflame tensions the like of which we haven't seen for 20 years and the Belfast Agreement.
Well it seems we can't leave properly without a hard border.
So it's either keep the country in a organisation heading towards political union against the wishes of the majority or manage inflamed tensions in NI until a better solution to the border is found.
The former is worse than the latter in my opinion.
The former is impossible. Sorry, but it is simply not going to happen. Do you hear any Brexiter talking about it at all any more a la JRM not so long ago? Nope. You hear them talk about technology and away-from-the-border checks. Even they seem to have realised this simple truth.
Now, will there be technology? Who knows - it would be a brave man who ruled out technology solving a currently intractable problem but as everyone bar Owen Paterson seems to agree, if there is a technological solution, it doesn't seem to exist as of now.
A hard border is impossible? That clearly isn't true.
Perhaps it isn't desirable or worth it compared to other options, but it is definitely possible.
Well of course it's possible you can go this afternoon to South Armagh yourself, dressed in a bowler hat and orange sash perhaps, having stopped off at B&Q for some wire mesh fencing and on you go.
By impossible, and I thought it would be obvious as we are on a political-based website, I meant politically impossible.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Parliament doesn’t want to do anything. Sub majority parts of it want desperately to do many mutually contradictory things.
Quite so. So we need a series of votes to flush out the contradictions.
That's actually a good idea, and surely has to be the solution.
Parliament doesn't want TMay's deal. Well, what do they want?
TMay should present to MPs the various options you describe.
1 A new referendum (and if they choose that, then a 2nd vote to decide the question) 2. No Deal 3. Revoke A50 and Remain 4. TMay's deal after all
Let the House of Commons, as a whole, select its preferred option. That will then be the will of the British people, as expressed in parliament. I have no idea how you do this within parliamentary rules, but it has to be done. No one could argue it. The MPs would have the final say they have always wanted, and then what's done is done.
Go for it Theresa. I literally see no other way out.
And if the House of Commons rejects them all, then the default is number 2: No Deal. That will concentrate minds.
Do it, PM, do it.
The question is whether or not article 50 and remain can and should be voted on when both labour and conservatives stood on manifesto commitments to implement the result of the 2016 referendum.
Assuming - and I think it's likely - Parliament plumped for this option, what happens next?
The whole point of my proposal is that it makes MPs take personal responsibility, which they say they want. Each one would have to examine his or her conscience (and no doubt the votes in her constituency) and decide what is the right moral choice for the country. And if they decide to go for an option their constituents detest, then they will have to suffer the consequences in the next election.
That's the point. It means every MP will have to stand up and say what they believe (especially Labour MPs, who are hiding behind their leader's waffling ambiguities).
A grand debate and a final vote, in the Commons, Do it.
I think I've spotted the flaw in your proposal "taking personal responsibility".
The MPs have their favoured options, but they all want somebody to else to take the flack.
Feels cowardly. May wants a referendum on her deal vs remain, but is too gutless to actually propose it? And she expects Labour to take the criticism for her?
I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
Because there is no one to replace her that will get a better result. They know that. As for the likelihood of Mr. Thicky Corbyn being able to renegotiate, that prospect is absolutely laughable.
Quite. What's the point in replacing her when she is so keen to soak up all the punishment of Brexit; and who else REALLY wants to do that job, especially when there is no obvious way of doing a superior job?
Let her be the punchbag for public anger on Brexit. Then she can resign, taking the bruises with her, and the Tories can elect a post-Brexit PM ready to start afresh, untainted by the horrors of the last two years.
And who might this untainted Tory be? The Archangel Gabriel?
Ken Clarke? He might be the nearest they have. Sadly, given his age, he might be rubbing shoulders with the Archangel Gabriel before too long...
Yes: the Tories made a big mistake not electing him as leader. In the last few days and weeks every time he speaks I'm reminded of what a grown up politician sounds like. Then someone like Steve Baker comes on and my skin crawls.......
Are there any politicians that are advocating Brexit that sound like grownups?
But we no deal by default of Parliament can't agree on anything - the referendum would be a means of preventing No Deal.
We are not going to no deal by default.
Then how is it to be avoided? The General Election route becomes non-viable in a few weeks because of the timescales involved, the referendum route is blocked by a hostile Prime Minister and by its advocates being scattered across party lines and in a minority, and it seems that there is no chance of May passing her deal (and the DUP would topple the Government if she showed real signs of succeeding.)
If an outright majority of MPs is desperate enough to stop the process then they could remove the Government and install one made up of themselves to do it, but the bar to that solution is very high. So how anyone can sound so completely confident that No Deal won't happen is beyond me.
As per my post below May intends to arrive at a vote on her deal at the last possible moment and trust that MPs will vote it through to save the country from no deal.
This seems most likely. She didn't become PM just to have achieved nothing, she'll only settle for her deal getting through parliament so she has a legacy. Remain or No Deal would just lead to her being remembered as another Brown or Eden.
I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
When you look at the absolute state of the alternatives, leaving her in post was the only viable option.
Theresa May was also left in place, and actually applauded by the 1922, after GE2017. It is hard to explain.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Maybe she should just put all the options to the vote Parliament (her deal, No Deal, a new referendum, revoking Article 50), and commit herself that if any of the options get a majority, she'll implement it. She's got nothing to lose at this point.
Somebody on here suggested that we have a carousel, where May just keeps putting all the options to a vote of the House, in a endless cycle, until one of them gets a majority.
I wonder how many goes around it would take.
The US House of Representatives once toom about sixty attempts to elect a Speaker, IIRC.
Of course, the canonical (sic) example of a body that takes multiple rounds of votes to reach a decision is the College of Cardinals. So the solution is clear: lock the Commons up in Westminster Abbey until they make a decision. I’m sure the Royal Logistic Corps could rustle up some black and white smoke bombs.
Yeah - but the Abbey needs to be warm, they are given nothing but tea to drink and are not allowed out to pee......
I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
Because there is no one to replace her that will get a better result. They know that. As for the likelihood of Mr. Thicky Corbyn being able to renegotiate, that prospect is absolutely laughable.
Quite. What's the point in replacing her when she is so keen to soak up all the punishment of Brexit; and who else REALLY wants to do that job, especially when there is no obvious way of doing a superior job?
Let her be the punchbag for public anger on Brexit. Then she can resign, taking the bruises with her, and the Tories can elect a post-Brexit PM ready to start afresh, untainted by the horrors of the last two years.
And who might this untainted Tory be? The Archangel Gabriel?
Ken Clarke? He might be the nearest they have. Sadly, given his age, he might be rubbing shoulders with the Archangel Gabriel before too long...
Yes: the Tories made a big mistake not electing him as leader. In the last few days and weeks every time he speaks I'm reminded of what a grown up politician sounds like. Then someone like Steve Baker comes on and my skin crawls.......
Indeed. I saw Owen Patterson on the telly yesterday and decided that he is dangerous. His expression and the look in his eyes struck me as those of the pure, believing zealot. In an earlier age he could have been Torquemada ...
I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
Because there is no one to replace her that will get a better result. They know that. As for the likelihood of Mr. Thicky Corbyn being able to renegotiate, that prospect is absolutely laughable.
Quite. What's the point in replacing her when she is so keen to soak up all the punishment of Brexit; and who else REALLY wants to do that job, especially when there is no obvious way of doing a superior job?
Let her be the punchbag for public anger on Brexit. Then she can resign, taking the bruises with her, and the Tories can elect a post-Brexit PM ready to start afresh, untainted by the horrors of the last two years.
And who might this untainted Tory be? The Archangel Gabriel?
Ken Clarke? He might be the nearest they have. Sadly, given his age, he might be rubbing shoulders with the Archangel Gabriel before too long...
Yes: the Tories made a big mistake not electing him as leader. In the last few days and weeks every time he speaks I'm reminded of what a grown up politician sounds like. Then someone like Steve Baker comes on and my skin crawls.......
Are there any politicians that are advocating Brexit that sound like grownups?
Theresa May.
I am quite clear that nothing has changed. My deal is the only deal on offer. I'm getting on with delivering Brexit.
But we no deal by default of Parliament can't agree on anything - the referendum would be a means of preventing No Deal.
We are not going to no deal by default.
Then how is it to be avoided? The General Election route becomes non-viable in a few weeks because of the timescales involved, the referendum route is blocked by a hostile Prime Minister and by its advocates being scattered across party lines and in a minority, and it seems that there is no chance of May passing her deal (and the DUP would topple the Government if she showed real signs of succeeding.)
If an outright majority of MPs is desperate enough to stop the process then they could remove the Government and install one made up of themselves to do it, but the bar to that solution is very high. So how anyone can sound so completely confident that No Deal won't happen is beyond me.
I very much like @Nemtynakht's idea for a referendum, which places the WA as the first option (and if not approved, a choice between remain and no deal).
It could be legislated for in advance by Parliament, subject to the granting of an A50 extension by the EU (which extension would correspondingly be subject to a referendum being held within a fixed timeframe, on those terms).
It would act as a backstop, triggerable at very short notice, up to March 29th, but expiring thereafter, if Parliament was unable to achieve a majority for any other course of action.
This meets the EU's objectives as well if not better than any other alternative. It gives May a chance of getting her deal through - and if would give the nation a chance to decide if it wanted to crash out of the EU without a deal.
Interesting. As a Leaver I could live with that. What I can't live with is deal v remain as only option. Any second referendum should still be last resort though.
That's what I've been saying for a while. Dunno what she does about the DUP, though, nor how she avoids splitting the Conservative Party in that scenario. I suppose it would be OK if the Labour Party split at the same time!
I think it would need to be a confirmatory referendum i.e. all the necessary withdrawal legislation passed, coming into force subject to the referendum which would be binding. A50 extension to the summer.
One underappreciated point has been that, even if the Meaningful Vote passes, there are still a lot more meaningful votes after that.
I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
Because there is no one to replace her that will get a better result. They know that. As for the likelihood of Mr. Thicky Corbyn being able to renegotiate, that prospect is absolutely laughable.
Quite. What's the point in replacing her when she is so keen to soak up all the punishment of Brexit; and who else REALLY wants to do that job, especially when there is no obvious way of doing a superior job?
Let her be the punchbag for public anger on Brexit. Then she can resign, taking the bruises with her, and the Tories can elect a post-Brexit PM ready to start afresh, untainted by the horrors of the last two years.
And who might this untainted Tory be? The Archangel Gabriel?
Ken Clarke? He might be the nearest they have. Sadly, given his age, he might be rubbing shoulders with the Archangel Gabriel before too long...
Yes: the Tories made a big mistake not electing him as leader. In the last few days and weeks every time he speaks I'm reminded of what a grown up politician sounds like. Then someone like Steve Baker comes on and my skin crawls.......
Are there any politicians that are advocating Brexit that sound like grownups?
Theresa May.
Fair comment. Perhaps I should have said "enthusiastic advocates" for Brexit
I am just old enough to remember how bored everyone was by Watergate, as it dragged out, at the time. Russia/Trumpgate is beginning to acquire the same feel.
I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
Because there is no one to replace her that will get a better result. They know that. As for the likelihood of Mr. Thicky Corbyn being able to renegotiate, that prospect is absolutely laughable.
Quite. What's the point in replacing her when she is so keen to soak up all the punishment of Brexit; and who else REALLY wants to do that job, especially when there is no obvious way of doing a superior job?
Let her be the punchbag for public anger on Brexit. Then she can resign, taking the bruises with her, and the Tories can elect a post-Brexit PM ready to start afresh, untainted by the horrors of the last two years.
And who might this untainted Tory be? The Archangel Gabriel?
Ken Clarke? He might be the nearest they have. Sadly, given his age, he might be rubbing shoulders with the Archangel Gabriel before too long...
Yes: the Tories made a big mistake not electing him as leader. In the last few days and weeks every time he speaks I'm reminded of what a grown up politician sounds like. Then someone like Steve Baker comes on and my skin crawls.......
Are there any politicians that are advocating Brexit that sound like grownups?
Theresa May.
I am quite clear that nothing has changed. My deal is the only deal on offer. I'm getting on with delivering Brexit.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Maybe she should just put all the options to the vote Parliament (her deal, No Deal, a new referendum, revoking Article 50), and commit herself that if any of the options get a majority, she'll implement it. She's got nothing to lose at this point.
Somebody on here suggested that we have a carousel, where May just keeps putting all the options to a vote of the House, in a endless cycle, until one of them gets a majority.
I wonder how many goes around it would take.
The US House of Representatives once toom about sixty attempts to elect a Speaker, IIRC.
Of course, the canonical (sic) example of a body that takes multiple rounds of votes to reach a decision is the College of Cardinals. So the solution is clear: lock the Commons up in Westminster Abbey until they make a decision. I’m sure the Royal Logistic Corps could rustle up some black and white smoke bombs.
Yeah - but the Abbey needs to be warm, they are given nothing but tea to drink and are not allowed out to pee......
The longest papal conclave took almost three years to elect a pope.
I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
The entire party looks used up. And Labour unusable.
1) Completely disagree. If preparations are needed then they will have to be paid for, saying it is impossible because some people promised otherwise years ago is nonsense. Also if it is an option in a new referendum then this can be explained in advance.
2) Well why not explain why.
Sorry - the gym called.
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland. Why no hard border? Because that would inflame tensions the like of which we haven't seen for 20 years and the Belfast Agreement.
Well it seems we can't leave properly without a hard border.
So it's either keep the country in a organisation heading towards political union against the wishes of the majority or manage inflamed tensions in NI until a better solution to the border is found.
The former is worse than the latter in my opinion.
The former is impossible. Sorry, but it is simply not going to happen. Do you hear any Brexiter talking about it at all any more a la JRM not so long ago? Nope. You hear them talk about technology and away-from-the-border checks. Even they seem to have realised this simple truth.
Now, will there be technology? Who knows - it would be a brave man who ruled out technology solving a currently intractable problem but as everyone bar Owen Paterson seems to agree, if there is a technological solution, it doesn't seem to exist as of now.
A hard border is impossible? That clearly isn't true.
Perhaps it isn't desirable or worth it compared to other options, but it is definitely possible.
Well of course it's possible you can go this afternoon to South Armagh yourself, dressed in a bowler hat and orange sash perhaps, having stopped off at B&Q for some wire mesh fencing and on you go.
By impossible, and I thought it would be obvious as we are on a political-based website, I meant politically impossible.
Anyone that has been there would say it was probably practically (in the real sense) impossible too. Anything put up would no doubt be ripped down by the mob, and quite rightly so
But we no deal by default of Parliament can't agree on anything - the referendum would be a means of preventing No Deal.
We are not going to no deal by default.
Then how is it to be avoided? The General Election route becomes non-viable in a few weeks because of the timescales involved, the referendum route is blocked by a hostile Prime Minister and by its advocates being scattered across party lines and in a minority, and it seems that there is no chance of May passing her deal (and the DUP would topple the Government if she showed real signs of succeeding.)
If an outright majority of MPs is desperate enough to stop the process then they could remove the Government and install one made up of themselves to do it, but the bar to that solution is very high. So how anyone can sound so completely confident that No Deal won't happen is beyond me.
As per my post below May intends to arrive at a vote on her deal at the last possible moment and trust that MPs will vote it through to save the country from no deal.
This seems most likely. She didn't become PM just to have achieved nothing, she'll only settle for her deal getting through parliament so she has a legacy. Remain or No Deal would just lead to her being remembered as another Brown or Eden.
This meets the EU's objectives as well if not better than any other alternative. It gives May a chance of getting her deal through - and if would give the nation a chance to decide if it wanted to crash out of the EU without a deal.
Will the EU agree to an extension for a referendum that includes "No Deal" as an option?
1) Completely disagree. If preparations are needed then they will have to be paid for, saying it is impossible because some people promised otherwise years ago is nonsense. Also if it is an option in a new referendum then this can be explained in advance.
2) Well why not explain why.
Sorry - the gym called.
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland. Why no hard border? Because that would inflame tensions the like of which we haven't seen for 20 years and the Belfast Agreement.
Well it seems we can't leave properly without a hard border.
So it's either keep the country in a organisation heading towards political union against the wishes of the majority or manage inflamed tensions in NI until a better solution to the border is found.
The former is worse than the latter in my opinion.
The former is impossible. Sorry, but it is simply not going to happen. Do you hear any Brexiter talking about it at all any more a la JRM not so long ago? Nope. You hear them talk about technology and away-from-the-border checks. Even they seem to have realised this simple truth.
Now, will there be technology? Who knows - it would be a brave man who ruled out technology solving a currently intractable problem but as everyone bar Owen Paterson seems to agree, if there is a technological solution, it doesn't seem to exist as of now.
A hard border is impossible? That clearly isn't true.
Perhaps it isn't desirable or worth it compared to other options, but it is definitely possible.
Well of course it's possible you can go this afternoon to South Armagh yourself, dressed in a bowler hat and orange sash perhaps, having stopped off at B&Q for some wire mesh fencing and on you go.
By impossible, and I thought it would be obvious as we are on a political-based website, I meant politically impossible.
Anyone that has been there would say it was probably practically (in the real sense) impossible too. Anything put up would no doubt be ripped down by the mob, and quite rightly so
The mob would tear it down, but they would hardly be justified.
That's actually a good idea, and surely has to be the solution.
Parliament doesn't want TMay's deal. Well, what do they want?
TMay should present to MPs the various options you describe.
1 A new referendum (and if they choose that, then a 2nd vote to decide the question) 2. No Deal 3. Revoke A50 and Remain 4. TMay's deal after all
Let the House of Commons, as a whole, select its preferred option. That will then be the will of the British people, as expressed in parliament. I have no idea how you do this within parliamentary rules, but it has to be done. No one could argue it. The MPs would have the final say they have always wanted, and then what's done is done.
Go for it Theresa. I literally see no other way out.
And if the House of Commons rejects them all, then the default is number 2: No Deal. That will concentrate minds.
Do it, PM, do it.
The question is whether or not article 50 and remain can and should be voted on when both labour and conservatives stood on manifesto commitments to implement the result of the 2016 referendum.
Assuming - and I think it's likely - Parliament plumped for this option, what happens next?
The whole point of my proposal is that it makes MPs take personal responsibility, which they say they want. Each one would have to examine his or her conscience (and no doubt the votes in her constituency) and decide what is the right moral choice for the country. And if they decide to go for an option their constituents detest, then they will have to suffer the consequences in the next election.
That's the point. It means every MP will have to stand up and say what they believe (especially Labour MPs, who are hiding behind their leader's waffling ambiguities).
A grand debate and a final vote, in the Commons, Do it.
My guess is that most would want to vote remain, but know they'll lose anywhere between 25-50% of their vote if they do (at best), end up only able to govern in coalition with a UKIP style party that gets 20-30 seats next time round (leading us back to square one) or unleash a Tommeh Tommeh Robinson style far right (at worst).
And that is the problem. The electorate has said "do this" twice - once in the referendum of 2016 and again in the GE of 2017. For them to go away and say we won't do this, having been instructed to repeatedly, is in itself a constitutional crisis. Aside from the fact they would be explicitly refusing the stated wishes of the electorate, the final outcome would likely be enough no-deal diamond-hard Brexiteers in Parliament at the next election to put us right back where we are now. But not enough of them to force no deal on the rest of us.
I see from the EUCO agenda, a whole TEN MINUTES has been allocated to the matter of Mrs May's addendum.
Good to know they're taking her seriously.
There's only so many ways you can say the WA is a legally binding text and you've signed up to it.
Hey, she has been saying the same thing to Labour and the ERG for weeks about the EU not altering it, so she does know that perfectly well. She can try to sell some fluff comments as meaningful, but really what is she supposed to do?
There is a sense in which EUCO communiques are "legally binding". They are legal instruments, and they do establish a policy direction for the Union. Of course the contents of the (draft) communique in no way affects either the words or the spirit of the WA, merely committing the Union to a "best effort" attempt to replace the backstop with something else.
Of course, as far as the EUCO is concerned, that was always the intention anyway, implicit in the WA, so it's hardly a concession for them to commit on a best-effort basis to do what they already thought they had committed to.
So, yes. May will be able to claim if you squint a bit, that she has gained "legally binding assurances" on the backstop, but no, it won't actually change the operation of the Withdrawal Agreement in any way at all.
Also, it's not going to change anyone's mind.
May needs to go nuclear with the ERG: bring up the MV and tell the Parliamentary Tory Party that anyone voting against it loses the whip. Sure, they could then support a Labour VONC and topple the government, but if they are denied the whip, they are barred from standing as Conservative candidates at the subsequent election.
But the membership are more in line with ERG than May
1) Completely disagree. If preparations are needed then they will have to be paid for, saying it is impossible because some people promised otherwise years ago is nonsense. Also if it is an option in a new referendum then this can be explained in advance.
2) Well why not explain why.
Sorry - the gym called.
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland. Why no hard border? Because that would inflame tensions the like of which we haven't seen for 20 years and the Belfast Agreement.
Well it seems we can't leave properly without a hard border.
So it's either keep the country in a organisation heading towards political union against the wishes of the majority or manage inflamed tensions in NI until a better solution to the border is found.
The former is worse than the latter in my opinion.
The former is impossible. Sorry, but it is simply not going to happen. Do you hear any Brexiter talking about it at all any more a la JRM not so long ago? Nope. You hear them talk about technology and away-from-the-border checks. Even they seem to have realised this simple truth.
Now, will there be technology? Who knows - it would be a brave man who ruled out technology solving a currently intractable problem but as everyone bar Owen Paterson seems to agree, if there is a technological solution, it doesn't seem to exist as of now.
A hard border is impossible? That clearly isn't true.
Perhaps it isn't desirable or worth it compared to other options, but it is definitely possible.
Well of course it's possible you can go this afternoon to South Armagh yourself, dressed in a bowler hat and orange sash perhaps, having stopped off at B&Q for some wire mesh fencing and on you go.
By impossible, and I thought it would be obvious as we are on a political-based website, I meant politically impossible.
Well since all three options appear politically impossible then something has to give doesn't it?
This meets the EU's objectives as well if not better than any other alternative. It gives May a chance of getting her deal through - and if would give the nation a chance to decide if it wanted to crash out of the EU without a deal.
Will the EU agree to an extension for a referendum that includes "No Deal" as an option?
Almost certainly not, because it completely flies in the face of the purpose of the withdrawal agreement.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Parliament doesn’t want to do anything. Sub majority parts of it want desperately to do many mutually contradictory things.
Quite so. So we need a series of votes to flush out the contradictions.
That's actually a good idea, and surely has to be the solution.
Parliament doesn't want TMay's deal. Well, what do they want?
TMay should present to MPs the various options you describe.
1 A new referendum (and if they choose that, then a 2nd vote to decide the question) 2. No Deal 3. Revoke A50 and Remain 4. TMay's deal after all
Let the House of Commons, as a whole, select its preferred option. That will then be the will of the British people, as expressed in parliament. I have no idea how you do this within parliamentary rules, but it has to be done. No one could argue it. The MPs would have the final say they have always wanted, and then what's done is done.
Go for it Theresa. I literally see no other way out.
And if the House of Commons rejects them all, then the default is number 2: No Deal. That will concentrate minds.
Do it, PM, do it.
The question is whether or not article 50 and remain can and should be voted on when both labour and conservatives stood on manifesto commitments to implement the result of the 2016 referendum.
Assuming - and I think it's likely - Parliament plumped for this option, what happens next?
The whole point of my proposal is that it makes MPs take personal responsibility, which they say they want. Each one would have to examine his or her conscience (and no doubt the votes in her constituency) and decide what is the right moral choice for the country. And if they decide to go for an option their constituents detest, then they will have to suffer the consequences in the next election.
That's the point. It means every MP will have to stand up and say what they believe (especially Labour MPs, who are hiding behind their leader's waffling ambiguities).
A grand debate and a final vote, in the Commons, Do it.
Anything that has them not skirt responsibility is to be hoped for.
I’ve come up with a way for May to achieve what she wants with all options on the ballot paper for a second referendum
Q1. Do you support the deal agreed by PM Yes / No Q2. If the deal is not supported would you prefer to a) Remain in EU b) Leave with No Deal
This would allow people to express leave or remain, but with the jeopardy that if they don’t support the deal then the opposite of what they want could happen
EUreka!
Never thought I'd see it but, yes, this is a referendum that could work. It needs a minor change though. We need to drop the Q2.
Meaning that the public is asked quite simply do they support the deal, yes or no? No caveats, no ifs or buts, and none of this self indulgent 'with a heavy heart' guff.
If yes, game over, deal passed.
If no, as we were, back to the politicians and the thorny choice of remain or WTO exit or overrule the public and pass the deal anyway.
But we no deal by default of Parliament can't agree on anything - the referendum would be a means of preventing No Deal.
We are not going to no deal by default.
Then how is it to be avoided? The General Election route becomes non-viable in a few weeks because of the timescales involved, the referendum route is blocked by a hostile Prime Minister and by its advocates being scattered across party lines and in a minority, and it seems that there is no chance of May passing her deal (and the DUP would topple the Government if she showed real signs of succeeding.)
If an outright majority of MPs is desperate enough to stop the process then they could remove the Government and install one made up of themselves to do it, but the bar to that solution is very high. So how anyone can sound so completely confident that No Deal won't happen is beyond me.
I very much like @Nemtynakht's idea for a referendum, which places the WA as the first option (and if not approved, a choice between remain and no deal).
It could be legislated for in advance by Parliament, subject to the granting of an A50 extension by the EU (which extension would correspondingly be subject to a referendum being held within a fixed timeframe, on those terms).
It would act as a backstop, triggerable at very short notice, up to March 29th, but expiring thereafter, if Parliament was unable to achieve a majority for any other course of action.
This meets the EU's objectives as well if not better than any other alternative. It gives May a chance of getting her deal through - and if would give the nation a chance to decide if it wanted to crash out of the EU without a deal.
Interesting. As a Leaver I could live with that. What I can't live with is deal v remain as only option. Any second referendum should still be last resort though.
Exactly. I think most parties could live with it.
It doesn't disrespect the first referendum vote, as it gives priority to the deal we have agreed with the EU for leaving - and even if that is rejected, gives a choice of leaving which is currently the preference of the most extreme Brexiteers. And it gives retainers a chance of remaining.
The only people it would truly disappoint are the extreme Brexiteers who want to filibuster their way to no deal, and the most uncompromising remainers.
This meets the EU's objectives as well if not better than any other alternative. It gives May a chance of getting her deal through - and if would give the nation a chance to decide if it wanted to crash out of the EU without a deal.
Will the EU agree to an extension for a referendum that includes "No Deal" as an option?
My preferred option is to have no deal as one of 3 choices available but if the EU won't grant an extension for it then that can only happen if the referendum happens soon.
I guess the EU might agree on the assumption if we did a 3 way there is only a small chance of it happening.
Proof if it were needed that Nick Timothy is no longer a figure to be listened to.
..and the Daily Ukipograph not worthy to wrap up a cold soggy packet of chips!!!
There's some good stuff in the Telegraph in fairness, though The Brexit coverage is nearly Guardian levels of awful.
Rugby (and other sport) coverage is good. Their obsession with mentioning Brexit on every front page has made them into the broadsheet version of the Daily Express with their Princess Diana fetish. I stopped buying the DT a couple of years ago, but Mrs Foremain still buys it. One upside is that I find it quite useful for getting the bonefire started
This meets the EU's objectives as well if not better than any other alternative. It gives May a chance of getting her deal through - and if would give the nation a chance to decide if it wanted to crash out of the EU without a deal.
Will the EU agree to an extension for a referendum that includes "No Deal" as an option?
My preferred option is to have no deal as one of 3 choices available but if the EU won't grant an extension for it then that can only happen if the referendum happens soon.
I guess the EU might agree on the assumption if we did a 3 way there is only a small chance of it happening.
@Nemtynakht proposed below a mechanism to present all three choices, which might be acceptable to the EU, by putting the question on the WA first.
(And I added a suggestion on how it might be legislated for.)
This meets the EU's objectives as well if not better than any other alternative. It gives May a chance of getting her deal through - and if would give the nation a chance to decide if it wanted to crash out of the EU without a deal.
Will the EU agree to an extension for a referendum that includes "No Deal" as an option?
My preferred option is to have no deal as one of 3 choices available but if the EU won't grant an extension for it then that can only happen if the referendum happens soon.
I guess the EU might agree on the assumption if we did a 3 way there is only a small chance of it happening.
@Nemtynakht proposed below a mechanism to present all three choices, which might be acceptable to the EU, by putting the question on the WA first.
Unlikely. There is only one deal on the table. No deal isn't a serious choice, it's simply a wrecking choice. Parliament would never agree to implement it, the electoral commission would reject it as unclear, and the council would disallow it because it violates the purpose of the whole backstop process and would represent yet more can-kicking.
But we no deal by default of Parliament can't agree on anything - the referendum would be a means of preventing No Deal.
We are not going to no deal by default.
Then how is it to be avoided? The General Election route becomes non-viable in a few weeks because of the timescales involved, the referendum route is blocked by a hostile Prime Minister and by its advocates being scattered across party lines and in a minority, and it seems that there is no chance of May passing her deal (and the DUP would topple the Government if she showed real signs of succeeding.)
If an outright majority of MPs is desperate enough to stop the process then they could remove the Government and install one made up of themselves to do it, but the bar to that solution is very high. So how anyone can sound so completely confident that No Deal won't happen is beyond me.
I very much like @Nemtynakht's idea for a referendum, which places the WA as the first option (and if not approved, a choice between remain and no deal).
It could be legislated for in advance by Parliament, subject to the granting of an A50 extension by the EU (which extension would correspondingly be subject to a referendum being held within a fixed timeframe, on those terms).
It would act as a backstop, triggerable at very short notice, up to March 29th, but expiring thereafter, if Parliament was unable to achieve a majority for any other course of action.
This meets the EU's objectives as well if not better than any other alternative. It gives May a chance of getting her deal through - and if would give the nation a chance to decide if it wanted to crash out of the EU without a deal.
Interesting. As a Leaver I could live with that. What I can't live with is deal v remain as only option. Any second referendum should still be last resort though.
Quite - I voted remain on economic grounds after initially thinking about leave on Sovereignty grounds. I have a modern languages degree so I am hardly anti-European but I dislike the construct of the EU and it’s creeping federation. In short I am in the middle - and tbh I don’t know the best option but would probably support deal as it gets on with it, if backstop can be resolved. I think my question puts the risk onto those who won’t support current deal. May could get the ball rolling now and put the frightened on a few leavers and remainers that they might end up with their worst option.
1) Completely disagree. If preparations are needed then they will have to be paid for, saying it is impossible because some people promised otherwise years ago is nonsense. Also if it is an option in a new referendum then this can be explained in advance.
2) Well why not explain why.
Sorry - the gym called.
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland. Why no hard border? Because that would inflame tensions the like of which we haven't seen for 20 years and the Belfast Agreement.
Well it seems we can't leave properly without a hard border.
So it's either keep the country in a organisation heading towards political union against the wishes of the majority or manage inflamed tensions in NI until a better solution to the border is found.
The former is worse than the latter in my opinion.
The former is impossible. Sorry, but it is simply not going to happen. Do you hear any Brexiter talking about it at all any more a la JRM not so long ago? Nope. You hear them talk about technology and away-from-the-border checks. Even they seem to have realised this simple truth.
Now, will there be technology? Who knows - it would be a brave man who ruled out technology solving a currently intractable problem but as everyone bar Owen Paterson seems to agree, if there is a technological solution, it doesn't seem to exist as of now.
A hard border is impossible? That clearly isn't true.
Perhaps it isn't desirable or worth it compared to other options, but it is definitely possible.
Well of course it's possible you can go this afternoon to South Armagh yourself, dressed in a bowler hat and orange sash perhaps, having stopped off at B&Q for some wire mesh fencing and on you go.
By impossible, and I thought it would be obvious as we are on a political-based website, I meant politically impossible.
Anyone that has been there would say it was probably practically (in the real sense) impossible too. Anything put up would no doubt be ripped down by the mob, and quite rightly so
The mob would tear it down, but they would hardly be justified.
I don't normally agree with mob behaviour, but a hard border would be a monstrous provocation. Perhaps a better justification would be mass passive resistance. Unfortunately in NI that would almost certainly degenerate into violence. Anyone that authorised fences being put up would be insane
The whole point of my proposal is that it makes MPs take personal responsibility, which they say they want. Each one would have to examine his or her conscience (and no doubt the votes in her constituency) and decide what is the right moral choice for the country. And if they decide to go for an option their constituents detest, then they will have to suffer the consequences in the next election.
That's the point. It means every MP will have to stand up and say what they believe (especially Labour MPs, who are hiding behind their leader's waffling ambiguities).
A grand debate and a final vote, in the Commons, Do it.
My guess is that most would want to vote remain, but know they'll lose anywhere between 25-50% of their vote if they do (at best), end up only able to govern in coalition with a UKIP style party that gets 20-30 seats next time round (leading us back to square one) or unleash a Tommeh Tommeh Robinson style far right (at worst).
And that is the problem. The electorate has said "do this" twice - once in the referendum of 2016 and again in the GE of 2017. For them to go away and say we won't do this, having been instructed to repeatedly, is in itself a constitutional crisis. Aside from the fact they would be explicitly refusing the stated wishes of the electorate, the final outcome would likely be enough no-deal diamond-hard Brexiteers in Parliament at the next election to put us right back where we are now. But not enough of them to force no deal on the rest of us.
If both Labour and Conservatives lose 25-50% of their leave voters then most Labour MPs would be fine, in fact Labour would probably gain seats.
This meets the EU's objectives as well if not better than any other alternative. It gives May a chance of getting her deal through - and if would give the nation a chance to decide if it wanted to crash out of the EU without a deal.
Will the EU agree to an extension for a referendum that includes "No Deal" as an option?
My preferred option is to have no deal as one of 3 choices available but if the EU won't grant an extension for it then that can only happen if the referendum happens soon.
I guess the EU might agree on the assumption if we did a 3 way there is only a small chance of it happening.
I agree. A transferable vote system between the three options would be best. There is still a danger the electorate might vote for self-harm ultra, but hopefully not
Alternatively, instead of the 2nd question you could then enact my proposal: a free vote in parliament on all the options, with the knowledge that if they reject them all, the default is No Deal.
That's absurd, because we already know there's currently no majority for any option.
But I do think the papal conclave method is viable. Parliament keeps voting on all options, endlessly, until one gets a majority.
I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
Because there is no one to replace her that will get a better result. They know that. As for the likelihood of Mr. Thicky Corbyn being able to renegotiate, that prospect is absolutely laughable.
Quite. What's the point in replacing her when she is so keen to soak up all the punishment of Brexit; and who else REALLY wants to do that job, especially when there is no obvious way of doing a superior job?
Let her be the punchbag for public anger on Brexit. Then she can resign, taking the bruises with her, and the Tories can elect a post-Brexit PM ready to start afresh, untainted by the horrors of the last two years.
And who might this untainted Tory be? The Archangel Gabriel?
Ken Clarke? He might be the nearest they have. Sadly, given his age, he might be rubbing shoulders with the Archangel Gabriel before too long...
Yes: the Tories made a big mistake not electing him as leader. In the last few days and weeks every time he speaks I'm reminded of what a grown up politician sounds like. Then someone like Steve Baker comes on and my skin crawls.......
Indeed. I saw Owen Patterson on the telly yesterday and decided that he is dangerous. His expression and the look in his eyes struck me as those of the pure, believing zealot. In an earlier age he could have been Torquemada ...
Craig Mackinlay’s election agent Nathan Gray has been found not guilty of expenses fraud at Southwark Crown Court. Gray was cleared of one charge of falsifying election expense returns over Mackinlay’s bitterly contested fight with Nigel Farage for the South Thanet seat in 2015. The jury are still deliberating on charges against Tory activist Marion Little and Mackinley himself…
1) Completely disagree. If preparations are needed then they will have to be paid for, saying it is impossible because some people promised otherwise years ago is nonsense. Also if it is an option in a new referendum then this can be explained in advance.
2) Well why not explain why.
Sorry - the gym called.
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland. Why no hard border? Because that would inflame tensions the like of which we haven't seen for 20 years and the Belfast Agreement.
Well it seems we can't leave properly without a hard border.
So it's either keep the country in a organisation heading towards political union against the wishes of the majority or manage inflamed tensions in NI until a better solution to the border is found.
The former is worse than the latter in my opinion.
The former is impossible. Sorry, but it is simply not going to happen. Do you hear any Brexiter talking about it at all any more a la JRM not so long ago? Nope. You hear them talk about technology and away-from-the-border checks. Even they seem to have realised this simple truth.
Now, will there be technology? Who knows - it would be a brave man who ruled out technology solving a currently intractable problem but as everyone bar Owen Paterson seems to agree, if there is a technological solution, it doesn't seem to exist as of now.
A hard border is impossible? That clearly isn't true.
Perhaps it isn't desirable or worth it compared to other options, but it is definitely possible.
.
Anyone that has been there would say it was probably practically (in the real sense) impossible too. Anything put up would no doubt be ripped down by the mob, and quite rightly so
The mob would tear it down, but they would hardly be justified.
I don't normally agree with mob behaviour, but a hard border would be a monstrous provocation. Perhaps a better justification would be mass passive resistance. Unfortunately in NI that would almost certainly degenerate into violence. Anyone that authorised fences being put up would be insane
Many things are provoking. Civilised people only resort to violence in self-defence.
Alternatively, instead of the 2nd question you could then enact my proposal: a free vote in parliament on all the options, with the knowledge that if they reject them all, the default is No Deal.
That's absurd, because we already know there's currently no majority for any option.
But I do think the papal conclave method is viable. Parliament keeps voting on all options, endlessly, until one gets a majority.
To get a result on time it might require a variant of the conclave method, in which ten MPs chosen at random are shot between each round of voting.
But we no deal by default of Parliament can't agree on anything - the referendum would be a means of preventing No Deal.
We are not going to no deal by default.
Then how is it to be avoided? The General Election route becomes non-viable in a few weeks because of the timescales involved, the referendum route is blocked by a hostile Prime Minister and by its advocates being scattered across party lines and in a minority, and it seems that there is no chance of May passing her deal (and the DUP would topple the Government if she showed real signs of succeeding.)
If an outright majority of MPs is desperate enough to stop the process then they could remove the Government and install one made up of themselves to do it, but the bar to that solution is very high. So how anyone can sound so completely confident that No Deal won't happen is beyond me.
I very much like @Nemtynakht's idea for a referendum, which places the WA as the first option (and if not approved, a choice between remain and no deal).
It could be legislated for in advance by Parliament, subject to the granting of an A50 extension by the EU (which extension would correspondingly be subject to a referendum being held within a fixed timeframe, on those terms).
It would act as a backstop, triggerable at very short notice, up to March 29th, but expiring thereafter, if Parliament was unable to achieve a majority for any other course of action.
This meets the EU's objectives as well if not better than any other alternative. It gives May a chance of getting her deal through - and if would give the nation a chance to decide if it wanted to crash out of the EU without a deal.
Interesting. As a Leaver I could live with that. What I can't live with is deal v remain as only option. Any second referendum should still be last resort though.
Quite - I voted remain on economic grounds after initially thinking about leave on Sovereignty grounds. I have a modern languages degree so I am hardly anti-European but I dislike the construct of the EU and it’s creeping federation. In short I am in the middle - and tbh I don’t know the best option but would probably support deal as it gets on with it, if backstop can be resolved. I think my question puts the risk onto those who won’t support current deal. May could get the ball rolling now and put the frightened on a few leavers and remainers that they might end up with their worst option.
it's a good solution. Bravo. Email it to Number 10.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Maybe she should just put all the options to the vote Parliament (her deal, No Deal, a new referendum, revoking Article 50), and commit herself that if any of the options get a majority, she'll implement it. She's got nothing to lose at this point.
Somebody on here suggested that we have a carousel, where May just keeps putting all the options to a vote of the House, in a endless cycle, until one of them gets a majority.
I wonder how many goes around it would take.
The US House of Representatives once toom about sixty attempts to elect a Speaker, IIRC.
Of course, the canonical (sic) example of a body that takes multiple rounds of votes to reach a decision is the College of Cardinals. So the solution is clear: lock the Commons up in Westminster Abbey until they make a decision. I’m sure the Royal Logistic Corps could rustle up some black and white smoke bombs.
Yeah - but the Abbey needs to be warm, they are given nothing but tea to drink and are not allowed out to pee......
The longest papal conclave took almost three years to elect a pope.
1) Completely disagree. If preparations are needed then they will have to be paid for, saying it is impossible because some people promised otherwise years ago is nonsense. Also if it is an option in a new referendum then this can be explained in advance.
2) Well why not explain why.
Sorry - the gym called.
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland. Why no hard border? Because that would inflame tensions the like of which we haven't seen for 20 years and the Belfast Agreement.
Well it seems we can't leave properly without a hard border.
So it's either keep the country in a organisation heading towards political union against the wishes of the majority or manage inflamed tensions in NI until a better solution to the border is found.
The former is worse than the latter in my opinion.
The former is impossible. Sorry, but it is simply not going to happen. Do you hear any Brexiter talking about it at all any more a la JRM not so long ago? Nope. You hear them talk about technology and away-from-the-border checks. Even they seem to have realised this simple truth.
Now, will there be technology? Who knows - it would be a brave man who ruled out technology solving a currently intractable problem but as everyone bar Owen Paterson seems to agree, if there is a technological solution, it doesn't seem to exist as of now.
A hard border is impossible? That clearly isn't true.
Perhaps it isn't desirable or worth it compared to other options, but it is definitely possible.
Well of course it's possible you can go this afternoon to South Armagh yourself, dressed in a bowler hat and orange sash perhaps, having stopped off at B&Q for some wire mesh fencing and on you go.
By impossible, and I thought it would be obvious as we are on a political-based website, I meant politically impossible.
Well since all three options appear politically impossible then something has to give doesn't it?
Yes there's no doubt we are in a pickle. But of all the impossible things, a hard border is the non-negotiable one.
This meets the EU's objectives as well if not better than any other alternative. It gives May a chance of getting her deal through - and if would give the nation a chance to decide if it wanted to crash out of the EU without a deal.
Will the EU agree to an extension for a referendum that includes "No Deal" as an option?
My preferred option is to have no deal as one of 3 choices available but if the EU won't grant an extension for it then that can only happen if the referendum happens soon.
I guess the EU might agree on the assumption if we did a 3 way there is only a small chance of it happening.
@Nemtynakht proposed below a mechanism to present all three choices, which might be acceptable to the EU, by putting the question on the WA first.
Unlikely. There is only one deal on the table. No deal isn't a serious choice, it's simply a wrecking choice. Parliament would never agree to implement it, the electoral commission would reject it as unclear, and the council would disallow it because it violates the purpose of the whole backstop process and would represent yet more can-kicking.
But a significant number, upto a third of people want it. I think Corbyn would be an economic disaster but I couldn’t say it was wrong for labour to stand. If Remain is going to be on the proposal despite it losing last time then no deal should Be on
The whole point of my proposal is that it makes MPs take personal responsibility, which they say they want. Each one would have to examine his or her conscience (and no doubt the votes in her constituency) and decide what is the right moral choice for the country. And if they decide to go for an option their constituents detest, then they will have to suffer the consequences in the next election.
That's the point. It means every MP will have to stand up and say what they believe (especially Labour MPs, who are hiding behind their leader's waffling ambiguities).
A grand debate and a final vote, in the Commons, Do it.
My guess is that most would want to vote remain, but know they'll lose anywhere between 25-50% of their vote if they do (at best), end up only able to govern in coalition with a UKIP style party that gets 20-30 seats next time round (leading us back to square one) or unleash a Tommeh Tommeh Robinson style far right (at worst).
And that is the problem. The electorate has said "do this" twice - once in the referendum of 2016 and again in the GE of 2017. For them to go away and say we won't do this, having been instructed to repeatedly, is in itself a constitutional crisis. Aside from the fact they would be explicitly refusing the stated wishes of the electorate, the final outcome would likely be enough no-deal diamond-hard Brexiteers in Parliament at the next election to put us right back where we are now. But not enough of them to force no deal on the rest of us.
If both Labour and Conservative MPs lose 25-50% of their leave voters then most Labour MPs would be fine, in fact Labour would probably gain seats.
My suspicion is that Labour leave voting seats would be more vulnerable to a Nu-KIP of the Tommeh Tommeh variety. For all Corbyn's fence-sitting, if his own MPs vote to revoke Article 50 he's been de-fence-estrated, so to speak, and can no longer sit it out.
My guess, based on the polling we saw earlier this week that 24% would feel "betrayed" if we remained (38% when you add "angry" and "disappointed" into the mix) would give a diamond-hard-brexit alliance of MPs (Whether UKIP or others) around 20-30 seats in the commons. Making governing without them very hard, shy of a Labour or Conservative landslide, which seems very unlikely to happen in present circumstances.
So MPs voting to revoke article 50 and remain would find themselves in a situation after the next GE where they couldn't govern without the support of a diamond hard brexit party, else entering into a government of national unity of Con and Lab remainers. And if that ain't an establishment stitch-up, what is?
This meets the EU's objectives as well if not better than any other alternative. It gives May a chance of getting her deal through - and if would give the nation a chance to decide if it wanted to crash out of the EU without a deal.
Will the EU agree to an extension for a referendum that includes "No Deal" as an option?
My preferred option is to have no deal as one of 3 choices available but if the EU won't grant an extension for it then that can only happen if the referendum happens soon.
I guess the EU might agree on the assumption if we did a 3 way there is only a small chance of it happening.
I agree. A transferable vote system between the three options would be best. There is still a danger the electorate might vote for self-harm ultra, but hopefully not
Parliament has no mechanism for conducting transferable votes like that. It's just ayes and noes. Hence the papal conclave method.
The question is this house wishes to remain in the European Union The question is this house wishes to adopt the draft withdrawal agreement The question is this house wishes to leave the European Union without a withdrawal agreement The question is this house wishes a referendum to be held on the draft withdrawal agreement (subject to Article 50 extension and approval of the electoral commission) The question is this house wishes to negotiate a Norway+-style withdrawal agreement The question is this house should dissolve, and the Brexit question be settled by a general election The question is this house wants a "jobs first Brexit" to be negotiated by the Leader of the Opposition.
etc.
The questions are simply put to the house repeatedly over days, weeks, months, years, in a carousel of votes until a majority emerges.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Maybe she should just put all the options to the vote Parliament (her deal, No Deal, a new referendum, revoking Article 50), and commit herself that if any of the options get a majority, she'll implement it. She's got nothing to lose at this point.
Somebody on here suggested that we have a carousel, where May just keeps putting all the options to a vote of the House, in a endless cycle, until one of them gets a majority.
I wonder how many goes around it would take.
The US House of Representatives once toom about sixty attempts to elect a Speaker, IIRC.
Of course, the canonical (sic) example of a body that takes multiple rounds of votes to reach a decision is the College of Cardinals. So the solution is clear: lock the Commons up in Westminster Abbey until they make a decision. I’m sure the Royal Logistic Corps could rustle up some black and white smoke bombs.
Yeah - but the Abbey needs to be warm, they are given nothing but tea to drink and are not allowed out to pee......
The longest papal conclave took almost three years to elect a pope.
Yeah, but the Cardinals do get food, drink, sleeping places and bathroom facilities. Cyclefree's suggestion would sharpen minds immensely.
On the plus side, you *do* lock them up until they make their minds up. Turning Westminster into a prison for a few years could vastly improve the Nation's mood....
Alternatively, instead of the 2nd question you could then enact my proposal: a free vote in parliament on all the options, with the knowledge that if they reject them all, the default is No Deal.
That's absurd, because we already know there's currently no majority for any option.
But I do think the papal conclave method is viable. Parliament keeps voting on all options, endlessly, until one gets a majority.
This meets the EU's objectives as well if not better than any other alternative. It gives May a chance of getting her deal through - and if would give the nation a chance to decide if it wanted to crash out of the EU without a deal.
Will the EU agree to an extension for a referendum that includes "No Deal" as an option?
My preferred option is to have no deal as one of 3 choices available but if the EU won't grant an extension for it then that can only happen if the referendum happens soon.
I guess the EU might agree on the assumption if we did a 3 way there is only a small chance of it happening.
@Nemtynakht proposed below a mechanism to present all three choices, which might be acceptable to the EU, by putting the question on the WA first.
Unlikely. There is only one deal on the table. No deal isn't a serious choice, it's simply a wrecking choice. Parliament would never agree to implement it, the electoral commission would reject it as unclear, and the council would disallow it because it violates the purpose of the whole backstop process and would represent yet more can-kicking.
But a significant number, upto a third of people want it. I think Corbyn would be an economic disaster but I couldn’t say it was wrong for labour to stand. If Remain is going to be on the proposal despite it losing last time then no deal should Be on
And it's no use claiming that 'No deal isn't a serious choice' when it is the default if nothing else can be agreed on.
I have to say that I find the thinking of Conservative MPs incomprehensible. Theresa May offers nothing to the country now: she is used up. Why they decided to leave her in situ is quite beyond me.
Because there is no one to replace her that will get a better result. They know that. As for the likelihood of Mr. Thicky Corbyn being able to renegotiate, that prospect is absolutely laughable.
Quite. What's the point in replacing her when she is so keen to soak up all the punishment of Brexit; and who else REALLY wants to do that job, especially when there is no obvious way of doing a superior job?
Let her be the punchbag for public anger on Brexit. Then she can resign, taking the bruises with her, and the Tories can elect a post-Brexit PM ready to start afresh, untainted by the horrors of the last two years.
And who might this untainted Tory be? The Archangel Gabriel?
Ken Clarke? He might be the nearest they have. Sadly, given his age, he might be rubbing shoulders with the Archangel Gabriel before too long...
Yes: the Tories made a big mistake not electing him as leader. In the last few days and weeks every time he speaks I'm reminded of what a grown up politician sounds like. Then someone like Steve Baker comes on and my skin crawls.......
Indeed. I saw Owen Patterson on the telly yesterday and decided that he is dangerous. His expression and the look in his eyes struck me as those of the pure, believing zealot. In an earlier age he could have been Torquemada ...
This meets the EU's objectives as well if not better than any other alternative. It gives May a chance of getting her deal through - and if would give the nation a chance to decide if it wanted to crash out of the EU without a deal.
Will the EU agree to an extension for a referendum that includes "No Deal" as an option?
My preferred option is to have no deal as one of 3 choices available but if the EU won't grant an extension for it then that can only happen if the referendum happens soon.
I guess the EU might agree on the assumption if we did a 3 way there is only a small chance of it happening.
@Nemtynakht proposed below a mechanism to present all three choices, which might be acceptable to the EU, by putting the question on the WA first.
Unlikely. There is only one deal on the table. No deal isn't a serious choice, it's simply a wrecking choice. Parliament would never agree to implement it, the electoral commission would reject it as unclear, and the council would disallow it because it violates the purpose of the whole backstop process and would represent yet more can-kicking.
But a significant number, upto a third of people want it. I think Corbyn would be an economic disaster but I couldn’t say it was wrong for labour to stand. If Remain is going to be on the proposal despite it losing last time then no deal should Be on
It is dishonest and absurd to request a "no deal" referendum when it's clear that Parliament would never agree to implement it, and perhaps worse, that it's by no means clear what "no deal" actually means.
Alternatively, instead of the 2nd question you could then enact my proposal: a free vote in parliament on all the options, with the knowledge that if they reject them all, the default is No Deal.
That's absurd, because we already know there's currently no majority for any option.
But I do think the papal conclave method is viable. Parliament keeps voting on all options, endlessly, until one gets a majority.
That asks the questions the wrong way round, as leavers will with some justification say that the first question has already been put and answered. @Nemtynakht has the better idea.
As per my post below May intends to arrive at a vote on her deal at the last possible moment and trust that MPs will vote it through to save the country from no deal.
I don't see how brinkmanship ends up in anything other than not getting her way. Either the deal is continually voted down, or the Government vote splits (with half the Tories voting with Labour for the deal, and the other half plus the DUP voting against,) and then both the Conservative Party and the Government collapse and complete chaos reigns - presumably with a successful vote of no confidence thrown into the mix. May's deal almost certainly wouldn't survive such a conflagration and it is possible that the country would both lose the ability and run out of the time needed to come up with any sort of solution at all.
This meets the EU's objectives as well if not better than any other alternative. It gives May a chance of getting her deal through - and if would give the nation a chance to decide if it wanted to crash out of the EU without a deal.
Will the EU agree to an extension for a referendum that includes "No Deal" as an option?
My preferred option is to have no deal as one of 3 choices available but if the EU won't grant an extension for it then that can only happen if the referendum happens soon.
I guess the EU might agree on the assumption if we did a 3 way there is only a small chance of it happening.
@Nemtynakht proposed below a mechanism to present all three choices, which might be acceptable to the EU, by putting the question on the WA first.
Unlikely. There is only one deal on the table. No deal isn't a serious choice, it's simply a wrecking choice. Parliament would never agree to implement it, the electoral commission would reject it as unclear, and the council would disallow it because it violates the purpose of the whole backstop process and would represent yet more can-kicking.
But a significant number, upto a third of people want it. I think Corbyn would be an economic disaster but I couldn’t say it was wrong for labour to stand. If Remain is going to be on the proposal despite it losing last time then no deal should Be on
It is dishonest and absurd to request a "no deal" referendum when it's clear that Parliament would never agree to implement it, and perhaps worse, that it's by no means clear what "no deal" actually means.
Well we will find out pretty quickly if a mechanism isn't found to prevent it, and Nemtynakht's idea looks good to me.
And Parliament doesn't have to agree to implement it.
1) Completely disagree. If preparations are needed then they will have to be paid for, saying it is impossible because some people promised otherwise years ago is nonsense. Also if it is an option in a new referendum then this can be explained in advance.
2) Well why not explain why.
Sorry - the gym called.
I actually wrote three threads on the answer to my second point! I'll summarise: no British PM can embark upon a path, one of the consequences of which would be a hard border in Northern Ireland. Why no hard border? Because that would inflame tensions the like of which we haven't seen for 20 years and the Belfast Agreement.
Well it seems we can't leave properly without a hard border.
So it's either keep the country in a organisation heading towards political union against the wishes of the majority or manage inflamed tensions in NI until a better solution to the border is found.
The former is worse than the latter in my opinion.
The former is impossible. Sorry, but it is simply not going to happen. Do you hear any Brexiter talking about it at all any more a la JRM not so long ago? Nope. You hear them talk about technology and away-from-the-border checks. Even they seem to have realised this simple truth.
Now, will there be technology? Who knows - it would be a brave man who ruled out technology solving a currently intractable problem but as everyone bar Owen Paterson seems to agree, if there is a technological solution, it doesn't seem to exist as of now.
A hard border is impossible? That clearly isn't true.
Perhaps it isn't desirable or worth it compared to other options, but it is definitely possible.
.
Anyone that has been there would say it was probably practically (in the real sense) impossible too. Anything put up would no doubt be ripped down by the mob, and quite rightly so
The mob would tear it down, but they would hardly be justified.
I don't normally agree with mob behaviour, but a hard border would be a monstrous provocation. Perhaps a better justification would be mass passive resistance. Unfortunately in NI that would almost certainly degenerate into violence. Anyone that authorised fences being put up would be insane
Many things are provoking. Civilised people only resort to violence in self-defence.
Or defence of your political ideals. I mean there is a bit of precedent there, you know.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Maybe she should just put all the options to the vote Parliament (her deal, No Deal, a new referendum, revoking Article 50), and commit herself that if any of the options get a majority, she'll implement it. She's got nothing to lose at this point.
Somebody on here suggested that we have a carousel, where May just keeps putting all the options to a vote of the House, in a endless cycle, until one of them gets a majority.
I wonder how many goes around it would take.
The US House of Representatives once toom about sixty attempts to elect a Speaker, IIRC.
Of course, the canonical (sic) example of a body that takes multiple rounds of votes to reach a decision is the College of Cardinals. So the solution is clear: lock the Commons up in Westminster Abbey until they make a decision. I’m sure the Royal Logistic Corps could rustle up some black and white smoke bombs.
Yeah - but the Abbey needs to be warm, they are given nothing but tea to drink and are not allowed out to pee......
The longest papal conclave took almost three years to elect a pope.
Yeah, but the Cardinals do get food, drink, sleeping places and bathroom facilities. Cyclefree's suggestion would sharpen minds immensely.
"The election occurred more than a year after the magistrates of Viterbo locked the cardinals in, reduced their rations to bread and water, and removed the roof of the Palazzo dei Papi di Viterbo."
Alternatively, instead of the 2nd question you could then enact my proposal: a free vote in parliament on all the options, with the knowledge that if they reject them all, the default is No Deal.
That's absurd, because we already know there's currently no majority for any option.
But I do think the papal conclave method is viable. Parliament keeps voting on all options, endlessly, until one gets a majority.
How long is this 'crashing out' construct going to last? How can you 'crash out' with months or potentially more to go? Contrary to what many remainers appear to think, people are not stupid. There is no such thing as a scheduled crash out. The idea is an utter absurdity, and this fact won't be lost long on anyone. Need more customs officers? Get them. Need to bulk buy Mars bars? Do it. Need to prepare the NHS? Do it. Need 6 months to do all this? Get the six months.
As per my post below May intends to arrive at a vote on her deal at the last possible moment and trust that MPs will vote it through to save the country from no deal.
I don't see how brinkmanship ends up in anything other than not getting her way. Either the deal is continually voted down, or the Government vote splits (with half the Tories voting with Labour for the deal, and the other half plus the DUP voting against,) and then both the Conservative Party and the Government collapse and complete chaos reigns - presumably with a successful vote of no confidence thrown into the mix. May's deal almost certainly wouldn't survive such a conflagration and it is possible that the country would both lose the ability and run out of the time needed to come up with any sort of solution at all.
Yes - not legally binding but think who is "the government" - Theresa May: and we know what she thinks of a no deal. She isn't going to allow one.
What are the pathetic arsehole moron ERG-ers going to do when she either calls a referendum or extends A50? Have a vote of no confidence in her?
How long is this 'crashing out' construct going to last? How can you 'crash out' with months or potentially more to go? Contrary to what many remainers appear to think, people are not stupid. There is no such thing as a scheduled crash out. The idea is an utter absurdity, and this fact won't be lost long on anyone. Need more customs officers? Get them. Need to bulk buy Mars bars? Do it. Need to prepare the NHS? Do it. Need 6 months to do all this? Get the six months.
It took the UK seven years to fully integrate into the common market.
Many things are provoking. Civilised people only resort to violence in self-defence.
Or defence of your political ideals. I mean there is a bit of precedent there, you know.
What about punching nazis?
I mean, you gotta punch nazis.
I always like the rational about killing nazis in war films - so evil are nazis that, dramatically, they were essentially the same as zombies and hence you could kill as many of them as horribly as you wanted when it came to films.
How long is this 'crashing out' construct going to last? How can you 'crash out' with months or potentially more to go? Contrary to what many remainers appear to think, people are not stupid. There is no such thing as a scheduled crash out. The idea is an utter absurdity, and this fact won't be lost long on anyone. Need more customs officers? Get them. Need to bulk buy Mars bars? Do it. Need to prepare the NHS? Do it. Need 6 months to do all this? Get the six months.
It took the UK seven years to fully integrate into the common market.
Luckyguy1983 doesn't care. It won't affect him, sitting on Nevskiy Prospekt.
Many things are provoking. Civilised people only resort to violence in self-defence.
Or defence of your political ideals. I mean there is a bit of precedent there, you know.
What about punching nazis?
I mean, you gotta punch nazis.
I always like the rational about killing nazis in war films - so evil are nazis that, dramatically, they were essentially the same as zombies and hence you could kill as many of them as horribly as you wanted when it came to films.
As Oscar Wilde said, the only thing worse than punching Nazis is not punching Nazis.
The focus is really entirely on the wrong party. It's not Theresa May who needs a plan - she has one, a perfectly good one, which is known to be available. It is parliament. She needs to switch the narrative from what they don't want to what they do.
Maybe she should just put all the options to the vote Parliament (her deal, No Deal, a new referendum, revoking Article 50), and commit herself that if any of the options get a majority, she'll implement it. She's got nothing to lose at this point.
Somebody on here suggested that we have a carousel, where May just keeps putting all the options to a vote of the House, in a endless cycle, until one of them gets a majority.
I wonder how many goes around it would take.
The US House of Representatives once toom about sixty attempts to elect a Speaker, IIRC.
Of course, the canonical (sic) example of a body that takes multiple rounds of votes to reach a decision is the College of Cardinals. So the solution is clear: lock the Commons up in Westminster Abbey until they make a decision. I’m sure the Royal Logistic Corps could rustle up some black and white smoke bombs.
Yeah - but the Abbey needs to be warm, they are given nothing but tea to drink and are not allowed out to pee......
The longest papal conclave took almost three years to elect a pope.
Yeah, but the Cardinals do get food, drink, sleeping places and bathroom facilities. Cyclefree's suggestion would sharpen minds immensely.
"The election occurred more than a year after the magistrates of Viterbo locked the cardinals in, reduced their rations to bread and water, and removed the roof of the Palazzo dei Papi di Viterbo."
And it still took them a year! That's TMay levels of stubbornness!
As per my post below May intends to arrive at a vote on her deal at the last possible moment and trust that MPs will vote it through to save the country from no deal.
I don't see how brinkmanship ends up in anything other than not getting her way. Either the deal is continually voted down, or the Government vote splits (with half the Tories voting with Labour for the deal, and the other half plus the DUP voting against,) and then both the Conservative Party and the Government collapse and complete chaos reigns - presumably with a successful vote of no confidence thrown into the mix. May's deal almost certainly wouldn't survive such a conflagration and it is possible that the country would both lose the ability and run out of the time needed to come up with any sort of solution at all.
Yes - not legally binding but think who is "the government" - Theresa May: and we know what she thinks of a no deal. She isn't going to allow one.
What are the pathetic arsehole moron ERG-ers going to do when she either calls a referendum or extends A50? Have a vote of no confidence in her?
She doesn't want to allow one. But she doesn't have the political clout to cancel Brexit. Nobody does. There isn't a scare story, meme, report, war, big enough. It was done when the result came in.
Nemtyknakht's proposal is cleverer and more elegant, and more acceptable to more people.
I fundamentally disagree with that: by asking about the deal first, you near-guarantee its defeat and unnecessarily heighten the stakes on question 2. Even though Deal could probably beat either of the other options head-to-head.
If both Labour and Conservative MPs lose 25-50% of their leave voters then most Labour MPs would be fine, in fact Labour would probably gain seats.
My suspicion is that Labour leave voting seats would be more vulnerable to a Nu-KIP of the Tommeh Tommeh variety. For all Corbyn's fence-sitting, if his own MPs vote to revoke Article 50 he's been de-fence-estrated, so to speak, and can no longer sit it out.
My guess, based on the polling we saw earlier this week that 24% would feel "betrayed" if we remained (38% when you add "angry" and "disappointed" into the mix) would give a diamond-hard-brexit alliance of MPs (Whether UKIP or others) around 20-30 seats in the commons. Making governing without them very hard, shy of a Labour or Conservative landslide, which seems very unlikely to happen in present circumstances.
So MPs voting to revoke article 50 and remain would find themselves in a situation after the next GE where they couldn't govern without the support of a diamond hard brexit party, else entering into a government of national unity of Con and Lab remainers. And if that ain't an establishment stitch-up, what is?
Unless the betrayed leavers came heavily from Labour but very few from the Conservatives then it would harm the Conservatives far more and cause them losses. In the type of heavily leave voting seats you have Conservatives in some places with Labour not far behind them.
Might be wrong but I am sure I remember polling indicating Brexit was more important to Conservative leavers than Labour leavers. It makes sense considering the Conservative campaign was all about Brexit.
More likely than a right brexit party taking most of the leave vote in an area is it taking a portion of it with the Conservatives being the biggest supply of them.
Similarly even with some of the very leave seats Labours vote is made up mostly of remainers, if the Conservatives couldn't take over them then taking a portion of the Conservatives vote wouldn't bring either party closer to victory.
There are very few Labour seats where Labour leave voters are a high percentage. Most of those that voted leave in Labour areas already vote for different parties.
Comments
The only hope is that Parliament can a) sort out an alternative that can command a majority, and b) get it voted through early enough that there is sufficient time for public and political pressure to push the government into changing course.
Assuming - and I think it's likely - Parliament plumped for this option, what happens next?
Here's what Kim-Il Sung said in 1955 about the foundational fundamentalist philosophy of self-reliance ('juche') of the DPRK:
To make revolution in Korea we must know Korean history and geography as well as the customs of the Korean people. Only then is it possible to educate our people in a way that suits them and to inspire in them an ardent love for their native place and their motherland.[20]
In the speech "On Socialist Construction and the South Korean Revolution in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea" given on 14 April 1965, Kim Il-sung outlined the three fundamental principles of Juche:
Political independence (Chosŏn'gŭl: 자주; RR: jaju; MR: chaju)
Economic self-sustenance (Chosŏn'gŭl: 자립; RR: jarip; MR: charip)
Self-reliance in defence (Chosŏn'gŭl: 자위; RR: jawi; MR: chawi)
Hmmmm. Brexit = Juche.
Feels plausible.
I think we are probably now looking at a Deal vs Remain referendum as the endgame:
https://nicktyrone.com/may-wins-the-no-confidence-vote-what-happens-now-the-choices-for-the-country-narrow/
Perhaps it isn't desirable or worth it compared to other options, but it is definitely possible.
Alternatively, he could ask Ed Balls to write his response. That was his approach when he appeared to have insight.
Now, anything parliament decided upon might not be legally binding but, as the Institute for Government says, they would be "politically significant".
Of course, the canonical (sic) example of a body that takes multiple rounds of votes to
reach a decision is the College of Cardinals. So the solution is clear: lock the Commons up in Westminster Abbey until they make a decision. I’m sure the Royal Logistic Corps could rustle up some black and white smoke bombs.
It could be legislated for in advance by Parliament, subject to the granting of an A50 extension by the EU (which extension would correspondingly be subject to a referendum being held within a fixed timeframe, on those terms).
It would act as a backstop, triggerable at very short notice, up to March 29th, but expiring thereafter, if Parliament was unable to achieve a majority for any other course of action.
This meets the EU's objectives as well if not better than any other alternative. It gives May a chance of getting her deal through - and if would give the nation a chance to decide if it wanted to crash out of the EU without a deal.
By impossible, and I thought it would be obvious as we are on a political-based website, I meant politically impossible.
The MPs have their favoured options, but they all want somebody to else to take the flack.
My deal is the only deal on offer.
I'm getting on with delivering Brexit.
(repeat until dead)
One underappreciated point has been that, even if the Meaningful Vote passes, there are still a lot more meaningful votes after that.
Russia/Trumpgate is beginning to acquire the same feel.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/421175-dem-rep-calls-trump-unindicted-co-conspirator-in-cohen-case
"Michael Cohen specifically says that Donald Trump directed him to make these campaign finance payments," Lieu said on CNN. "That means we have a person sitting in the White House right now who is essentially an unindicted co-conspirator."
Multiple Democrats have referred to Trump by that moniker, a term previously applied to former President Nixon in 1974.
The term applies when an individual is named in reference to another crime without being indicted for that crime...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_election,_1268–71
Great model.
And Labour unusable.
And that is the problem. The electorate has said "do this" twice - once in the referendum of 2016 and again in the GE of 2017. For them to go away and say we won't do this, having been instructed to repeatedly, is in itself a constitutional crisis. Aside from the fact they would be explicitly refusing the stated wishes of the electorate, the final outcome would likely be enough no-deal diamond-hard Brexiteers in Parliament at the next election to put us right back where we are now. But not enough of them to force no deal on the rest of us.
Never thought I'd see it but, yes, this is a referendum that could work. It needs a minor change though. We need to drop the Q2.
Meaning that the public is asked quite simply do they support the deal, yes or no? No caveats, no ifs or buts, and none of this self indulgent 'with a heavy heart' guff.
If yes, game over, deal passed.
If no, as we were, back to the politicians and the thorny choice of remain or WTO exit or overrule the public and pass the deal anyway.
It doesn't disrespect the first referendum vote, as it gives priority to the deal we have agreed with the EU for leaving - and even if that is rejected, gives a choice of leaving which is currently the preference of the most extreme Brexiteers.
And it gives retainers a chance of remaining.
The only people it would truly disappoint are the extreme Brexiteers who want to filibuster their way to no deal, and the most uncompromising remainers.
I could live with it.
I guess the EU might agree on the assumption if we did a 3 way there is only a small chance of it happening.
(And I added a suggestion on how it might be legislated for.)
But I do think the papal conclave method is viable. Parliament keeps voting on all options, endlessly, until one gets a majority.
Mark Francois, for example, looks as though he was carved from a block of the salt pork which provisioned Nelson's navy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Francois#/media/File:Official_portrait_of_Mr_Mark_Francois_crop_2.jpg
Craig Mackinlay’s election agent Nathan Gray has been found not guilty of expenses fraud at Southwark Crown Court. Gray was cleared of one charge of falsifying election expense returns over Mackinlay’s bitterly contested fight with Nigel Farage for the South Thanet seat in 2015. The jury are still deliberating on charges against Tory activist Marion Little and Mackinley himself…
My guess, based on the polling we saw earlier this week that 24% would feel "betrayed" if we remained (38% when you add "angry" and "disappointed" into the mix) would give a diamond-hard-brexit alliance of MPs (Whether UKIP or others) around 20-30 seats in the commons. Making governing without them very hard, shy of a Labour or Conservative landslide, which seems very unlikely to happen in present circumstances.
So MPs voting to revoke article 50 and remain would find themselves in a situation after the next GE where they couldn't govern without the support of a diamond hard brexit party, else entering into a government of national unity of Con and Lab remainers. And if that ain't an establishment stitch-up, what is?
The question is this house wishes to remain in the European Union
The question is this house wishes to adopt the draft withdrawal agreement
The question is this house wishes to leave the European Union without a withdrawal agreement
The question is this house wishes a referendum to be held on the draft withdrawal agreement (subject to Article 50 extension and approval of the electoral commission)
The question is this house wishes to negotiate a Norway+-style withdrawal agreement
The question is this house should dissolve, and the Brexit question be settled by a general election
The question is this house wants a "jobs first Brexit" to be negotiated by the Leader of the Opposition.
etc.
The questions are simply put to the house repeatedly over days, weeks, months, years, in a carousel of votes until a majority emerges.
Which do MPs care about more?
Ok..... I know I do not photograph well, but this guy has me beaten
@Nemtynakht has the better idea.
And Parliament doesn't have to agree to implement it.
That you don't get this is I suppose not surprising.
I mean, you gotta punch nazis.
What are the pathetic arsehole moron ERG-ers going to do when she either calls a referendum or extends A50? Have a vote of no confidence in her?
Might be wrong but I am sure I remember polling indicating Brexit was more important to Conservative leavers than Labour leavers. It makes sense considering the Conservative campaign was all about Brexit.
More likely than a right brexit party taking most of the leave vote in an area is it taking a portion of it with the Conservatives being the biggest supply of them.
Similarly even with some of the very leave seats Labours vote is made up mostly of remainers, if the Conservatives couldn't take over them then taking a portion of the Conservatives vote wouldn't bring either party closer to victory.
There are very few Labour seats where Labour leave voters are a high percentage. Most of those that voted leave in Labour areas already vote for different parties.
Bit miffed I didn't back May at evens to win when I first raised it, and then the odds slipped away. Ah well.
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1073230176815906817?s=19