The last bit about a Corbyn govt being good for the long term prospects of the Conservative Part, I sort of agree with (but I think Labour's victory is not inevitable), there is nothing like a spell in opposition to rebuild the party...mind you it took Hague and his cohort a long time......
I don't think winning a vote of confidence in parliament would do much either way, you expect the government to win them, and it's not like winning one makes you safe from another one.
Theresa May's main superpower is creating awkward moments then stretching them out for an uncomfortably long time, like David Brent. Usually the idea is to make herself look uncomfortable to show the necessity for the next uncomfortable thing she's going to do, but in this case it's Jeremy Corybn who's uncomfortable, so she should just leave it hanging there.
No, May won't risk even voting on her deal, let alone a confidence vote, but let someone table a proposal on putting the same deal to a public vote, on which Parliament can vote (and amend) thus meeting the MV requirement.
Labour isn't going to be able to oppose a second referendum, on grounds of respecting the first, and then swing behind Remain (reflecting its member and voter base) when it comes. That would be a pivot too far for Corbyn.
Labour isn't going to be able to oppose a second referendum, on grounds of respecting the first, and then swing behind Remain (reflecting its member and voter base) when it comes. That would be a pivot too far for Corbyn.
Simply say the Tories have messed it up and this is the best way out of it. If the referendum comes down to a choice between May's deal and Remain he isn't going to campaign for May's deal, if no deal is an option he wouldn't campaign for that either. He isn't going to get away with not coming out for any of the options either.
He will have to declare for one and realistically that won't be no deal or May's deal.
Is it possible that we see a series of VONCs, from what I know, they can be tabled fairly easily and once one is breached, unlike Tory leadership votes we may see further ones.....I can imagine wins the first one but loses a second one (or whatever), events will tell
On Biden, do the markets know something I don't? I know there's name recognition in the polling and he has some #MeToo issues but he may well run, he's polling miles out in front of everyone else, he's easily the most experienced candidate, would do great against Trump, he's exactly the kind of guy the Dems would pick if they want to win which they do. 10/1 seems like a steal, no???
Any idea why Pocahontas has drifted to 38 on Betfair for the presidency ? Hills allowed me £5 at 20-1 for Biden (POTUS). The implied odds for Democrats should probably be odds on, particularly for Biden.
I don't know of anything specific but pretty much all the polling is showing her failing to make an impression, and her attempt to address the Pocohontas thing doesn't seem to have been well received. Then Beto seems to be hoovering up a lot of support from the liberal candidates.
But the mystery to me is why the markets are still rating Kamala Harris so highly.
BBC reports May as having a real go at Tony Blair for advocating a second referendum. She’s not at all happy. BBC’s Chris Mason says her criticism is ‘striking’. Describes his call as an ‘insult to the office he once held’!
Pointing her guns at Tony Blair who she says has behaved disgracefully when you think of those closer to home is quite extraordinary. The poor woman's clearly losing it.
BBC reports May as having a real go at Tony Blair for advocating a second referendum. She’s not at all happy. BBC’s Chris Mason says her criticism is ‘striking’. Describes his call as an ‘insult to the office he once held’!
Is her conscience troubling her?
Lost the plot. Lashing out that the world isn’t as she wants it. Probably upset that Blair has more influence in her cabinet than she has.
Pointing her guns at Tony Blair who she says has behaved disgracefully when you think of those closer to home is quite extraordinary. The poor woman's clearly losing it.
It must be very uncomfortable being an inflexible ontrol freak with poor communication skills when what is needed is a flexible listener with charisma. She is like Gordon Brown, so no wonder Tony Blair is anathema.
If anyone is an insult to the office of PM, it’s someone so unable to communicate, so unable to bring the country with her, the only strategy she has is brinkmanship and coercion, to run down the clock, to threaten chaos unless we pick her way.
Pointing her guns at Tony Blair who she says has behaved disgracefully when you think of those closer to home is quite extraordinary. The poor woman's clearly losing it.
It must be very uncomfortable being an inflexible ontrol freak with poor communication skills when what is needed is a flexible listener with charisma. She is like Gordon Brown, so no wonder Tony Blair is anathema.
That is an insult to Gordon Brown, who is leagues ahead of her in communications and intellectual fire power.
Surely she is just picking Blair as an enemy to try and encourage others to circle the wagon around her, hoping their dislike of Blair will overcome everything else.
Also from a party point of view it is less painful for her to have the argument against someone against her Brexit from a remain point of view rather than a leave one. She wants to be cast as fighting for Brexit.
Edit: Doesn't really help with the trying to win Labour MPs votes though, some like Blair and those that don't or don't care won't be moved by it.
BBC reports May as having a real go at Tony Blair for advocating a second referendum. She’s not at all happy. BBC’s Chris Mason says her criticism is ‘striking’. Describes his call as an ‘insult to the office he once held’!
Is her conscience troubling her?
May won't allow a 2nd referendum while she is still PM, as she (like most people) expects Remain to win. The government can't be forced to legislate for a referendum, so the only way to force one is to bring down the government via a VONC. In order to do this, the DUP's votes are required, but they are only likely to bring down the government once the MV is held, so delaying it as long as possible helps the PM.
May recognises that Brexit must be delivered in some form or other; no deal will be better in the long-term for England than revoking article 50 and remaining in the evolving United States of Europe, even if the transition is painful.
Surely she is just picking Blair as an enemy to try and encourage others to circle the wagon around her, hoping their dislike of Blair will overcome everything else.
Also from a party point of view it is less painful for her to have the argument against someone against her Brexit from a remain point of view rather than a leave one. She wants to be cast as fighting for Brexit.
Trying to curry favour with Corbyn and nutters on the far left that bang on about Blair possibly.
More likely, she’s upset he is moe influential than she is. Including with her cabinet and deputy. It’s personal.
BBC reports May as having a real go at Tony Blair for advocating a second referendum. She’s not at all happy. BBC’s Chris Mason says her criticism is ‘striking’. Describes his call as an ‘insult to the office he once held’!
Is her conscience troubling her?
May won't allow a 2nd referendum while she is still PM, as she (like most people) expects Remain to win. The government can't be forced to legislate for a referendum, so the only way to force one is to bring down the government via a VONC. In order to do this, the DUP's votes are required, but they are only likely to bring down the government once the MV is held, so delaying it as long as possible helps the PM.
May recognises that Brexit must be delivered in some form or other; no deal will be better in the long-term for England than revoking article 50 and remaining in the evolving United States of Europe, even if the transition is painful.
There is no way she, or any PM, will take us over the edge without a deal.
BBC reports May as having a real go at Tony Blair for advocating a second referendum. She’s not at all happy. BBC’s Chris Mason says her criticism is ‘striking’. Describes his call as an ‘insult to the office he once held’!
Is her conscience troubling her?
May won't allow a 2nd referendum while she is still PM, as she (like most people) expects Remain to win. The government can't be forced to legislate for a referendum, so the only way to force one is to bring down the government via a VONC. In order to do this, the DUP's votes are required, but they are only likely to bring down the government once the MV is held, so delaying it as long as possible helps the PM.
May recognises that Brexit must be delivered in some form or other; no deal will be better in the long-term for England than revoking article 50 and remaining in the evolving United States of Europe, even if the transition is painful.
There is no way she, or any PM, will take us over the edge without a deal.
I reckon she is crazy enough to do it, or at least incompetent enough to not be able to stop it.
BBC reports May as having a real go at Tony Blair for advocating a second referendum. She’s not at all happy. BBC’s Chris Mason says her criticism is ‘striking’. Describes his call as an ‘insult to the office he once held’!
Is her conscience troubling her?
May won't allow a 2nd referendum while she is still PM, as she (like most people) expects Remain to win. The government can't be forced to legislate for a referendum, so the only way to force one is to bring down the government via a VONC. In order to do this, the DUP's votes are required, but they are only likely to bring down the government once the MV is held, so delaying it as long as possible helps the PM.
May recognises that Brexit must be delivered in some form or other; no deal will be better in the long-term for England than revoking article 50 and remaining in the evolving United States of Europe, even if the transition is painful.
Some form of Brexit being cobbled together and delivered now looks unlikely. But even if it is it clearly won't stick. We'll be back in sooner rather than later.
The moment has passed and it was the leavers that fluffed it.
BBC reports May as having a real go at Tony Blair for advocating a second referendum. She’s not at all happy. BBC’s Chris Mason says her criticism is ‘striking’. Describes his call as an ‘insult to the office he once held’!
Is her conscience troubling her?
May won't allow a 2nd referendum while she is still PM, as she (like most people) expects Remain to win. The government can't be forced to legislate for a referendum, so the only way to force one is to bring down the government via a VONC. In order to do this, the DUP's votes are required, but they are only likely to bring down the government once the MV is held, so delaying it as long as possible helps the PM.
May recognises that Brexit must be delivered in some form or other; no deal will be better in the long-term for England than revoking article 50 and remaining in the evolving United States of Europe, even if the transition is painful.
There is no way she, or any PM, will take us over the edge without a deal.
Please explain to me how a "no deal" exit can be stopped, if she is still PM.
Surely she is just picking Blair as an enemy to try and encourage others to circle the wagon around her, hoping their dislike of Blair will overcome everything else.
Also from a party point of view it is less painful for her to have the argument against someone against her Brexit from a remain point of view rather than a leave one. She wants to be cast as fighting for Brexit.
Trying to curry favour with Corbyn and nutters on the far left that bang on about Blair possibly.
More likely, she’s upset he is moe influential than she is. Including with her cabinet and deputy. It’s personal.
As it often is with May; look at her and Osborn. She's probably worrying that her handling of Brexit will go down in the history book on the same page as Blair and Iraq.
Surely she is just picking Blair as an enemy to try and encourage others to circle the wagon around her, hoping their dislike of Blair will overcome everything else.
Also from a party point of view it is less painful for her to have the argument against someone against her Brexit from a remain point of view rather than a leave one. She wants to be cast as fighting for Brexit.
Trying to curry favour with Corbyn and nutters on the far left that bang on about Blair.
To clarify I wasn't saying Blair is bad there, simply that from a strategic point of view her choosing Blair as a figure to rail against makes strategic sense, he isn't massively popular among the general public and as a strong remain figure she is the Brexit defender in an argument between the two rather than someone betraying Brexit as some in her party might claim.
In the same way May has occasionally tried to point at Corbyn and say he just wants to stop Brexit, she is looking for polarising figures among leavers and right wingers to make it a straight argument with her on the Brexit side rather than being assailed from multiple angles.
Surely she is just picking Blair as an enemy to try and encourage others to circle the wagon around her, hoping their dislike of Blair will overcome everything else.
Also from a party point of view it is less painful for her to have the argument against someone against her Brexit from a remain point of view rather than a leave one. She wants to be cast as fighting for Brexit.
Trying to curry favour with Corbyn and nutters on the far left that bang on about Blair possibly.
More likely, she’s upset he is moe influential than she is. Including with her cabinet and deputy. It’s personal.
As it often is with May; look at her and Osborn. She's probably worrying that her handling of Brexit will go down in the history book on the same page as Blair and Iraq.
I don’t see how this would work. The DUP will vote for the government, just as they have always said they would at this stage in a vote of no confidence. So will the ERG. So will the rest of the Conservative party.
Everyone else will vote against and say thanks for the opportunity to register our lack of confidence, we might well ask everyone to do it again after the next fiasco has shaken the confidence of even the staunchest loyalist. It gives all the opposition MPs the opportunity to take some free hits and coin some soundbites for the evening news and removes the opportunity for the government to say that such motions are meaningless gestures.
At at the end of it all, as the Prime Minister would say, nothing would have changed.
Surely she is just picking Blair as an enemy to try and encourage others to circle the wagon around her, hoping their dislike of Blair will overcome everything else.
Also from a party point of view it is less painful for her to have the argument against someone against her Brexit from a remain point of view rather than a leave one. She wants to be cast as fighting for Brexit.
Trying to curry favour with Corbyn and nutters on the far left that bang on about Blair possibly.
More likely, she’s upset he is moe influential than she is. Including with her cabinet and deputy. It’s personal.
As it often is with May; look at her and Osborn. She's probably worrying that her handling of Brexit will go down in the history book on the same page as Blair and Iraq.
And Cameron’s of our relationship with the EU.
That deserves a whole chapter to itself. Rarely has a PM so blithely led a country into such a disaster (and solely for internal party management, too); I know comparisons are made with Suez, but that was a foreign affairs matter, with only short run consequences other than confirming what we already should have known. Brexit is in a class of its own, and is going to be a political case study across the world for years to come, however it ends.
It's bad enough that Tony Blair is doing more to solve the problem than May herself is without her drawing attention to the fact.
Is the next unlikely twist in the Brexit mess the political rehabilitation of Tony Blair?
She's doing her best. The only ones who might still have had some sypathy for her are Labour's old Blairites who remember only too well what damage her nutter europhobes can cause
It's bad enough that Tony Blair is doing more to solve the problem than May herself is without her drawing attention to the fact.
Is the next unlikely twist in the Brexit mess the political rehabilitation of Tony Blair?
She's doing her best. The only ones who might still have had some sypathy for her are Labour's old Blairites who remember only too well what damage her nutter europhobes can cause
Interesting that this latest Labour initiative for a vote comes from the left, which has traditionally been more sceptic, and not for the moderates who have been champing for it from the beginning. It will be interesting to hear Nick's view.
Surely she is just picking Blair as an enemy to try and encourage others to circle the wagon around her, hoping their dislike of Blair will overcome everything else.
Also from a party point of view it is less painful for her to have the argument against someone against her Brexit from a remain point of view rather than a leave one. She wants to be cast as fighting for Brexit.
Trying to curry favour with Corbyn and nutters on the far left that bang on about Blair possibly.
More likely, she’s upset he is moe influential than she is. Including with her cabinet and deputy. It’s personal.
As it often is with May; look at her and Osborn. She's probably worrying that her handling of Brexit will go down in the history book on the same page as Blair and Iraq.
And Cameron’s of our relationship with the EU.
That deserves a whole chapter to itself. Rarely has a PM so blithely led a country into such a disaster; I know comparisons are made with Suez, but that was a foreign affairs matter, with only short run consequences other than confirming what we already should have known. Brexit is in a class of its own, and is going to be a political case study across the world for years to come, however it ends.
Secession is rarely without adverse consequences. Eire had a civil war shortly after its creation, and was an economic backwater/basket case for many decades, but independence is what most people in Ireland wanted.
On Biden, do the markets know something I don't? I know there's name recognition in the polling and he has some #MeToo issues but he may well run, he's polling miles out in front of everyone else, he's easily the most experienced candidate, would do great against Trump, he's exactly the kind of guy the Dems would pick if they want to win which they do. 10/1 seems like a steal, no???
I think the answer is that nowadays the MeToo stuff is seen as a disqualification, making all the other considerations academic. I know Trump is a glaring exception, but we're talking the Democrats here, and the one strategy that won't work for them is aping Trump.
It's bad enough that Tony Blair is doing more to solve the problem than May herself is without her drawing attention to the fact.
Is the next unlikely twist in the Brexit mess the political rehabilitation of Tony Blair?
She's doing her best. The only ones who might still have had some sypathy for her are Labour's old Blairites who remember only too well what damage her nutter europhobes can cause
She may well be doing her best, but it clearly isn't good enough. It's like watching a carthorse run the Grand National.
May will be gone as soon as the Brexit denouement is finally played out.
She has to decide now whether she wishes to depart with some semblance of control (a referendum on her Deal which has a 50/50 chance of winning), or whether she wants to be ousted after taking the country over Niagara in a barrel.
This is her last decision. It’s become clear there is no runway left.
Surely she is just picking Blair as an enemy to try and encourage others to circle the wagon around her, hoping their dislike of Blair will overcome everything else.
Also from a party point of view it is less painful for her to have the argument against someone against her Brexit from a remain point of view rather than a leave one. She wants to be cast as fighting for Brexit.
Trying to curry favour with Corbyn and nutters on the far left that bang on about Blair possibly.
More likely, she’s upset he is moe influential than she is. Including with her cabinet and deputy. It’s personal.
As it often is with May; look at her and Osborn. She's probably worrying that her handling of Brexit will go down in the history book on the same page as Blair and Iraq.
And Cameron’s of our relationship with the EU.
That deserves a whole chapter to itself. Rarely has a PM so blithely led a country into such a disaster; I know comparisons are made with Suez, but that was a foreign affairs matter, with only short run consequences other than confirming what we already should have known. Brexit is in a class of its own, and is going to be a political case study across the world for years to come, however it ends.
Secession is rarely without adverse consequences. Eire had a civil war shortly after its creation, and was an economic backwater/basket case for many decades, but independence is what most people in Ireland wanted.
But would they, had someone put Civil War on the side of a bus?
Surely she is just picking Blair as an enemy to try and encourage others to circle the wagon around her, hoping their dislike of Blair will overcome everything else.
Also from a party point of view it is less painful for her to have the argument against someone against her Brexit from a remain point of view rather than a leave one. She wants to be cast as fighting for Brexit.
Trying to curry favour with Corbyn and nutters on the far left that bang on about Blair possibly.
More likely, she’s upset he is moe influential than she is. Including with her cabinet and deputy. It’s personal.
As it often is with May; look at her and Osborn. She's probably worrying that her handling of Brexit will go down in the history book on the same page as Blair and Iraq.
And Cameron’s of our relationship with the EU.
That deserves a whole chapter to itself. Rarely has a PM so blithely led a country into such a disaster; I know comparisons are made with Suez, but that was a foreign affairs matter, with only short run consequences other than confirming what we already should have known. Brexit is in a class of its own, and is going to be a political case study across the world for years to come, however it ends.
Secession is rarely without adverse consequences. Eire had a civil war shortly after its creation, and was an economic backwater/basket case for many decades, but independence is what most people in Ireland wanted.
I always wondered what was on the other side of the red bus...
Edit: I made the terrible bus joke first and hackers are responsible for any evidence to the contrary.
Surely she is just picking Blair as an enemy to try and encourage others to circle the wagon around her, hoping their dislike of Blair will overcome everything else.
Also from a party point of view it is less painful for her to have the argument against someone against her Brexit from a remain point of view rather than a leave one. She wants to be cast as fighting for Brexit.
Trying to curry favour with Corbyn and nutters on the far left that bang on about Blair possibly.
More likely, she’s upset he is moe influential than she is. Including with her cabinet and deputy. It’s personal.
As it often is with May; look at her and Osborn. She's probably worrying that her handling of Brexit will go down in the history book on the same page as Blair and Iraq.
And Cameron’s of our relationship with the EU.
That deserves a whole chapter to itself. Rarely has a PM so blithely led a country into such a disaster; I know comparisons are made with Suez, but that was a foreign affairs matter, with only short run consequences other than confirming what we already should have known. Brexit is in a class of its own, and is going to be a political case study across the world for years to come, however it ends.
Secession is rarely without adverse consequences. Eire had a civil war shortly after its creation, and was an economic backwater/basket case for many decades, but independence is what most people in Ireland wanted.
It’s not what most people in Scotland and Northern Ireland wanted. Is their secession from the U.K. a price worth paying?
May will be gone as soon as the Brexit denouement is finally played out.
She has to decide now whether she wishes to depart with some semblance of control (a referendum on her Deal which has a 50/50 chance of winning), or whether she wants to be ousted after taking the country over Niagara in a barrel.
This is her last decision. It’s become clear there is no runway left.
She clearly believes that there is magical bit of text. A few sentences so powerful, so persuasive, so technically perfect that when read, all doubts about her deal will immediately evaporate. Her MPs will rally around her and a grateful nation will be cheering her and her wonderful deal in March 29.
A few signs the Prime Minister is starting to get a bit brittle - the run-in with Juncker at the summit and now this spat with Blair. I can only assume the former Prime Minister has made use of contacts within the EU to put the argument for a second vote across and to gauge what the EU response should be.
Clearly, May now sees herself as the sole arbiter of the negotiations and their outcome - the Cabinet have been reduced to acquiescent nobodies or are planning for her departure. I'm not sure I'm that impressed by this Britannia-esque notion of embodying the nation in herself.
The unfortunate truth is she is now the 1970s plate spinner - rushing here, there and everywhere, always there, always saying the same thing but no one is listening any more.
On the more substantive, Labour's position is starting to come into focus especially with regard to a second vote and I can well understand the opposition to a second vote because I share it. A vote which excludes LEAVE would be hugely divisive and would be seen as a gimmick and, as I argued yesterday, would ask some serious questions about the nature of our democracy.
If the will of the people is paramount then the people have a right to be wrong but even if they are wrong, the will as expressed has to be enacted.
Surely she is just picking Blair as an enemy to try and encourage others to circle the wagon around her, hoping their dislike of Blair will overcome everything else.
Also from a party point of view it is less painful for her to have the argument against someone against her Brexit from a remain point of view rather than a leave one. She wants to be cast as fighting for Brexit.
Trying to curry favour with Corbyn and nutters on the far left that bang on about Blair possibly.
More likely, she’s upset he is moe influential than she is. Including with her cabinet and deputy. It’s personal.
As it often is with May; look at her and Osborn. She's probably worrying that her handling of Brexit will go down in the history book on the same page as Blair and Iraq.
And Cameron’s of our relationship with the EU.
That deserves a whole chapter to itself. Rarely has a PM so blithely led a country into such a disaster; I know comparisons are made with Suez, but that was a foreign affairs matter, with only short run consequences other than confirming what we already should have known. Brexit is in a class of its own, and is going to be a political case study across the world for years to come, however it ends.
Secession is rarely without adverse consequences. Eire had a civil war shortly after its creation, and was an economic backwater/basket case for many decades, but independence is what most people in Ireland wanted.
It’s not what most people in Scotland and Northern Ireland wanted. Is their secession from the U.K. a price worth paying?
Asking for a friend.
Yes. I support both Irish re-unification and Scottish independence, and for the 6 counties and Scotland to remain in the EU, if that is what the majority of people living there respectively want. In September 2014, the people of Scotland were deceived by the 3 unionist parties into believing that the only way for Scotland to stay in the EU was to vote NO, whereas the opposite has turned out to be true.
A few signs the Prime Minister is starting to get a bit brittle - the run-in with Juncker at the summit and now this spat with Blair. I can only assume the former Prime Minister has made use of contacts within the EU to put the argument for a second vote across and to gauge what the EU response should be.
Clearly, May now sees herself as the sole arbiter of the negotiations and their outcome - the Cabinet have been reduced to acquiescent nobodies or are planning for her departure. I'm not sure I'm that impressed by this Britannia-esque notion of embodying the nation in herself.
The unfortunate truth is she is now the 1970s plate spinner - rushing here, there and everywhere, always there, always saying the same thing but no one is listening any more.
On the more substantive, Labour's position is starting to come into focus especially with regard to a second vote and I can well understand the opposition to a second vote because I share it. A vote which excludes LEAVE would be hugely divisive and would be seen as a gimmick and, as I argued yesterday, would ask some serious questions about the nature of our democracy.
If the will of the people is paramount then the people have a right to be wrong but even if they are wrong, the will as expressed has to be enacted.
History is full of leaders who worked hard, thought they knew best, worked in the national interest as they saw it and led their country to disaster.
In the light of all we have learned since 2016 it is perfectly democratic to go back to the people. It is not as if politicians haven’t tried to enact Brexit, the trouble is they have not found a way to do it without serious downsides, checking seems sensible.
May will be gone as soon as the Brexit denouement is finally played out.
She has to decide now whether she wishes to depart with some semblance of control (a referendum on her Deal which has a 50/50 chance of winning), or whether she wants to be ousted after taking the country over Niagara in a barrel.
This is her last decision. It’s become clear there is no runway left.
She clearly believes that there is magical bit of text. A few sentences so powerful, so persuasive, so technically perfect that when read, all doubts about her deal will immediately evaporate. Her MPs will rally around her and a grateful nation will be cheering her and her wonderful deal in March 29.
History will look back and wonder whether, had the Brexiters got behind her deal from the beginning as a realistic first step toward their dream, it might have got through.
Surely she is just picking Blair as an enemy to try and encourage others to circle the wagon around her, hoping their dislike of Blair will overcome everything else.
Also from a party point of view it is less painful for her to have the argument against someone against her Brexit from a remain point of view rather than a leave one. She wants to be cast as fighting for Brexit.
Trying to curry favour with Corbyn and nutters on the far left that bang on about Blair possibly.
More likely, she’s upset he is moe influential than she is. Including with her cabinet and deputy. It’s personal.
As it often is with May; look at her and Osborn. She's probably worrying that her handling of Brexit will go down in the history book on the same page as Blair and Iraq.
And Cameron’s of our relationship with the EU.
That deserves a whole chapter to itself. Rarely has a PM so blithely led a country into such a disaster (and solely for internal party management, too); I know comparisons are made with Suez, but that was a foreign affairs matter, with only short run consequences other than confirming what we already should have known. Brexit is in a class of its own, and is going to be a political case study across the world for years to come, however it ends.
It was politics. A large part of the electorate (4m strong) was agitating for one particular policy; a policy which no party had hitherto offered.
One of the parties in order to achieve electoral success decided to include that policy in its manifesto. That's what pressure groups are designed for and UKIP is the most successful pressure group of recent times.
And the rest is (and will be written about in) history.
May will be gone as soon as the Brexit denouement is finally played out.
She has to decide now whether she wishes to depart with some semblance of control (a referendum on her Deal which has a 50/50 chance of winning), or whether she wants to be ousted after taking the country over Niagara in a barrel.
This is her last decision. It’s become clear there is no runway left.
She clearly believes that there is magical bit of text. A few sentences so powerful, so persuasive, so technically perfect that when read, all doubts about her deal will immediately evaporate. Her MPs will rally around her and a grateful nation will be cheering her and her wonderful deal in March 29.
History will look back and wonder whether, had the Brexiters got behind her deal from the beginning as a realistic first step toward their dream, it might have got through.
But her deal was so seriously flawed, that only the loyalists could get behind it.
BBC reports May as having a real go at Tony Blair for advocating a second referendum. She’s not at all happy. BBC’s Chris Mason says her criticism is ‘striking’. Describes his call as an ‘insult to the office he once held’!
Is her conscience troubling her?
One of May’s most unpleasant traits is her vainglorious attempts to position herself as the arbiter of what a Prime Minister should be. First her repeated refrain that “No British Prime Minister could ever sign up to [insert alternative to her policy du jour]” and now this attack on Blair.
Given that she is single-handedly writing the textbook on How Not To Be A Successful Prime Minister, it’s almost funny.
A few signs the Prime Minister is starting to get a bit brittle - the run-in with Juncker at the summit and now this spat with Blair. I can only assume the former Prime Minister has made use of contacts within the EU to put the argument for a second vote across and to gauge what the EU response should be.
Clearly, May now sees herself as the sole arbiter of the negotiations and their outcome - the Cabinet have been reduced to acquiescent nobodies or are planning for her departure. I'm not sure I'm that impressed by this Britannia-esque notion of embodying the nation in herself.
The unfortunate truth is she is now the 1970s plate spinner - rushing here, there and everywhere, always there, always saying the same thing but no one is listening any more.
On the more substantive, Labour's position is starting to come into focus especially with regard to a second vote and I can well understand the opposition to a second vote because I share it. A vote which excludes LEAVE would be hugely divisive and would be seen as a gimmick and, as I argued yesterday, would ask some serious questions about the nature of our democracy.
If the will of the people is paramount then the people have a right to be wrong but even if they are wrong, the will as expressed has to be enacted.
History is full of leaders who worked hard, thought they knew best, worked in the national interest as they saw it and led their country to disaster.
In the light of all we have learned since 2016 it is perfectly democratic to go back to the people. It is not as if politicians haven’t tried to enact Brexit, the trouble is they have not found a way to do it without serious downsides, checking seems sensible.
Another vote would just make things even more divisive, espec if remain won.. We voted out we have to live with that decision. We are NOT Southern Ireland.
Surely she is just picking Blair as an enemy to try and encourage others to circle the wagon around her, hoping their dislike of Blair will overcome everything else.
Also from a party point of view it is less painful for her to have the argument against someone against her Brexit from a remain point of view rather than a leave one. She wants to be cast as fighting for Brexit.
Trying to curry favour with Corbyn and nutters on the far left that bang on about Blair possibly.
More likely, she’s upset he is moe influential than she is. Including with her cabinet and deputy. It’s personal.
As it often is with May; look at her and Osborn. She's probably worrying that her handling of Brexit will go down in the history book on the same page as Blair and Iraq.
And Cameron’s of our relationship with the EU.
That deserves a whole chapter to itself. Rarely has a PM so blithely led a country into such a disaster (and solely for internal party management, too); I know comparisons are made with Suez, but that was a foreign affairs matter, with only short run consequences other than confirming what we already should have known. Brexit is in a class of its own, and is going to be a political case study across the world for years to come, however it ends.
It was politics. A large part of the electorate (4m strong) was agitating for one particular policy; a policy which no party had hitherto offered.
One of the parties in order to achieve electoral success decided to include that policy in its manifesto. That's what pressure groups are designed for and UKIP is the most successful pressure group of recent times.
And the rest is (and will be written about in) history.
Nevertheless there is a stack of ways he could have managed things differently and avoided such a poor outcome; indeed it isn't difficult to see how, with a bit of effort and preparation, he could have got the outcome he wanted.
Parliament asked the voters to make the decision. The voters did so.
This came as shock to Parliament who hoped and expected they wouldn't do this. So they tried to take back control without seeming to do so. Every criticism of the result was balanced with "But obviously, we must still honour the referendum result." They had no intention of doing so.
Does anyone think they did? Seriously. Parliament (as a whole) never wanted Brexit, and they were always going to stall as long as possible and claim we'd changed our minds whether we had done or not.
They had two options, Bite the bullet and revoke art 50, or send it back for another go in the hope we'd change our minds after a couple of years of Project Fear (no exaggeration too silly).
This very un-cunning plan would fool only the fanatics who wanted to be fooled. But the self-appointed superior people never really fuss about democracy as long as they get their own way. It may not work but it's their best shot.
Why not be honest? Because dishonesty is more effective sometimes. Has this brought Parliament into disrepute? Without a doubt, but that's not the voters' fault, it's Parliament's.
The LDs may be undemocratic but they are. at least, honest, even if their 'Democrat' label is dishonest.
Surely she is just picking Blair as an enemy to try and encourage others to circle the wagon around her, hoping their dislike of Blair will overcome everything else.
Also from a party point of view it is less painful for her to have the argument against someone against her Brexit from a remain point of view rather than a leave one. She wants to be cast as fighting for Brexit.
Trying to curry favour with Corbyn and nutters on the far left that bang on about Blair possibly.
More likely, she’s upset he is moe influential than she is. Including with her cabinet and deputy. It’s personal.
As it often is with May; look at her and Osborn. She's probably worrying that her handling of Brexit will go down in the history book on the same page as Blair and Iraq.
And Cameron’s of our relationship with the EU.
That deserves a whole chapter to itself. Rarely has a PM so blithely led a country into such a disaster (and solely for internal party management, too); I know comparisons are made with Suez, but that was a foreign affairs matter, with only short run consequences other than confirming what we already should have known. Brexit is in a class of its own, and is going to be a political case study across the world for years to come, however it ends.
It was politics. A large part of the electorate (4m strong) was agitating for one particular policy; a policy which no party had hitherto offered.
One of the parties in order to achieve electoral success decided to include that policy in its manifesto. That's what pressure groups are designed for and UKIP is the most successful pressure group of recent times.
And the rest is (and will be written about in) history.
Nevertheless there is a stack of ways he could have managed things differently and avoided such a poor outcome; indeed it isn't difficult to see how, with a bit of effort and preparation, he could have got the outcome he wanted.
Surely she is just picking Blair as an enemy to try and encourage others to circle the wagon around her, hoping their dislike of Blair will overcome everything else.
Also from a party point of view it is less painful for her to have the argument against someone against her Brexit from a remain point of view rather than a leave one. She wants to be cast as fighting for Brexit.
Trying to curry favour with Corbyn and nutters on the far left that bang on about Blair possibly.
More likely, she’s upset he is moe influential than she is. Including with her cabinet and deputy. It’s personal.
As it often is with May; look at her and Osborn. She's probably worrying that her handling of Brexit will go down in the history book on the same page as Blair and Iraq.
And Cameron’s of our relationship with the EU.
That deserves a whole chapter to itself. Rarely has a PM so blithely led a country into such a disaster (and solely for internal party management, too); I know comparisons are made with Suez, but that was a foreign affairs matter, with only short run consequences other than confirming what we already should have known. Brexit is in a class of its own, and is going to be a political case study across the world for years to come, however it ends.
Its fascinating how quick people are to blame DC.....virtually all the parties supported the bill that approved the referendum (and hence got us into the mess) and are often the same people now slating DC- (I(for one think his run for the exit was notable having not prepped for NO vote), but a whole load of Parliamentarians backed the bill's passage - they need to shoulder the blame for this debacle...if they want to take back control they need the bxlls to stand up (and I put JC firmly in the frame on this one)
A few signs the Prime Minister is starting to get a bit brittle - the run-in with Juncker at the summit and now this spat with Blair. I can only assume the former Prime Minister has made use of contacts within the EU to put the argument for a second vote across and to gauge what the EU response should be.
Clearly, May now sees herself as the sole arbiter of the negotiations and their outcome - the Cabinet have been reduced to acquiescent nobodies or are planning for her departure. I'm not sure I'm that impressed by this Britannia-esque notion of embodying the nation in herself.
The unfortunate truth is she is now the 1970s plate spinner - rushing here, there and everywhere, always there, always saying the same thing but no one is listening any more.
On the more substantive, Labour's position is starting to come into focus especially with regard to a second vote and I can well understand the opposition to a second vote because I share it. A vote which excludes LEAVE would be hugely divisive and would be seen as a gimmick and, as I argued yesterday, would ask some serious questions about the nature of our democracy.
If the will of the people is paramount then the people have a right to be wrong but even if they are wrong, the will as expressed has to be enacted.
History is full of leaders who worked hard, thought they knew best, worked in the national interest as they saw it and led their country to disaster.
In the light of all we have learned since 2016 it is perfectly democratic to go back to the people. It is not as if politicians haven’t tried to enact Brexit, the trouble is they have not found a way to do it without serious downsides, checking seems sensible.
Another vote would just make things even more divisive, espec if remain won.. We voted out we have to live with that decision. We are NOT Southern Ireland.
I don’t buy it. What you mean is that some Leavers might be upset, some very upset if the people changed their mind. Not ideal, but that’s better than the risk of economic chaos or a long term zombie like relationship with the the EU.
We are already a divided nation. There are no good outcomes now, just various bad ones.
Surely she is just picking Blair as an enemy to try and encourage others to circle the wagon around her, hoping their dislike of Blair will overcome everything else.
Also from a party point of view it is less painful for her to have the argument against someone against her Brexit from a remain point of view rather than a leave one. She wants to be cast as fighting for Brexit.
Trying to curry favour with Corbyn and nutters on the far left that bang on about Blair possibly.
More likely, she’s upset he is moe influential than she is. Including with her cabinet and deputy. It’s personal.
As it often is with May; look at her and Osborn. She's probably worrying that her handling of Brexit will go down in the history book on the same page as Blair and Iraq.
And Cameron’s of our relationship with the EU.
That deserves a whole chapter to itself. Rarely has a PM so blithely led a country into such a disaster (and solely for internal party management, too); I know comparisons are made with Suez, but that was a foreign affairs matter, with only short run consequences other than confirming what we already should have known. Brexit is in a class of its own, and is going to be a political case study across the world for years to come, however it ends.
It was politics. A large part of the electorate (4m strong) was agitating for one particular policy; a policy which no party had hitherto offered.
One of the parties in order to achieve electoral success decided to include that policy in its manifesto. That's what pressure groups are designed for and UKIP is the most successful pressure group of recent times.
And the rest is (and will be written about in) history.
Nevertheless there is a stack of ways he could have managed things differently and avoided such a poor outcome; indeed it isn't difficult to see how, with a bit of effort and preparation, he could have got the outcome he wanted.
All Brexits are inadvisable.
However the ONE sane Brexit was discussed on PB even before the referendum which was effectively an exit to EFTA en route to a broader FTA.
However this requires patience and a willingness to address reality. The Brexit campaigns themselves look to have destroyed Brexit.
A few signs the Prime Minister is starting to get a bit brittle - the run-in with Juncker at the summit and now this spat with Blair. I can only assume the former Prime Minister has made use of contacts within the EU to put the argument for a second vote across and to gauge what the EU response should be.
Clearly, May now sees herself as the sole arbiter of the negotiations and their outcome - the Cabinet have been reduced to acquiescent nobodies or are planning for her departure. I'm not sure I'm that impressed by this Britannia-esque notion of embodying the nation in herself.
The unfortunate truth is she is now the 1970s plate spinner - rushing here, there and everywhere, always there, always saying the same thing but no one is listening any more.
On the more substantive, Labour's position is starting to come into focus especially with regard to a second vote and I can well understand the opposition to a second vote because I share it. A vote which excludes LEAVE would be hugely divisive and would be seen as a gimmick and, as I argued yesterday, would ask some serious questions about the nature of our democracy.
If the will of the people is paramount then the people have a right to be wrong but even if they are wrong, the will as expressed has to be enacted.
History is full of leaders who worked hard, thought they knew best, worked in the national interest as they saw it and led their country to disaster.
In the light of all we have learned since 2016 it is perfectly democratic to go back to the people. It is not as if politicians haven’t tried to enact Brexit, the trouble is they have not found a way to do it without serious downsides, checking seems sensible.
Another vote would just make things even more divisive, espec if remain won.. We voted out we have to live with that decision. We are NOT Southern Ireland.
No, that would be silly. There is nothing democratic about pressing ahead with a big mistake against the will of a majority of the people.
The unfortunate truth is she is now the 1970s plate spinner - rushing here, there and everywhere, always there, always saying the same thing but no one is listening any more. .
In the light of all we have learned since 2016 it is perfectly democratic to go back to the people.
Another vote would just make things even more divisive, espec if remain won.. We voted out we have to live with that decision. We are NOT Southern Ireland.
A few signs the Prime Minister is starting to get a bit brittle - the run-in with Juncker at the summit and now this spat with Blair. I can only assume the former Prime Minister has made use of contacts within the EU to put the argument for a second vote across and to gauge what the EU response should be.
Clearly, May now sees herself as the sole arbiter of the negotiations and their outcome - the Cabinet have been reduced to acquiescent nobodies or are planning for her departure. I'm not sure I'm that impressed by this Britannia-esque notion of embodying the nation in herself.
The unfortunate truth is she is now the 1970s plate spinner - rushing here, there and everywhere, always there, always saying the same thing but no one is listening any more.
On the more substantive, Labour's position is starting to come into focus especially with regard to a second vote and I can well understand the opposition to a second vote because I share it. A vote which excludes LEAVE would be hugely divisive and would be seen as a gimmick and, as I argued yesterday, would ask some serious questions about the nature of our democracy.
If the will of the people is paramount then the people have a right to be wrong but even if they are wrong, the will as expressed has to be enacted.
History is full of leaders who worked hard, thought they knew best, worked in the national interest as they saw it and led their country to disaster.
In the light of all we have learned since 2016 it is perfectly democratic to go back to the people. It is not as if politicians haven’t tried to enact Brexit, the trouble is they have not found a way to do it without serious downsides, checking seems sensible.
Another vote would just make things even more divisive, espec if remain won.. We voted out we have to live with that decision. We are NOT Southern Ireland.
Going forward with a hugely disruptive policy when it isn't even clear it retains majority support doesn't sound either very sensible or democratic.
I am wondering if a new party may have to be created in Parliament composed of MPs who support a second referendum or who would be willing to support a VONC in the government. This could be necessary if JC is too paralysed to act to avoid a no deal Brexit.
The advantage of this is that if this party had enough MPs it would become the Opposition in the House of Commons and its leader would be the Leader of the Opposition, giving it additional parliamentary options as the date for a no deal Brexit approaches.
Parliament asked the voters to make the decision. The voters did so.
This came as shock to Parliament who hoped and expected they wouldn't do this. So they tried to take back control without seeming to do so. Every criticism of the result was balanced with "But obviously, we must still honour the referendum result." They had no intention of doing so.
Does anyone think they did? Seriously. Parliament (as a whole) never wanted Brexit, and they were always going to stall as long as possible and claim we'd changed our minds whether we had done or not.
They had two options, Bite the bullet and revoke art 50, or send it back for another go in the hope we'd change our minds after a couple of years of Project Fear (no exaggeration too silly).
This very un-cunning plan would fool only the fanatics who wanted to be fooled. But the self-appointed superior people never really fuss about democracy as long as they get their own way. It may not work but it's their best shot.
Why not be honest? Because dishonesty is more effective sometimes. Has this brought Parliament into disrepute? Without a doubt, but that's not the voters' fault, it's Parliament's.
The LDs may be undemocratic but they are. at least, honest, even if their 'Democrat' label is dishonest.
At the end of the day (and in an ideal world) politicians are there do the right thing and democracy is there to make sure we agree with them (or that they agree with us). It is still possible to exit from this mess with both of those things intact.
A few signs the Prime Minister is starting to get a bit brittle - the run-in with Juncker at the summit and now this spat with Blair. I can only assume the former Prime Minister has made use of contacts within the EU to put the argument for a second vote across and to gauge what the EU response should be.
Clearly, May now sees herself as the sole arbiter of the negotiations and their outcome - the Cabinet have been reduced to acquiescent nobodies or are planning for her departure. I'm not sure I'm that impressed by this Britannia-esque notion of embodying the nation in herself.
The unfortunate truth is she is now the 1970s plate spinner - rushing here, there and everywhere, always there, always saying the same thing but no one is listening any more.
On the more substantive, Labour's position is starting to come into focus especially with regard to a second vote and I can well understand the opposition to a second vote because I share it. A vote which excludes LEAVE would be hugely divisive and would be seen as a gimmick and, as I argued yesterday, would ask some serious questions about the nature of our democracy.
If the will of the people is paramount then the people have a right to be wrong but even if they are wrong, the will as expressed has to be enacted.
Probably not a fashionable view, but I’m not sure the will of the people has ever been paramount in British politics.
We have a second strand: continuity. Broadly, the House of Commons represents the will of the people, the House of Lords represents continuity, and the Civil Service attempts to shape and implement laws to reflect both strands. The result is our country of liberal views, progressing conservatively.
If continuity is to be jettisoned, and the will of the people elevated to sole arbiter, our polity will need to be entirely rebuilt. I’m not convinced that current experience shows this to be a wise course.
Until then, a second, confirmatory referendum is entirely in keeping with British democracy and its tradition of continuity and reflection.
History is full of leaders who worked hard, thought they knew best, worked in the national interest as they saw it and led their country to disaster.
In the light of all we have learned since 2016 it is perfectly democratic to go back to the people. It is not as if politicians haven’t tried to enact Brexit, the trouble is they have not found a way to do it without serious downsides, checking seems sensible.
I certainly don't disagree with your first paragraph.
I'm still troubled by the notion of the second paragraph. I don't disagree the Government's primary duty is to protect the citizens of the country and by definition that includes from obvious threats both internal and external but also, it seems to me, from the people themselves.
However, democracy is defined as the will of the people and it seems to me if we purport to live in a democracy than the will of the people must always be paramount and should always be enacted even if the consequences of so doing are negative.
The Government should of course try to mitigate the consequences of that (and there's an argument for May's Deal) but mitigation is not the same as obstruction or frustration. The other aspect is education - explaining to the public the consequences of the decision they took (without Project Fear).
Stretch that to its logical conclusion and if Corbyn's Labour Party wins a majority at the next GE, the Conservatives could turn round, refuse to accept the result and claim voting Labour will damage the country and that, in the best interests of the country, they (the Conservatives) would remain in Government.
A few signs the Prime Minister is starting to get a bit brittle - the run-in with Juncker at the summit and now this spat with Blair. I can only assume the former Prime Minister has made use of contacts within the EU to put the argument for a second vote across and to gauge what the EU response should be.
Clearly, May now sees herself as the sole arbiter of the negotiations and their outcome - the Cabinet have been reduced to acquiescent nobodies or are planning for her departure. I'm not sure I'm that impressed by this Britannia-esque notion of embodying the nation in herself.
The unfortunate truth is she is now the 1970s plate spinner - rushing here, there and everywhere, always there, always saying the same thing but no one is listening any more.
On the more substantive, Labour's position is starting to come into focus especially with regard to a second vote and I can well understand the opposition to a second vote because I share it. A vote which excludes LEAVE would be hugely divisive and would be seen as a gimmick and, as I argued yesterday, would ask some serious questions about the nature of our democracy.
If the will of the people is paramount then the people have a right to be wrong but even if they are wrong, the will as expressed has to be enacted.
History is full of leaders who worked hard, thought they knew best, worked in the national interest as they saw it and led their country to disaster.
In the light of all we have learned since 2016 it is perfectly democratic to go back to the people. It is not as if politicians haven’t tried to enact Brexit, the trouble is they have not found a way to do it without serious downsides, checking seems sensible.
Another vote would just make things even more divisive, espec if remain won.. We voted out we have to live with that decision. We are NOT Southern Ireland.
No, that would be silly. There is nothing democratic about pressing ahead with a big mistake against the will of a majority of the people.
But that will,has been expressed by both a referendum and then a manifesto commitment by both land and con to honour it.
I,Aline it had gone the other way. 52% remain. But immediately following the polls flipped. And an assorted array of articulate individuals, journalists, former prime ministers, business leaders pushed the government to actually leave. And the EU we all supported is now different with army, debt crisis etc.
And the gvt went and triggered article 50. You would be absolutely livid.
The unfortunate truth is she is now the 1970s plate spinner - rushing here, there and everywhere, always there, always saying the same thing but no one is listening any more. .
In the light of all we have learned since 2016 it is perfectly democratic to go back to the people.
Another vote would just make things even more divisive, espec if remain won.. We voted out we have to live with that decision. We are NOT Southern Ireland.
A few signs the Prime Minister is starting to get a bit brittle - the run-in with Juncker at the summit and now this spat with Blair. I can only assume the former Prime Minister has made use of contacts within the EU to put the argument for a second vote across and to gauge what the EU response should be.
Clearly, May now sees herself as the sole arbiter of the negotiations and their outcome - the Cabinet have been reduced to acquiescent nobodies or are planning for her departure. I'm not sure I'm that impressed by this Britannia-esque notion of embodying the nation in herself.
The unfortunate truth is she is now the 1970s plate spinner - rushing here, there and everywhere, always there, always saying the same thing but no one is listening any more.
On the more substantive, Labour's position is starting to come into focus especially with regard to a second vote and I can well understand the opposition to a second vote because I share it. A vote which excludes LEAVE would be hugely divisive and would be seen as a gimmick and, as I argued yesterday, would ask some serious questions about the nature of our democracy.
If the will of the people is paramount then the people have a right to be wrong but even if they are wrong, the will as expressed has to be enacted.
History is full of leaders who worked hard, thought they knew best, worked in the national interest as they saw it and led their country to disaster.
In the light of all we have learned since 2016 it is perfectly democratic to go back to the people. It is not as if politicians haven’t tried to enact Brexit, the trouble is they have not found a way to do it without serious downsides, checking seems sensible.
Another vote would just make things even more divisive, espec if remain won.. We voted out we have to live with that decision. We are NOT Southern Ireland.
Going forward with a hugely disruptive policy when it isn't even clear it retains majority support doesn't sound either very sensible or democratic.
It is clear we voted out. That much we do know. I am a remainer..., I just get it
May will be gone as soon as the Brexit denouement is finally played out.
She has to decide now whether she wishes to depart with some semblance of control (a referendum on her Deal which has a 50/50 chance of winning), or whether she wants to be ousted after taking the country over Niagara in a barrel.
This is her last decision. It’s become clear there is no runway left.
Spot-on. This is exactly the situation.
All roads lead to a referendum now if logic prevails (operative word being "if").
Surely she is just picking Blair as an enemy to try and encourage others to circle the wagon around her, hoping their dislike of Blair will overcome everything else.
Also from a party point of view it is less painful for her to have the argument against someone against her Brexit from a remain point of view rather than a leave one. She wants to be cast as fighting for Brexit.
Trying to curry favour with Corbyn and nutters on the far left that bang on about Blair possibly.
More likely, she’s upset he is moe influential than she is. Including with her cabinet and deputy. It’s personal.
As it often is with May; look at her and Osborn. She's probably worrying that her handling of Brexit will go down in the history book on the same page as Blair and Iraq.
And Cameron’s of our relationship with the EU.
That deserves a whole chapter to itself. Rarely has a PM so blithely led a country into such a disaster (and solely for internal party management, too); I know comparisons are made with Suez, but that was a foreign affairs matter, with only short run consequences other than confirming what we already should have known. Brexit is in a class of its own, and is going to be a political case study across the world for years to come, however it ends.
It was politics. A large part of the electorate (4m strong) was agitating for one particular policy; a policy which no party had hitherto offered.
One of the parties in order to achieve electoral success decided to include that policy in its manifesto. That's what pressure groups are designed for and UKIP is the most successful pressure group of recent times.
And the rest is (and will be written about in) history.
Nevertheless there is a stack of ways he could have managed things differently and avoided such a poor outcome; indeed it isn't difficult to see how, with a bit of effort and preparation, he could have got the outcome he wanted.
All Brexits are inadvisable.
However the ONE sane Brexit was discussed on PB even before the referendum which was effectively an exit to EFTA en route to a broader FTA.
However this requires patience and a willingness to address reality. The Brexit campaigns themselves look to have destroyed Brexit.
Was it not May’s redlines that made such a move impossible? She ruled out free movement and ECJ jurisdiction before any Brexiteers got stuck in.
I think the only thing that can stop a referendum now is a group of extreme remainers holding out for the referendum ++ option.
There are major obstacles to holding another referendum before 29/3/19.
The present government won't enact legislation for a referendum and doesn't intend to revoke or delay implementation of A50. Therefore, it would need to be brought down by a VONC, and replaced by one that would do so, at least a few weeks before 29/3/19, which is easier said than done.
The clock is ticking, and running the clock down is clearly May's current strategy.
Parliament asked the voters to make the decision. The voters did so.
This came as shock to Parliament who hoped and expected they wouldn't do this. So they tried to take back control without seeming to do so. Every criticism of the result was balanced with "But obviously, we must still honour the referendum result." They had no intention of doing so.
Does anyone think they did? Seriously. Parliament (as a whole) never wanted Brexit, and they were always going to stall as long as possible and claim we'd changed our minds whether we had done or not.
They had two options, Bite the bullet and revoke art 50, or send it back for another go in the hope we'd change our minds after a couple of years of Project Fear (no exaggeration too silly).
This very un-cunning plan would fool only the fanatics who wanted to be fooled. But the self-appointed superior people never really fuss about democracy as long as they get their own way. It may not work but it's their best shot.
Why not be honest? Because dishonesty is more effective sometimes. Has this brought Parliament into disrepute? Without a doubt, but that's not the voters' fault, it's Parliament's.
The LDs may be undemocratic but they are. at least, honest, even if their 'Democrat' label is dishonest.
A few signs the Prime Minister is starting to get a bit brittle - the run-in with Juncker at the summit and now this spat with Blair. I can only assume the former Prime Minister has made use of contacts within the EU to put the argument for a second vote across and to gauge what the EU response should be.
Clearly, May now sees herself as the sole arbiter of the negotiations and their outcome - the Cabinet have been reduced to acquiescent nobodies or are planning for her departure. I'm not sure I'm that impressed by this Britannia-esque notion of embodying the nation in herself.
The unfortunate truth is she is now the 1970s plate spinner - rushing here, there and everywhere, always there, always saying the same thing but no one is listening any more.
On the mo of our democracy.
If the will of the people is paramount then the people have a right to be wrong but even if they are wrong, the will as expressed has to be enacted.
History is full of leaders who worked hard, thought they knew best, worked in the national interest as they saw it and led their country to disaster.
In the light of all we have learned since 2016 it is perfectly democratic to go back to the people. It is not as if politicians haven’t tried to enact Brexit, the trouble is they have not found a way to do it without serious downsides, checking seems sensible.
Another vote would just make things even more divisive, espec if remain won.. We voted out we have to live with that decision. We are NOT Southern Ireland.
No, that would be silly. There is nothing democratic about pressing ahead with a big mistake against the will of a majority of the people.
But that will,has been expressed by both a referendum and then a manifesto commitment by both land and con to honour it.
I,Aline it had gone the other way. 52% remain. But immediately following the polls flipped. And an assorted array of articulate individuals, journalists, former prime ministers, business leaders pushed the government to actually leave. And the EU we all supported is now different with army, debt crisis etc.
And the gvt went and triggered article 50. You would be absolutely livid.
This isn't a game - it's about ensuring a good outcome for our futures. If the way ahead - which didn't exist at the time of the vote - patently does the opposite, clearly we should think again. It's not just a matter of opinion, but about the real world consequences of refusing to look around before taking a leap. No-one would manage their own lives like that.
Does this sound like a PM preparing to go down the Democratic Republic of the People's vote route ? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46582705 Don't forget, remainer Tories need to side with Labour now in a VONC to force her out. Perhaps this makes an early GE more likely than a 2nd ref. Being anti-Blair is catnip for leavers, by accident or design she's pushing many buttons on this one.
I am wondering if a new party may have to be created in Parliament composed of MPs who support a second referendum or who would be willing to support a VONC in the government. This could be necessary if JC is too paralysed to act to avoid a no deal Brexit.
The advantage of this is that if this party had enough MPs it would become the Opposition in the House of Commons and its leader would be the Leader of the Opposition, giving it additional parliamentary options as the date for a no deal Brexit approaches.
Absolute fantasy, never going to happen. It'd be career suicide for everyone involved.
If you think MPs are going to put country before party and career, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Probably not a fashionable view, but I’m not sure the will of the people has ever been paramount in British politics.
We have a second strand: continuity. Broadly, the House of Commons represents the will of the people, the House of Lords represents continuity, and the Civil Service attempts to shape and implement laws to reflect both strands. The result is our country of liberal views, progressing conservatively.
If continuity is to be jettisoned, and the will of the people elevated to sole arbiter, our polity will need to be entirely rebuilt. I’m not convinced that current experience shows this to be a wise course.
Until then, a second, confirmatory referendum is entirely in keeping with British democracy and its tradition of continuity and reflection.
The Commons represents the will of the people and forms a Government which enacts legislation into which the Lords (by dint of its experience and perceived wisdom) and the Civil Service (by dint of its technical and specialist knowledge) have input so the legislation which emerges represents (as far as possible) continuity and practicality.
The more radical and extreme ideas are watered down by this knowledge and experience into practical and enforceable and desirable pieces of legislation and law.
That's how it works - neither Lords nor Civil Service have any function other than to enact and amend (where appropriate) the laws of the elected Government which represents the will of the people.
I think the only thing that can stop a referendum now is a group of extreme remainers holding out for the referendum ++ option.
There are major obstacles to holding another referendum before 29/3/19.
The present government won't enact legislation for a referendum and doesn't intend to revoke or delay implementation of A50. Therefore, it would need to be brought down by a VONC, and replaced by one that would do so, at least a few weeks before 29/3/19, which is easier said than done.
The clock is ticking, and running the clock down is clearly May's current strategy.
I find the notion of a PM holding the nation to ransom by running down the clock actually upsetting.
Depends on how you define "Liberal" I suppose. Everyone seems to think their definition is the correct one and that's especially true of Conservatives and Socialists.
It's bad enough that Tony Blair is doing more to solve the problem than May herself is without her drawing attention to the fact.
Is the next unlikely twist in the Brexit mess the political rehabilitation of Tony Blair?
She's doing her best. The only ones who might still have had some sypathy for her are Labour's old Blairites who remember only too well what damage her nutter europhobes can cause
Interesting that this latest Labour initiative for a vote comes from the left, which has traditionally been more sceptic, and not for the moderates who have been champing for it from the beginning. It will be interesting to hear Nick's view.
I've got an article coming up on Labour List on what I think Labour should do. I've never heard of the ex-Momentum guy who's pushing the referendum argument (fair enough, I expect he's never heard of me) and don't think it will make any difference: it's mostly the Observer and Indie supporting their line.
I do think that Labour needs to take an initiative, though probably only when Parliament returns in January, and at some point we'll have to swing behind a referendum. That said, when it comes down to it we're the Opposition and we'll need to creative to get a majority for anything we propose (which is what my article will be about).
I am wondering if a new party may have to be created in Parliament composed of MPs who support a second referendum or who would be willing to support a VONC in the government. This could be necessary if JC is too paralysed to act to avoid a no deal Brexit.
The advantage of this is that if this party had enough MPs it would become the Opposition in the House of Commons and its leader would be the Leader of the Opposition, giving it additional parliamentary options as the date for a no deal Brexit approaches.
Absolute fantasy, never going to happen. It'd be career suicide for everyone involved.
If you think MPs are going to put country before party and career, I've got a bridge to sell you.
The PM and LOTO are two of the most thick hided, inflexible, bloody minded beasts of burden ever to hold the office. This probably greatly increases the probability of hard Brexit ahead of any of the respective party leaders of recent times.
Failed by both its major parties, betrayed Britain lurches towards the abyss
It is clear what ought to happen now. Before the clock runs down, the sensible MPs who care about their country need to take the initiative and establish a mechanism to determine which, if any, of the possible resolutions to the Brexit nightmare might command majority support. Ken Clarke, a sane voice in a deranged world, is absolutely right about this. Yet most MPs are still too trapped in partisan tribalisms and the pursuit of short-term term tactical advantage to initiate the cross-party pursuit of a solution that is urgently required.
There may be all sorts of complicated explanations for Labour’s failure, but I think the root cause is pretty simple. The party’s leadership has been rumbled. Labour’s own version of fantasy Brexit has been to pretend that it could negotiate a deal that gave Britain all the benefits of EU membership from the outside. The voters aren’t buying this bogus prospectus. Despite it all, the public trusts Mr Corbyn with Brexit even less than it trusts Mrs May. People can see that the Labour leadership obsesses about Brexit process questions because it doesn’t want to grip the issues of principle. The endless ducking and diving about when they might call a no-confidence vote against the government makes Labour look like opportunists desperately hoping to luck into office on the back of Brexit turmoil rather than a party with the national interest at heart.
I think the only thing that can stop a referendum now is a group of extreme remainers holding out for the referendum ++ option.
There are major obstacles to holding another referendum before 29/3/19.
The present government won't enact legislation for a referendum and doesn't intend to revoke or delay implementation of A50. Therefore, it would need to be brought down by a VONC, and replaced by one that would do so, at least a few weeks before 29/3/19, which is easier said than done.
The clock is ticking, and running the clock down is clearly May's current strategy.
I find the notion of a PM holding the nation to ransom by running down the clock actually upsetting.
I don't recall you being upset when Brown ran down the clock, refused to listen and signed the Lisbon treaty./
May should resign. Whomever her successor is can’t possibly do a worse job. She has no leadership qualities and has fractured the party through her unwillingness to prepare for no deal and her total absence of a domestic policy agenda. Her negotiating style is simply a white flag - throwing the EU a blank piece of paper and getting them to write down what terms they want to impose on Britain. The idea of her being PM whilst trade talks with the EU are going on will, if we ever were unwise enough to approve her Withdrawal Agreement, is risible. The EU would get exactly what they want and Britain would bet nothing.
I am wondering if a new party may have to be created in Parliament composed of MPs who support a second referendum or who would be willing to support a VONC in the government. This could be necessary if JC is too paralysed to act to avoid a no deal Brexit.
The advantage of this is that if this party had enough MPs it would become the Opposition in the House of Commons and its leader would be the Leader of the Opposition, giving it additional parliamentary options as the date for a no deal Brexit approaches.
It’s looking like pretty much the only way out of the current stalemate is a number of MPs changing party, on one side or the other
The deal was dead on arrival, and the DUP will vote against the government if it passes. The government will at some point have to make a choice either to go down a managed no-deal route, or a BINO route. Whichever option they take is going to annoy a number of the other position’s supporters among Conservative MPs, the question is will they resign from the party to vote against the government in a specific VoC?
Mr. Pulpstar, aye. As I said the other day, hard to recall the last time both the PM and Leader of the Opposition had been subjected to votes of no confidence by their own MPs.
It's bad enough that Tony Blair is doing more to solve the problem than May herself is without her drawing attention to the fact.
Is the next unlikely twist in the Brexit mess the political rehabilitation of Tony Blair?
She's doing her best. The only ones who might still have had some sypathy for her are Labour's old Blairites who remember only too well what damage her nutter europhobes can cause
Interesting that this latest Labour initiative for a vote comes from the left, which has traditionally been more sceptic, and not for the moderates who have been champing for it from the beginning. It will be interesting to hear Nick's view.
I've got an article coming up on Labour List on what I think Labour should do. I've never heard of the ex-Momentum guy who's pushing the referendum argument (fair enough, I expect he's never heard of me) and don't think it will make any difference: it's mostly the Observer and Indie supporting their line.
I do think that Labour needs to take an initiative, though probably only when Parliament returns in January, and at some point we'll have to swing behind a referendum. That said, when it comes down to it we're the Opposition and we'll need to creative to get a majority for anything we propose (which is what my article will be about).
"at some point"? How long do you think you have to make a decision?
See Rawnsley for some very on-the-money criticism of Labour.
Depends on how you define "Liberal" I suppose. Everyone seems to think their definition is the correct one and that's especially true of Conservatives and Socialists.
I dunno, the definition Tim Farron assigned to it, “free trade, free markets and pro business “ seemed the traditional ‘liberal’ as its known in British English.
Mr. Pulpstar, aye. As I said the other day, hard to recall the last time both the PM and Leader of the Opposition had been subjected to votes of no confidence by their own MPs.
1988/89 is the closest example.
Kinnock and Thatcher both faced de facto no confidence votes.
Failed by both its major parties, betrayed Britain lurches towards the abyss The endless ducking and diving about when they might call a no-confidence vote against the government makes Labour look like opportunists desperately hoping to luck into office on the back of Brexit turmoil rather than a party with the national interest at heart.
In other news, the sun rose in the east this morning
Trying to curry favour with Corbyn and nutters on the far left that bang on about Blair possibly.
More likely, she’s upset he is moe influential than she is. Including with her cabinet and deputy. It’s personal.
As it often is with May; look at her and Osborn. She's probably worrying that her handling of Brexit will go down in the history book on the same page as Blair and Iraq.
And Cameron’s of our relationship with the EU.
That deserves a whole chapter to itself. Rarely has a PM so blithely led a country into such a disaster (and solely for internal party management, too); I know comparisons are made with Suez, but that was a foreign affairs matter, with only short run consequences other than confirming what we already should have known. Brexit is in a class of its own, and is going to be a political case study across the world for years to come, however it ends.
It was politics. A large part of the electorate (4m strong) was agitating for one particular policy; a policy which no party had hitherto offered.
One of the parties in order to achieve electoral success decided to include that policy in its manifesto. That's what pressure groups are designed for and UKIP is the most successful pressure group of recent times.
And the rest is (and will be written about in) history.
Nevertheless there is a stack of ways he could have managed things differently and avoided such a poor outcome; indeed it isn't difficult to see how, with a bit of effort and preparation, he could have got the outcome he wanted.
All Brexits are inadvisable.
However the ONE sane Brexit was discussed on PB even before the referendum which was effectively an exit to EFTA en route to a broader FTA.
However this requires patience and a willingness to address reality. The Brexit campaigns themselves look to have destroyed Brexit.
Was it not May’s redlines that made such a move impossible? She ruled out free movement and ECJ jurisdiction before any Brexiteers got stuck in.
Leavers shouldn’t have founded their campaign on an anti-immigration platform if they regret that. As I have said once or twice, the Leave victory based on pandering to xenophobia is a defining fact of current politics.
"It is still possible to exit from this mess with both of those things intact."
It is possible, but it won't happen. I generally dislike politicians. I dislike EU politicians even more. I'm happy to admit my biases. Although I've been to EU meetings, it was only on the science side and I thought they were always generally constructive. But there were administrators around who always had an impressively high opinion of themselves.
You can see that arrogance in the UK too, The sort of person who thinks they always know best, that their judgement is always superior. A majority opinion with which they disagree is dismissed as 'populism'. Pandering to it leads to fascism, Being an ignorant scientist, I never understood why dismissing the majority view was an affirmation of democracy. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
Had we had a referendum on capital punishment in the 1970s, I would have voted against, and I suspect would have lost. But I would have accepted the result because that is democracy. I'd hope that after a few years after implementation, my original views would have gained support and it would have been outlawed again. But if Parliament had decided to call another referendum instead of implementing it, I think and hope I would have abstained.
Democracy isn't getting your own way because you're sure you know better. I know I don't always know better, and I'm equally sure that others don't either.
I think the only thing that can stop a referendum now is a group of extreme remainers holding out for the referendum ++ option.
There are major obstacles to holding another referendum before 29/3/19.
The present government won't enact legislation for a referendum and doesn't intend to revoke or delay implementation of A50. Therefore, it would need to be brought down by a VONC, and replaced by one that would do so, at least a few weeks before 29/3/19, which is easier said than done.
The clock is ticking, and running the clock down is clearly May's current strategy.
Well the Sunday Times is reporting that the government is discreetly seeking legal advice on how to get out of Article 50.
And if this is true they are even further down the path.
Parliament asked the voters to make the decision. The voters did so.
This came as shock to Parliament who hoped and expected they wouldn't do this. So they tried to take back control without seeming to do so. Every criticism of the result was balanced with "But obviously, we must still honour the referendum result." They had no intention of doing so.
Does anyone think they did? Seriously. Parliament (as a whole) never wanted Brexit, and they were always going to stall as long as possible and claim we'd changed our minds whether we had done or not.
They had two options, Bite the bullet and revoke art 50, or send it back for another go in the hope we'd change our minds after a couple of years of Project Fear (no exaggeration too silly).
This very un-cunning plan would fool only the fanatics who wanted to be fooled. But the self-appointed superior people never really fuss about democracy as long as they get their own way. It may not work but it's their best shot.
Why not be honest? Because dishonesty is more effective sometimes. Has this brought Parliament into disrepute? Without a doubt, but that's not the voters' fault, it's Parliament's.
The LDs may be undemocratic but they are. at least, honest, even if their 'Democrat' label is dishonest.
The ‘Liberal’ bit is also barely accurate.
The Conservative and Unionist party is rather poorly named too.
Parliament asked the voters to make the decision. The voters did so.
This came as shock to Parliament who hoped and expected they wouldn't do this. So they tried to take back control without seeming to do so. Every criticism of the result was balanced with "But obviously, we must still honour the referendum result." They had no intention of doing so.
Does anyone think they did? Seriously. Parliament (as a whole) never wanted Brexit, and they were always going to stall as long as possible and claim we'd changed our minds whether we had done or not.
They had two options, Bite the bullet and revoke art 50, or send it back for another go in the hope we'd change our minds after a couple of years of Project Fear (no exaggeration too silly).
This very un-cunning plan would fool only the fanatics who wanted to be fooled. But the self-appointed superior people never really fuss about democracy as long as they get their own way. It may not work but it's their best shot.
Why not be honest? Because dishonesty is more effective sometimes. Has this brought Parliament into disrepute? Without a doubt, but that's not the voters' fault, it's Parliament's.
The LDs may be undemocratic but they are. at least, honest, even if their 'Democrat' label is dishonest.
The ‘Liberal’ bit is also barely accurate.
The Conservative and Unionist party is rather poorly named too.
Mr. Eagles, from Thatcher to May. Rather depressing downturn.
Kinnock to Corbyn may be even worse.
It's profoundly unfortunate we have a significant political task facing the nation and the leaders of the two main parties are bloody dreadful.
Chicken and egg. Smarter politicians than Cameron would have avoided this mess in he first place.
My most troubled thought, is that much as we now look back on Milliband as not that bad, the trend will continue and one day May and Corbyn will look relatively good.
No one should fear a second referendum, least of all Leavers.
Why give someone a second flip of the coin? They wouldn’t had done if the situation was reversed.
Look at the prominent Remainers. They're as repellent today as they were in 2016. As for 'why give someone a second flip of the coin', it's simply because we're *actually* democrats as opposed to democrats-as-long-as-all-votes-go-my-way.
The 'peoples vote' folk think they'll win a second referendum. I doubt it very much. However, if they did win, well, we've dodged a bullet haven't we?
"It is still possible to exit from this mess with both of those things intact."
It is possible, but it won't happen. I generally dislike politicians. I dislike EU politicians even more. I'm happy to admit my biases. Although I've been to EU meetings, it was only on the science side and I thought they were always generally constructive. But there were administrators around who always had an impressively high opinion of themselves.
You can see that arrogance in the UK too, The sort of person who thinks they always know best, that their judgement is always superior. A majority opinion with which they disagree is dismissed as 'populism'. Pandering to it leads to fascism, Being an ignorant scientist, I never understood why dismissing the majority view was an affirmation of democracy. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
Had we had a referendum on capital punishment in the 1970s, I would have voted against, and I suspect would have lost. But I would have accepted the result because that is democracy. I'd hope that after a few years after implementation, my original views would have gained support and it would have been outlawed again. But if Parliament had decided to call another referendum instead of implementing it, I think and hope I would have abstained.
Democracy isn't getting your own way because you're sure you know better. I know I don't always know better, and I'm equally sure that others don't either.
Those sorts of people will always work their way toward power, here and abroad, and doesn't really have a bearing on the matter. Democracy is supposed to be the brake on all of that, hence the need for a vote on the choice we face, despite the superficial attraction of Parliament just voting it done.
The damage that lies ahead is becoming increasingly clear, as anyone who listens to people working in the real world should very well know. Polls are starting to tell the same message. Brexiters can only survive by denying it all, resigning their jobs and running away, and continuing to spout obvious nonsense in the media. And we all know that they won't take any responsibility afterwards.
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Theresa May’s next move
Comments
Theresa May's main superpower is creating awkward moments then stretching them out for an uncomfortably long time, like David Brent. Usually the idea is to make herself look uncomfortable to show the necessity for the next uncomfortable thing she's going to do, but in this case it's Jeremy Corybn who's uncomfortable, so she should just leave it hanging there.
He will have to declare for one and realistically that won't be no deal or May's deal.
But the mystery to me is why the markets are still rating Kamala Harris so highly.
Is her conscience troubling her?
Also from a party point of view it is less painful for her to have the argument against someone against her Brexit from a remain point of view rather than a leave one. She wants to be cast as fighting for Brexit.
Edit: Doesn't really help with the trying to win Labour MPs votes though, some like Blair and those that don't or don't care won't be moved by it.
May recognises that Brexit must be delivered in some form or other; no deal will be better in the long-term for England than revoking article 50 and remaining in the evolving United States of Europe, even if the transition is painful.
More likely, she’s upset he is moe influential than she is. Including with her cabinet and deputy. It’s personal.
No Deal won't last long though.
The moment has passed and it was the leavers that fluffed it.
In the same way May has occasionally tried to point at Corbyn and say he just wants to stop Brexit, she is looking for polarising figures among leavers and right wingers to make it a straight argument with her on the Brexit side rather than being assailed from multiple angles.
Everyone else will vote against and say thanks for the opportunity to register our lack of confidence, we might well ask everyone to do it again after the next fiasco has shaken the confidence of even the staunchest loyalist. It gives all the opposition MPs the opportunity to take some free hits and coin some soundbites for the evening news and removes the opportunity for the government to say that such motions are meaningless gestures.
At at the end of it all, as the Prime Minister would say, nothing would have changed.
She has to decide now whether she wishes to depart with some semblance of control (a referendum on her Deal which has a 50/50 chance of winning), or whether she wants to be ousted after taking the country over Niagara in a barrel.
This is her last decision. It’s become clear there is no runway left.
But would they, had someone put Civil War on the side of a bus?
Edit: I made the terrible bus joke first and hackers are responsible for any evidence to the contrary.
Asking for a friend.
A few signs the Prime Minister is starting to get a bit brittle - the run-in with Juncker at the summit and now this spat with Blair. I can only assume the former Prime Minister has made use of contacts within the EU to put the argument for a second vote across and to gauge what the EU response should be.
Clearly, May now sees herself as the sole arbiter of the negotiations and their outcome - the Cabinet have been reduced to acquiescent nobodies or are planning for her departure. I'm not sure I'm that impressed by this Britannia-esque notion of embodying the nation in herself.
The unfortunate truth is she is now the 1970s plate spinner - rushing here, there and everywhere, always there, always saying the same thing but no one is listening any more.
On the more substantive, Labour's position is starting to come into focus especially with regard to a second vote and I can well understand the opposition to a second vote because I share it. A vote which excludes LEAVE would be hugely divisive and would be seen as a gimmick and, as I argued yesterday, would ask some serious questions about the nature of our democracy.
If the will of the people is paramount then the people have a right to be wrong but even if they are wrong, the will as expressed has to be enacted.
In the light of all we have learned since 2016 it is perfectly democratic to go back to the people. It is not as if politicians haven’t tried to enact Brexit, the trouble is they have not found a way to do it without serious downsides, checking seems sensible.
One of the parties in order to achieve electoral success decided to include that policy in its manifesto. That's what pressure groups are designed for and UKIP is the most successful pressure group of recent times.
And the rest is (and will be written about in) history.
Given that she is single-handedly writing the textbook on How Not To Be A Successful Prime Minister, it’s almost funny.
I presume this is because Brexiters themselves don’t really believe their folly has any reliable public mandate.
I happen to think “Deal” would/should be marked narrow favourite going into any second referendum.
This came as shock to Parliament who hoped and expected they wouldn't do this. So they tried to take back control without seeming to do so. Every criticism of the result was balanced with "But obviously, we must still honour the referendum result." They had no intention of doing so.
Does anyone think they did? Seriously. Parliament (as a whole) never wanted Brexit, and they were always going to stall as long as possible and claim we'd changed our minds whether we had done or not.
They had two options, Bite the bullet and revoke art 50, or send it back for another go in the hope we'd change our minds after a couple of years of Project Fear (no exaggeration too silly).
This very un-cunning plan would fool only the fanatics who wanted to be fooled. But the self-appointed superior people never really fuss about democracy as long as they get their own way. It may not work but it's their best shot.
Why not be honest? Because dishonesty is more effective sometimes. Has this brought Parliament into disrepute? Without a doubt, but that's not the voters' fault, it's Parliament's.
The LDs may be undemocratic but they are. at least, honest, even if their 'Democrat' label is dishonest.
We are already a divided nation. There are no good outcomes now, just various bad ones.
However the ONE sane Brexit was discussed on PB even before the referendum which was effectively an exit to EFTA en route to a broader FTA.
However this requires patience and a willingness to address reality. The Brexit campaigns themselves look to have destroyed Brexit.
The advantage of this is that if this party had enough MPs it would become the Opposition in the House of Commons and its leader would be the Leader of the Opposition, giving it additional parliamentary options as the date for a no deal Brexit approaches.
We have a second strand: continuity. Broadly, the House of Commons represents the will of the people, the House of Lords represents continuity, and the Civil Service attempts to shape and implement laws to reflect both strands. The result is our country of liberal views, progressing conservatively.
If continuity is to be jettisoned, and the will of the people elevated to sole arbiter, our polity will need to be entirely rebuilt. I’m not convinced that current experience shows this to be a wise course.
Until then, a second, confirmatory referendum is entirely in keeping with British democracy and its tradition of continuity and reflection.
I'm still troubled by the notion of the second paragraph. I don't disagree the Government's primary duty is to protect the citizens of the country and by definition that includes from obvious threats both internal and external but also, it seems to me, from the people themselves.
However, democracy is defined as the will of the people and it seems to me if we purport to live in a democracy than the will of the people must always be paramount and should always be enacted even if the consequences of so doing are negative.
The Government should of course try to mitigate the consequences of that (and there's an argument for May's Deal) but mitigation is not the same as obstruction or frustration. The other aspect is education - explaining to the public the consequences of the decision they took (without Project Fear).
Stretch that to its logical conclusion and if Corbyn's Labour Party wins a majority at the next GE, the Conservatives could turn round, refuse to accept the result and claim voting Labour will damage the country and that, in the best interests of the country, they (the Conservatives) would remain in Government.
No one should fear a second referendum, least of all Leavers.
I,Aline it had gone the other way. 52% remain. But immediately following the polls flipped. And an assorted array of articulate individuals, journalists, former prime ministers, business leaders pushed the government to actually leave. And the EU we all supported is now different with army, debt crisis etc.
And the gvt went and triggered article 50. You would be absolutely livid.
All roads lead to a referendum now if logic prevails (operative word being "if").
The present government won't enact legislation for a referendum and doesn't intend to revoke or delay implementation of A50. Therefore, it would need to be brought down by a VONC, and replaced by one that would do so, at least a few weeks before 29/3/19, which is easier said than done.
The clock is ticking, and running the clock down is clearly May's current strategy.
The ‘Liberal’ bit is also barely accurate.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46582705
Don't forget, remainer Tories need to side with Labour now in a VONC to force her out. Perhaps this makes an early GE more likely than a 2nd ref.
Being anti-Blair is catnip for leavers, by accident or design she's pushing many buttons on this one.
If you think MPs are going to put country before party and career, I've got a bridge to sell you.
The more radical and extreme ideas are watered down by this knowledge and experience into practical and enforceable and desirable pieces of legislation and law.
That's how it works - neither Lords nor Civil Service have any function other than to enact and amend (where appropriate) the laws of the elected Government which represents the will of the people.
I do think that Labour needs to take an initiative, though probably only when Parliament returns in January, and at some point we'll have to swing behind a referendum. That said, when it comes down to it we're the Opposition and we'll need to creative to get a majority for anything we propose (which is what my article will be about).
It is clear what ought to happen now. Before the clock runs down, the sensible MPs who care about their country need to take the initiative and establish a mechanism to determine which, if any, of the possible resolutions to the Brexit nightmare might command majority support. Ken Clarke, a sane voice in a deranged world, is absolutely right about this. Yet most MPs are still too trapped in partisan tribalisms and the pursuit of short-term term tactical advantage to initiate the cross-party pursuit of a solution that is urgently required.
There may be all sorts of complicated explanations for Labour’s failure, but I think the root cause is pretty simple. The party’s leadership has been rumbled. Labour’s own version of fantasy Brexit has been to pretend that it could negotiate a deal that gave Britain all the benefits of EU membership from the outside. The voters aren’t buying this bogus prospectus. Despite it all, the public trusts Mr Corbyn with Brexit even less than it trusts Mrs May. People can see that the Labour leadership obsesses about Brexit process questions because it doesn’t want to grip the issues of principle. The endless ducking and diving about when they might call a no-confidence vote against the government makes Labour look like opportunists desperately hoping to luck into office on the back of Brexit turmoil rather than a party with the national interest at heart.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/failed-by-both-major-parties-betrayed-britain-lurches-towards-the-abyss
The sooner she is gone the better.
The deal was dead on arrival, and the DUP will vote against the government if it passes. The government will at some point have to make a choice either to go down a managed no-deal route, or a BINO route. Whichever option they take is going to annoy a number of the other position’s supporters among Conservative MPs, the question is will they resign from the party to vote against the government in a specific VoC?
See Rawnsley for some very on-the-money criticism of Labour.
Kinnock and Thatcher both faced de facto no confidence votes.
"It is still possible to exit from this mess with both of those things intact."
It is possible, but it won't happen. I generally dislike politicians. I dislike EU politicians even more. I'm happy to admit my biases. Although I've been to EU meetings, it was only on the science side and I thought they were always generally constructive. But there were administrators around who always had an impressively high opinion of themselves.
You can see that arrogance in the UK too, The sort of person who thinks they always know best, that their judgement is always superior. A majority opinion with which they disagree is dismissed as 'populism'. Pandering to it leads to fascism, Being an ignorant scientist, I never understood why dismissing the majority view was an affirmation of democracy. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
Had we had a referendum on capital punishment in the 1970s, I would have voted against, and I suspect would have lost. But I would have accepted the result because that is democracy. I'd hope that after a few years after implementation, my original views would have gained support and it would have been outlawed again. But if Parliament had decided to call another referendum instead of implementing it, I think and hope I would have abstained.
Democracy isn't getting your own way because you're sure you know better. I know I don't always know better, and I'm equally sure that others don't either.
And if this is true they are even further down the path.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/theresa-mays-team-plots-new-eu-referendum-cl5xrwh52
A referendum might be difficult but a precipitous departure isn't a picnic either.
Or were you comatose during the referendum campaign to take back control of our laws and borders?
Want me to post all the gushing from the Brexiteers following her Lancaster House speech?
Kinnock to Corbyn may be even worse.
It's profoundly unfortunate we have a significant political task facing the nation and the leaders of the two main parties are bloody dreadful.
My most troubled thought, is that much as we now look back on Milliband as not that bad, the trend will continue and one day May and Corbyn will look relatively good.
The 'peoples vote' folk think they'll win a second referendum. I doubt it very much. However, if they did win, well, we've dodged a bullet haven't we?
The damage that lies ahead is becoming increasingly clear, as anyone who listens to people working in the real world should very well know. Polls are starting to tell the same message. Brexiters can only survive by denying it all, resigning their jobs and running away, and continuing to spout obvious nonsense in the media. And we all know that they won't take any responsibility afterwards.