On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.
That is both rather true by definition and also meaningless. Brexit is by definition simply exiting the EU. It is a negative. Why people want to exit though may be completely different things.
Philosophically if you compare the EU to the Church of Rome (Catholicism) then lump together all non-Catholics you could also say that there is no coherence about what they want.
Some people are protestant (and they're far from homogenous too), some are Muslim (ditto), some are Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist. Some are athiest and others are simply agnostic.
Just because non-Catholics are not homogenous in what they believe doesn't mean we should take our ecclesiastical beliefs from Rome.
Though the various Reformations generally involved individual states separating themselves from adherence to Rome and replacing that with a new established church. Although in some cases it was about what they didn't want (e.g. prohibition on kingly divorce...) there was also a definite alternative chosen. What's going on now is more like saying 'we don't want to be catholic now' and then being unable to agree on any given form of church to go forward because all of the reformers insist any given option isn't 'proper non-catholicism'.
It is good news for TM deal and I expect she is pleased by this development
Yes, we could soon see a situation where at least some ultra Brexiteers accept that they could throw the whole thing away here.
May needs to start whispers that she might call a 2nd Ref vote.
I don't think she will whisper it at all. She might still do so, once her deal is voted down. Yes it would make a mockery of her previous assurances that we would leave on time, but however ridiculously she will say that the situation has changed and so she must take a new path.
But I think you are wrong about any ultra Brexitteers accept they could throw away the whole thing.
For one, while we may mock many MPs most are relatively savvy, they can see various permutations in this debate, and they surely already know there is a possibility Brexit no longer happens. Some seem to prefer that to the only Brexit deal on offer.
For two, for every ultra Brexiteer who might consider switching because they could lose Brexit entirely, there's Tory ultra remainers and most of the Labour party and every other MP who also sees Brexit might not happen. And even if half or three quarters of ultra brexiteers accept they might lose the whole thing, May needs some of those remainers and opposition to back her too.
Whilst I agree with the thrust of Ms Cyclefree's article, I don't think her initial paragraph is right. There was no way that the UK could have joined at the start. Quite apart from anything else, in 1958 (two years before Macmillan's landmark 'winds of change' speech) we didn't have imperial pretensions, we had imperial possessions and a huge network of imperial and ex-imperial links. The whole nation was oriented in trade and outlook across the seas, something which persisted into the mid-sixties (I'm just old enough to remember it!). It would have been impossible to put ourselves into the heart of the new continental European project in 1958, let alone in 1952 when the project really started with the European Coal and Steel Community.
Hmm - France still had imperial possessions in 1952. It didn't stop them. Also, if we had joined while still having those possessions, maybe the sort of European organisation that was created might have been different in a way which might well have suited Britain better.
I think, rather, the fact of still having imperial possessions and all those links meant that we thought that, the messy business of stopping Germany making a nuisance of themselves again having been completed, we could revert to what we thought of as our proper place in the world, as an imperial power. We failed to realise - even though it had been obvious for a while - that the Empire was on its way out, that we needed to find a new role and that intervening in European affairs militarily, as needed - and as Britain had been doing for a couple of centuries - was no longer a sustainable way forward.
In short, it was precisely because we did not think about the future and what it might mean for us as a country that we stood back when others were forced to do some hard thinking about what sort of Europe there should be. We are making the same mistake now. The geopolitics are very different and alarming. But that is the subject of my next headers. So you will have to wait.
You don't mention that it was advocated by the Liberal Party of the time.
I didn't know that. Thank you.
In 1950 the Liberals pushed for membership of the Coal and Steel community at its foundation, but the Labour government flatly refused to consider it. Back then Labour was the more anti-European party.
Political career From 1983 to 1986, he was a member of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's Policy Unit.
According to official government documents from 1985, released in December 2014 under the 30 years rule, Letwin recommended the Prime Minister to "use Scotland as a trail-blazer for the pure residence charge", i.e. the controversial Community Charge or 'Poll tax', having trialled it there first, and to implement it nationwide should "the exemplifications prove ... it is feasible."
Turned out brilliantly that did... The guy's a complete dud. Everything he touches turns to ashes yet here he is, 30 years after being involved in the Poll Tax debacle (which should have killed his career stone dead right there and then) still dictating to the "riff raff".
On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.
That is both rather true by definition and also meaningless. Brexit is by definition simply exiting the EU. It is a negative. Why people want to exit though may be completely different things.
Philosophically if you compare the EU to the Church of Rome (Catholicism) then lump together all non-Catholics you could also say that there is no coherence about what they want.
Some people are protestant (and they're far from homogenous too), some are Muslim (ditto), some are Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist. Some are athiest and others are simply agnostic.
Just because non-Catholics are not homogenous in what they believe doesn't mean we should take our ecclesiastical beliefs from Rome.
Taking that analogy a little bit further, Brexiteers are like a bunch of people deciding to set up an alternative to Catholicism, some of whom take the Dawkins view of religion, some of whom want sharia law imposed, yet others want a bit of chanting after their morning yoga, while a few just want to be kinder to cows. And there is a large group who want Catholicism but without the transubstantiation and the Pope (Juncker) worship.
It all looks like a waste of time to me. Whining about how bad no deal is is not enough on its own, presumably they know that.
I truly, truly hope the Tories split very soon. It is for their own good, since they are made up of people who cannot countenance no deal (some of whom may even vote down the government if it tries it, and they should) and a very large group for whom no deal is everything they've ever wanted. That's a difference beyond the bounds of reasonable differences within a party, you cannot talk so approvingly or in horror respectively about no deal and then pretend you can all just get along once this issue is settled. It's pathetic.
Except that they can't split, because the electoral system encourages broad church political parties - otherwise known as miserable marriages of convenience.
I know that is why splits are so rare, but it is beyond a joke now. This is not a broad church political party we are talking about, this is people on a fundamental point of how this country is governed regarding each other with absolute contempt and seeing the other as encouraging vassalage to foreign powers or life threatening recklessness.
That's not a broad church. It is possible, somehow, that is clings on somehow, but it shouldn't, and it doesn't deserve to.
And yes Labour have their issues there too, but the non-Corbynites seem to have given up (they remain quiet except for occasional foreign policy criticism and anti-semitism scandals) and have decided they are going nowhere.
But the Tories are in government and will either have to revoke A50 or pursue no deal, both of which are anathema to parts of their party. And if they believe even a quarter of what they say, the factions should be willing to bring down the government rather than allow vassalage or no deal chaos. Otherwise they are simply talking bollocks.
So the government hasn't caved. Must be close. Gripping stuff. Result in a few minutes.
This is on New Clause 3, a Labour amendment, which I think will fail. It is amendments 7 and 8 that matter. I think the government will lose amendment 7 but possibly not lose amendment 8.
We hadn't fully transitioned into the EEC until Thatcher, and the political effect of membership was to rule out the Bennite alternative programme of retreating behind economic walls.
It's a huge blindspot of Eurosceptics to bemoan its political nature but ignore the political consequences that flow from that.
Tony Benn was in opposition. And wasn't leader. Ruling out a totally imagined scenario is hardly cause for rejoicing. But to address your wider point, I would hope I would still be against the EU even if I agreed with them most of the time, because the changes would not be rooted in public consent. And benign dictatorship is benign until it ceases to be benign.
It's not a question of being under a benign dictatorship but of structural effects anchoring domestic politics. It's the line between the constitutional and the political.
Polite way of saying the same thing. If the considered will of the majority of voters was to endorse Benn's policy, I would take it. The more severe the outcome, the greater lesson learned for the future.
Government has accepted the Cooper amendment to the finance bill. Government all but certain to lose the vote; effectively depriving the government of supply in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Probability of UK leaving EU on 29 March is now down to 36% on Betfair. Brexit is sliding away.
Not surprisingly. Immediately after losing the Meaningful Vote is now clear that May will seek to extend Article 50 for a "pause for reflection" in the UK.
Brexiteers are going to lose their fucking minds, it's gonna be amazing.
That latter is rather a tardy observation.
And you are rather a fuckwit but don't let that stop you.
As I recall it was comments like that which led you, sensibly, to take a break from PB a while back.
Given your comment above, I'm not sure you're on very firm ground here.
I suggest there is a difference between generic comments about leavers or remainers - which are common on the site - and us throwing personal abuse at each other, which does nothing to improve th site.
Personally I don't see the distinction. If you want the debate to be less toxic, be less toxic.
Says the guy who called remainers idiotic. And the rest.
So the government hasn't caved. Must be close. Gripping stuff. Result in a few minutes.
Given some of those speaking against I find it hard to believe they've won it. But we'll see.
Although I must say that I don't like talk of 'parliament' taking control when you have moments of votes like this, which you sometimes see, because parliament is deciding either way.
It all looks like a waste of time to me. Whining about how bad no deal is is not enough on its own, presumably they know that.
I truly, truly hope the Tories split very soon. It is for their own good, since they are made up of people who cannot countenance no deal (some of whom may even vote down the government if it tries it, and they should) and a very large group for whom no deal is everything they've ever wanted. That's a difference beyond the bounds of reasonable differences within a party, you cannot talk so approvingly or in horror respectively about no deal and then pretend you can all just get along once this issue is settled. It's pathetic.
If so Labour must surely split soon after, inner city Labour Remainers demanding EUref2 are miles apart from working class Labour Leave voters in old industrial towns
Problem is whoever splits first probably ensures the other will hold together no matter what, to take advantage.
Not necessarily, especially if a new centre party emerges for Labour and Tory Remainers free of Labour Corbynistas and Tory No Dealers
People have been predicting such a realignment since the retirement of Gladstone in 1894.
It all looks like a waste of time to me. Whining about how bad no deal is is not enough on its own, presumably they know that.
I truly, truly hope the Tories split very soon. It is for their own good, since they are made up of people who cannot countenance no deal (some of whom may even vote down the government if it tries it, and they should) and a very large group for whom no deal is everything they've ever wanted. That's a difference beyond the bounds of reasonable differences within a party, you cannot talk so approvingly or in horror respectively about no deal and then pretend you can all just get along once this issue is settled. It's pathetic.
If so Labour must surely split soon after, inner city Labour Remainers demanding EUref2 are miles apart from working class Labour Leave voters in old industrial towns
Problem is whoever splits first probably ensures the other will hold together no matter what, to take advantage.
Not necessarily, especially if a new centre party emerges for Labour and Tory Remainers free of Labour Corbynistas and Tory No Dealers
People have been predicting such a realignment since the retirement of Gladstone in 1894.
That was 125 years ago.
I don't expect it to happen. But the Tories, even more than Labour, need to decide what they are about. I certainly cannot vote for them as is - I'd have no clue what the hell they might do.
Sir Oliver Letwin - “we will not allow a No Deal exit at the end of March” and this amendment shows the Government... “for 5 years I was in charge of the resilience of this country...preparation for no Deal wasn’t done... we can not impose on our country a risk of severe impacts”
Which 5 years? Brexit hasn't been happening for 5 years. And that sounds like gross incompetence on his own part.
Sir Oliver Letwin is grossly incompetent? The man who planned the poll tax, opposed inner city regeneration, and claimed William Hague was lying in his 2001 manifesto?
Government has accepted the Cooper amendment to the finance bill. Government all but certain to lose the vote; effectively depriving the government of supply in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Probability of UK leaving EU on 29 March is now down to 36% on Betfair. Brexit is sliding away.
Not surprisingly. Immediately after losing the Meaningful Vote is now clear that May will seek to extend Article 50 for a "pause for reflection" in the UK.
Brexiteers are going to lose their fucking minds, it's gonna be amazing.
That latter is rather a tardy observation.
And you are rather a fuckwit but don't let that stop you.
As I recall it was comments like that which led you, sensibly, to take a break from PB a while back.
Given your comment above, I'm not sure you're on very firm ground here.
I suggest there is a difference between generic comments about leavers or remainers - which are common on the site - and us throwing personal abuse at each other, which does nothing to improve th site.
Personally I don't see the distinction. If you want the debate to be less toxic, be less toxic.
Says the guy who called remainers idiotic. And the rest.
But I haven't been making solemn suggestions that others take a break because they've called me a fuckwit, when in the very post above, I've called them and all their co-voters mentally ill. It was quite clearly hypocrisy, and I'm not sure how or why you're continuing to argue. I would suggest that you try to be more polite, and so will I.
On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.
That is both rather true by definition and also meaningless. Brexit is by definition simply exiting the EU. It is a negative. Why people want to exit though may be completely different things.
Philosophically if you compare the EU to the Church of Rome (Catholicism) then lump together all non-Catholics you could also say that there is no coherence about what they want.
Some people are protestant (and they're far from homogenous too), some are Muslim (ditto), some are Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist. Some are athiest and others are simply agnostic.
Just because non-Catholics are not homogenous in what they believe doesn't mean we should take our ecclesiastical beliefs from Rome.
Though the various Reformations generally involved individual states separating themselves from adherence to Rome and replacing that with a new established church. Although in some cases it was about what they didn't want (e.g. prohibition on kingly divorce...) there was also a definite alternative chosen. What's going on now is more like saying 'we don't want to be catholic now' and then being unable to agree on any given form of church to go forward because all of the reformers insist any given option isn't 'proper non-catholicism'.
What's going on now is like deciding to leave the Church then delegating how to do so to Bishop Robbins who has said we may now cease call ourselves Catholics but we have to continue to go to Catholic Churches and follow all the Pope's rules. We just call them our own rules from now on but they must stay the same.
So the government hasn't caved. Must be close. Gripping stuff. Result in a few minutes.
Given some of those speaking against I find it hard to believe they've won it. But we'll see.
Although I must say that I don't like talk of 'parliament' taking control when you have moments of votes like this, which you sometimes see, because parliament is deciding either way.
It's parliament taking control from government - which is very hard in practice.
Oliver Letwin has now finished. As he spoke, at times he seemed almost tearful. Whether that was prompted by the prospect of having to vote against his own government, or just his horror as he contemplated a no deal Brexit, was not clear. But it was a highly effective and memorable speech. Letwin is reputed to be one of the cleverest people in the Commons, he is the ultimate policy wonk, and having looked in detail at the implications of a no-deal Brexit, he appears to be petrified.
On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.
That is both rather true by definition and also meaningless. Brexit is by definition simply exiting the EU. It is a negative. Why people want to exit though may be completely different things.
Philosophically if you compare the EU to the Church of Rome (Catholicism) then lump together all non-Catholics you could also say that there is no coherence about what they want.
Some people are protestant (and they're far from homogenous too), some are Muslim (ditto), some are Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist. Some are athiest and others are simply agnostic.
Just because non-Catholics are not homogenous in what they believe doesn't mean we should take our ecclesiastical beliefs from Rome.
Taking that analogy a little bit further, Brexiteers are like a bunch of people deciding to set up an alternative to Catholicism, some of whom take the Dawkins view of religion, some of whom want sharia law imposed, yet others want a bit of chanting after their morning yoga, while a few just want to be kinder to cows. And there is a large group who want Catholicism but without the transubstantiation and the Pope (Juncker) worship.
Indeed I'm of the Dawkins variety when it comes to religion. Won't make me agree to implement Sharia just because I don't want to be in the Church.
It isn't inconsistent or nihilist for Brexit to have similar divisions.
Whilst I agree with the thrust of Ms Cyclefree's article, I don't think her initial paragraph is right. There was no way that the UK could have joined at the start. Quite apart from anything else, in 1958 (two years before Macmillan's landmark 'winds of change' speech) we didn't have imperial pretensions, we had imperial possessions and a huge network of imperial and ex-imperial links. The whole nation was oriented in trade and outlook across the seas, something which persisted into the mid-sixties (I'm just old enough to remember it!). It would have been impossible to put ourselves into the heart of the new continental European project in 1958, let alone in 1952 when the project really started with the European Coal and Steel Community.
Hmm - France still had imperial possessions in 1952. It didn't stop them. Also, if we had joined while still having those possessions, maybe the sort of European organisation that was created might have been different in a way which might well have suited Britain better.
I think, rather, the fact of still having imperial possessions and all those links meant that we thought that, the messy business of stopping Germany making a nuisance of themselves again having been completed, we could revert to what we thought of as our proper place in the world, as an imperial power. We failed to realise - even though it had been obvious for a while - that the Empire was on its way out, that we needed to find a new role and that intervening in European affairs militarily, as needed - and as Britain had been doing for a couple of centuries - was no longer a sustainable way forward.
In short, it was precisely because we did not think about the future and what it might mean for us as a country that we stood back when others were forced to do some hard thinking about what sort of Europe there should be. We are making the same mistake now. The geopolitics are very different and alarming. But that is the subject of my next headers. So you will have to wait.
You don't mention that it was advocated by the Liberal Party of the time.
Quite right. I wrote my Master's thesis on the European policy of the Liberal Party and for a short time worked for Donald Wade who was a leading Lib MP spokesman on foreign affairs. Also a key figure was Walter (later Lord) Layton who was among other things was editor of The Economist at the time.
Sir Oliver Letwin - “we will not allow a No Deal exit at the end of March” and this amendment shows the Government... “for 5 years I was in charge of the resilience of this country...preparation for no Deal wasn’t done... we can not impose on our country a risk of severe impacts”
Which 5 years? Brexit hasn't been happening for 5 years. And that sounds like gross incompetence on his own part.
Sir Oliver Letwin is grossly incompetent? The man who planned the poll tax, opposed inner city regeneration, and claimed William Hague was lying in his 2001 manifesto?
Say it ain't so!
Hard to say it ain't so. I'd not trust him opening a paper bag. However he is a thoughtful person, so I'll always be happy to listen to what he says.
On topic, Brexit has always been about what Leavers didn't want. There is no coherence about what they want, which is why it is has coalesced into a miasma of nihilism.
That is both rather true by definition and also meaningless. Brexit is by definition simply exiting the EU. It is a negative. Why people want to exit though may be completely different things.
Philosophically if you compare the EU to the Church of Rome (Catholicism) then lump together all non-Catholics you could also say that there is no coherence about what they want.
Some people are protestant (and they're far from homogenous too), some are Muslim (ditto), some are Hindu, Jewish or Buddhist. Some are athiest and others are simply agnostic.
Just because non-Catholics are not homogenous in what they believe doesn't mean we should take our ecclesiastical beliefs from Rome.
Though the various Reformations generally involved individual states separating themselves from adherence to Rome and replacing that with a new established church. Although in some cases it was about what they didn't want (e.g. prohibition on kingly divorce...) there was also a definite alternative chosen. What's going on now is more like saying 'we don't want to be catholic now' and then being unable to agree on any given form of church to go forward because all of the reformers insist any given option isn't 'proper non-catholicism'.
What's going on now is like deciding to leave the Church then delegating how to do so to Bishop Robbins who has said we may now cease call ourselves Catholics but we have to continue to go to Catholic Churches and follow all the Pope's rules. We just call them our own rules from now on but they must stay the same.
So the government hasn't caved. Must be close. Gripping stuff. Result in a few minutes.
This is on New Clause 3, a Labour amendment, which I think will fail. It is amendments 7 and 8 that matter. I think the government will lose amendment 7 but possibly not lose amendment 8.
As expected, government won New Clause 3 with a a majority of 22. 292 to 314. It needs 11 Tory rebels on Amendment 7. I think there are just 11. We'll see very shortly.
Oliver Letwin has now finished. As he spoke, at times he seemed almost tearful. Whether that was prompted by the prospect of having to vote against his own government, or just his horror as he contemplated a no deal Brexit, was not clear. But it was a highly effective and memorable speech. Letwin is reputed to be one of the cleverest people in the Commons, he is the ultimate policy wonk, and having looked in detail at the implications of a no-deal Brexit, he appears to be petrified.
Why did he vote for Article 50 then? Why didn't he enact planning while he was responsible as per his earlier quote?
We hadn't fully transitioned into the EEC until Thatcher, and the political effect of membership was to rule out the Bennite alternative programme of retreating behind economic walls.
It's a huge blindspot of Eurosceptics to bemoan its political nature but ignore the political consequences that flow from that.
Tony Benn was in opposition. And wasn't leader. Ruling out a totally imagined scenario is hardly cause for rejoicing. But to address your wider point, I would hope I would still be against the EU even if I agreed with them most of the time, because the changes would not be rooted in public consent. And benign dictatorship is benign until it ceases to be benign.
It's not a question of being under a benign dictatorship but of structural effects anchoring domestic politics. It's the line between the constitutional and the political.
Polite way of saying the same thing. If the considered will of the majority of voters was to endorse Benn's policy, I would take it. The more severe the outcome, the greater lesson learned for the future.
Do you think there should be no constitutional constraints on the government at all?
I see the ultra-sycophants are claiming May has had a good day even as she takes us another day toward the cliff edge (apparently).
No one quite seems to know what she will do when the WA vote is lost - I can't see her going for a Second Referendum having ruled it out repeatedly (though she has form for saying one thing and doing the opposite) so that leaves trying to make the best of the No Deal.
I can't get my head round the Morgan-Cooper proposal - the only way to stop No Deal once the WA has fallen is to unilaterally revoke A50. I can't see May or any other Conservative doing that as it will be equivalent to the 1983 Labour Manifesto (though shorter). Yet if Conservatives are complicit in forcing revocation the party will be split.
As a point, parties split for all sorts of reasons and none. Sometimes, as with the WW1 Liberals it was as much about personality as policy. When Labour split in 1981 it was the culmination of 30 years or more of argument over defence (mainly) and later Europe. Given the Conservatives have been going at it nearly as long I suppose a split of some sort can't be ruled out any more.
Those playing politics are frantically trying to spin the Morgan-Cooper amendments as a good thing for May but as she will never revoke A50 all it will do is hamper our already seemingly shoddy lack of preparation for leaving without a Deal on 29/3.
So together we all agree no hard border...and will then require a hard border because we cannot accept their demands (well I can, but the Commons won't).
I hope we're getting closer to everyone just admitting it is no deal or remain at least, and that the actions of the various parties only really make sense if that has been the goal all along.
If NI and Ireland are two countries then the idea that you can say 'no hard border' is nonsense. That's what being two countries is all about! The politicians in Ireland (all of it) really need to grow up. I will say that I think that the DUP are actually acting in a grown up fashion - which to honest boggles my bogglable bits.
The Good Friday agreement should not obstruct Brexit.
You're missing the point that almost half of people in NI don't think NI are two countries and ignore the border as much as they can, including almost everyone who lives near the border.
You could say why should we care on the mainland about the Northern Irish? Brexit is FAR more important. I wouldn't say that is especially "grown up" however.
I see why you might think that, but I'm very much not missing the point in that. The NI want to be distinct, but part of a bigger whole. The Irish (S) people want to be distinct. The GF agreement said that aspects of their existence should be aligned. Unfortunately the GF agreement wasn't a constraint on everyone else in the UK. We choose to dis-align with Ireland, and we can certainly choose to do so.
(Any use of 'grown up' could be replaced by 'big picture' or 'overview' or something)
We can choose to diverge from the EU, including Ireland. We can choose to do so by leaving Northern Ireland to an extent still aligned with Ireland and unaligned in some ways with mainland Britain. Or NI, GB and EU stay aligned. The UK gets that choice at least. But you can't have GB and NI aligned, but not with the EU, unless you accept a hard border, which is against the interests of Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland (around two thirds support the backstop). The EU rejects that choice in any deal it will have the UK.
You are prioritising divergence with the EU and keeping NI fully aligned with with GB over the strong interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
Those playing politics are frantically trying to spin the Morgan-Cooper amendments as a good thing for May but as she will never revoke A50 all it will do is hamper our already seemingly shoddy lack of preparation for leaving without a Deal on 29/3.
I see the ultra-sycophants are claiming May has had a good day even as she takes us another day toward the cliff edge (apparently).
No one quite seems to know what she will do when the WA vote is lost - I can't see her going for a Second Referendum having ruled it out repeatedly (though she has form for saying one thing and doing the opposite) so that leaves trying to make the best of the No Deal.
I can't get my head round the Morgan-Cooper proposal - the only way to stop No Deal once the WA has fallen is to unilaterally revoke A50. I can't see May or any other Conservative doing that as it will be equivalent to the 1983 Labour Manifesto (though shorter). Yet if Conservatives are complicit in forcing revocation the party will be split.
As a point, parties split for all sorts of reasons and none. Sometimes, as with the WW1 Liberals it was as much about personality as policy. When Labour split in 1981 it was the culmination of 30 years or more of argument over defence (mainly) and later Europe. Given the Conservatives have been going at it nearly as long I suppose a split of some sort can't be ruled out any more.
Those playing politics are frantically trying to spin the Morgan-Cooper amendments as a good thing for May but as she will never revoke A50 all it will do is hamper our already seemingly shoddy lack of preparation for leaving without a Deal on 29/3.
TM is having a good day as no deal dies leaving her deal or remain
Oliver Letwin has now finished. As he spoke, at times he seemed almost tearful. Whether that was prompted by the prospect of having to vote against his own government, or just his horror as he contemplated a no deal Brexit, was not clear. But it was a highly effective and memorable speech. Letwin is reputed to be one of the cleverest people in the Commons, he is the ultimate policy wonk, and having looked in detail at the implications of a no-deal Brexit, he appears to be petrified.
Why did he vote for Article 50 then? Why didn't he enact planning while he was responsible as per his earlier quote?
Sky news saying he was in the Govt at the time and was instrumental in getting it through the House.
We hadn't fully transitioned into the EEC until Thatcher, and the political effect of membership was to rule out the Bennite alternative programme of retreating behind economic walls.
It's a huge blindspot of Eurosceptics to bemoan its political nature but ignore the political consequences that flow from that.
Tony Benn was in opposition. And wasn't leader. Ruling out a totally imagined scenario is hardly cause for rejoicing. But to address your wider point, I would hope I would still be against the EU even if I agreed with them most of the time, because the changes would not be rooted in public consent. And benign dictatorship is benign until it ceases to be benign.
It's not a question of being under a benign dictatorship but of structural effects anchoring domestic politics. It's the line between the constitutional and the political.
Polite way of saying the same thing. If the considered will of the majority of voters was to endorse Benn's policy, I would take it. The more severe the outcome, the greater lesson learned for the future.
Do you think there should be no constitutional constraints on the government at all?
No I do not. But your scenario clearly dealt with issues that were within the imagined Government's constitutional remit.
I see the ultra-sycophants are claiming May has had a good day even as she takes us another day toward the cliff edge (apparently).
No one quite seems to know what she will do when the WA vote is lost - I can't see her going for a Second Referendum having ruled it out repeatedly (though she has form for saying one thing and doing the opposite) so that leaves trying to make the best of the No Deal.
I can't get my head round the Morgan-Cooper proposal - the only way to stop No Deal once the WA has fallen is to unilaterally revoke A50. I can't see May or any other Conservative doing that as it will be equivalent to the 1983 Labour Manifesto (though shorter). Yet if Conservatives are complicit in forcing revocation the party will be split.
As a point, parties split for all sorts of reasons and none. Sometimes, as with the WW1 Liberals it was as much about personality as policy. When Labour split in 1981 it was the culmination of 30 years or more of argument over defence (mainly) and later Europe. Given the Conservatives have been going at it nearly as long I suppose a split of some sort can't be ruled out any more.
Those playing politics are frantically trying to spin the Morgan-Cooper amendments as a good thing for May but as she will never revoke A50 all it will do is hamper our already seemingly shoddy lack of preparation for leaving without a Deal on 29/3.
TM is having a good day as no deal dies leaving her deal or remain
No Deal has not died.
No Deal without alibis for the government, however...
I see the ultra-sycophants are claiming May has had a good day even as she takes us another day toward the cliff edge (apparently).
No one quite seems to know what she will do when the WA vote is lost - I can't see her going for a Second Referendum having ruled it out repeatedly (though she has form for saying one thing and doing the opposite) so that leaves trying to make the best of the No Deal.
I can't get my head round the Morgan-Cooper proposal - the only way to stop No Deal once the WA has fallen is to unilaterally revoke A50. I can't see May or any other Conservative doing that as it will be equivalent to the 1983 Labour Manifesto (though shorter). Yet if Conservatives are complicit in forcing revocation the party will be split.
As a point, parties split for all sorts of reasons and none. Sometimes, as with the WW1 Liberals it was as much about personality as policy. When Labour split in 1981 it was the culmination of 30 years or more of argument over defence (mainly) and later Europe. Given the Conservatives have been going at it nearly as long I suppose a split of some sort can't be ruled out any more.
Those playing politics are frantically trying to spin the Morgan-Cooper amendments as a good thing for May but as she will never revoke A50 all it will do is hamper our already seemingly shoddy lack of preparation for leaving without a Deal on 29/3.
TM is having a good day as no deal dies leaving her deal or remain
Which does not aid her getting deal in the slightest.
National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda
Which would you support? And which would be bigger?
The former would be the biggest easily as it would be the main party of the right, the latter would not be able to challenge for power on its own unless it teamed up with the LDs and centrist Labour MPs. Personally as a Remain voter who likes Boris I could vote for either
TM whole aim has been to agree a Brexit that respects the vote but protects business and she achieves this in her WDA
I cannot think for one minute that TM will be a party to no deal but of course tactically she needs to let the HOC obstruct no deal, as has happened somewhat today, and in turn it moves Brexit to her deal or no Brexit without compromising her position
Given that remainer MP opposition in the House is more numerous, and less ideological, I would have thought the No Deal threat would be more potent than No Brexit. But perhaps not. Perhaps she has to get her own side on board first and then somehow rustle up enough from Labour to get over the line. Challenging.
The market is saying very clearly that we WILL be leaving the EU, one way or another, and I think that we will.
I can't get my head round the Morgan-Cooper proposal - the only way to stop No Deal once the WA has fallen is to unilaterally revoke A50.
This is part of my frustration. I cannot believe at least some of them cannot see that that is the case. But they are not being honest about it. If no deal is as bad as they say, then they should not fear saying we need to revoke if (when) the deal fails. Careers destroyed perhaps, but some have had long careers as it is, and this is supposed to be an issue of national important, if anything is worth destroying one's career over it is this.
TM whole aim has been to agree a Brexit that respects the vote but protects business and she achieves this in her WDA
I cannot think for one minute that TM will be a party to no deal but of course tactically she needs to let the HOC obstruct no deal, as has happened somewhat today, and in turn it moves Brexit to her deal or no Brexit without compromising her position
Given that remainer MP opposition in the House is more numerous, and less ideological, I would have thought the No Deal threat would be more potent than No Brexit. But perhaps not. Perhaps she has to get her own side on board first and then somehow rustle up enough from Labour to get over the line. Challenging.
The market is saying very clearly that we WILL be leaving the EU, one way or another, and I think that we will.
We have to really. We had a referendum on it.
Which is going to be overturned, one way or another. The perceived crapness of the deal by too many Brexiteers combined with the ease of remaining given the A50 ruling giving remainers no reason to compromise will see it happen.
If Parliament won't accept no deal there is only one option left, regardless of the 2016 vote. They are intent on telling the public that leaving is too hard, and cannot be done - they are just currently arguing amongst themselves about how to do that.
The MV was pulled last month, and the deal doesn't seem to have made any progress at all among the Commons. That's as clear a sign as any it is over for Brexit, given the very real risk enough Tories will take action to prevent no deal.
Further to the earlier comment about the R4 programme on the similarities between the present Conservative split on Europe and that in the 1900s on tariff reform, I note that Joe Chamberlain used the phrase 'take back control' in relation to the empire in a system of colonial preference. Nothing new under the sun.
While I deplore the individual and his actions, I find it deeply disturbing that intermediaries such as paypal get to decide who or what people get to spend their money on.
I know Paypal is a private company, but when they are effectively able to deplatform individuals whose views they disagree with it is a disturbing trend.
And why stop there? If Visa was taken over by a fervent prohibitionist, should they be able to cancel my credit card if I buy alcohol with it? I don't care to have my spending policed.
Long term crypto is the only way forward.
They aren’t policing anyone’s expenditure. They are policing political fundraising using their infrastructure, which is a quite different thing.
And if they decided to ban the Conservative Party? Or Labour? Or Friends of the Earth?
National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda
Which would you support? And which would be bigger?
The former would be the biggest easily as it would be the main party of the right, the latter would not be able to challenge for power on its own unless it teamed up with the LDs and centrist Labour MPs. Personally as a Remain voter who likes Boris I could vote for either
Why do you like Boris.. hopeless as F Sec.. why would he make a good PM.. He is just a clever buffoon.
Further to the earlier comment about the R4 programme on the similarities between the present Conservative split on Europe and that in the 1900s on tariff reform, I note that Joe Chamberlain used the phrase 'take back control' in relation to the empire in a system of colonial preference. Nothing new under the sun.
I always thought it was a horrible slogan. And still do.
Further to the earlier comment about the R4 programme on the similarities between the present Conservative split on Europe and that in the 1900s on tariff reform, I note that Joe Chamberlain used the phrase 'take back control' in relation to the empire in a system of colonial preference. Nothing new under the sun.
thanks so much about reminding me of this ( I heard the adverts) - it's called the 'long view' or some such I think. I can't immediately find it on iplayer though. I'd be obliged if you can link.
TM is having a good day as no deal dies leaving her deal or remain
IF the WA deal falls in the Commons, May has five options:
1) Try Again - I suppose if the defeat was close she might fancy her chances of getting the Whips to twist a few bits and pieces.
2) Referendum - she has repeatedly ruled this out. It's incredibly divisive - what would be the question (two options, three options?)
3) Revoke A50 - that would be her final act.
4) No Deal - I presume she'll then go all Britannia on us, invoke the Blitz or Dunkirk with every other sentence, keep up her pointless calls for unity and "coming together" and try to persuade us the Government has everything under control and not to panic as we probably won't run out of food for a few weeks.
5) Resign.
As far as the EU is concerned, it seems the only options are the WA, No Deal or a revocation of A50. I suppose if May grovels publicly she might buy a few weeks on the A50 process to sort something out - I suppose it'll depend on how magnanimous the EU is feeling.
While I deplore the individual and his actions, I find it deeply disturbing that intermediaries such as paypal get to decide who or what people get to spend their money on.
I know Paypal is a private company, but when they are effectively able to deplatform individuals whose views they disagree with it is a disturbing trend.
And why stop there? If Visa was taken over by a fervent prohibitionist, should they be able to cancel my credit card if I buy alcohol with it? I don't care to have my spending policed.
Long term crypto is the only way forward.
They aren’t policing anyone’s expenditure. They are policing political fundraising using their infrastructure, which is a quite different thing.
And if they decided to ban the Conservative Party? Or Labour? Or Friends of the Earth?
Either all of it is OK, or none of it is OK.
Nope. It is perfectly acceptable for private companies to pick and choose who they do business with. I have done it myself with individuals I know to be organisers for local BNP groups. Why should I take their business when I object to everything they stand for? I am not stopping them from saying what they want or acting in whatever way they choose. I am simply refusing to do business with them.
Of course there is an issue when a company is so large and dominant in the market but then that is a case perhaps for examining their monopoly. But that is a different matter.
Then we have no choice but to remain if the deal is voted down.
Remove the whip from Letwin and co and call a General Election.
Voting against on a finance bill ought to be a deselection issue.
Is it any different to Rooker/Wise amending Finance Bill back in 1977?
Very. That was a then rather minor tweak (though very consequential long term). It certainly didn't lead to a government shutdown. The fact that the most famous example of such an amendment is over 40 years ago says a lot too.
National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda
Which would you support? And which would be bigger?
The former would be the biggest easily as it would be the main party of the right, the latter would not be able to challenge for power on its own unless it teamed up with the LDs and centrist Labour MPs. Personally as a Remain voter who likes Boris I could vote for either
Why do you like Boris.. hopeless as F Sec.. why would he make a good PM.. He is just a clever buffoon.
Was he really hopeless as FS or is it just shouty pro-EU people saying this?
He did not go killing brown skinned people in sunny lands (this makes him better than any after Robin Cook imo). He got criticised for the lady in Iran but now she is on hunger strike. He got the world to chuck out Putins diplomats, the most in America when we are told Trump is Putins best mate, seems a heck of a diplomatic achievement.
Further to the earlier comment about the R4 programme on the similarities between the present Conservative split on Europe and that in the 1900s on tariff reform, I note that Joe Chamberlain used the phrase 'take back control' in relation to the empire in a system of colonial preference. Nothing new under the sun.
Yes, It doesn't look like "Take back Control" is an accurate description of current events. More like 2 clowns fighting over the steering wheel while going the wrong way up a motorway.
I am glad to be in a safe industry, not one dependent on these buffoons.
I see the ultra-sycophants are claiming May has had a good day even as she takes us another day toward the cliff edge (apparently).
No one quite seems to know what she will do when the WA vote is lost - I can't see her going for a Second Referendum having ruled it out repeatedly (though she has form for saying one thing and doing the opposite) so that leaves trying to make the best of the No Deal.
I can't get my head round the Morgan-Cooper proposal - the only way to stop No Deal once the WA has fallen is to unilaterally revoke A50. I can't see May or any other Conservative doing that as it will be equivalent to the 1983 Labour Manifesto (though shorter). Yet if Conservatives are complicit in forcing revocation the party will be split.
As a point, parties split for all sorts of reasons and none. Sometimes, as with the WW1 Liberals it was as much about personality as policy. When Labour split in 1981 it was the culmination of 30 years or more of argument over defence (mainly) and later Europe. Given the Conservatives have been going at it nearly as long I suppose a split of some sort can't be ruled out any more.
Those playing politics are frantically trying to spin the Morgan-Cooper amendments as a good thing for May but as she will never revoke A50 all it will do is hamper our already seemingly shoddy lack of preparation for leaving without a Deal on 29/3.
TM is having a good day as no deal dies leaving her deal or remain
No Deal has not died at all. All that is happened is that the Cooper motion allows her to blame Parliament for any and all problems after a No Deal Brexit.
"If only they could have let us take the sensible actions we needed, everything would have been fine."
I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.
Who is going to propose it. Tonights vote was almost certainly won by Olicer Letwin's passion against no deal and is the first really important vote to send a message to brexiteers.
TM WDA or remain through a referendum are increasingly the only two options
Ironically I am relaxed about either though I think a referendum would be horribly divisive
Brilliant - So we're still moving remorselessly to No Deal as that's the default option of A50 but now MP's have ensured that if it happens the government will be unable to spend any money?
What a total waste of space the Conservative Party is.
National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda
Which would you support? And which would be bigger?
Can I have a Brexit/Cameroon party please? Led by Michael Gove.
The best way to get a Brexit/Cameroon party is to be in the European Union, in order for the contradictions between the two to be viable within the same party. Eurosceptics should have voted Remain.
TM is having a good day as no deal dies leaving her deal or remain
IF the WA deal falls in the Commons, May has five options:
1) Try Again - I suppose if the defeat was close she might fancy her chances of getting the Whips to twist a few bits and pieces.
2) Referendum - she has repeatedly ruled this out. It's incredibly divisive - what would be the question (two options, three options?)
3) Revoke A50 - that would be her final act.
4) No Deal - I presume she'll then go all Britannia on us, invoke the Blitz or Dunkirk with every other sentence, keep up her pointless calls for unity and "coming together" and try to persuade us the Government has everything under control and not to panic as we probably won't run out of food for a few weeks.
5) Resign.
As far as the EU is concerned, it seems the only options are the WA, No Deal or a revocation of A50. I suppose if May grovels publicly she might buy a few weeks on the A50 process to sort something out - I suppose it'll depend on how magnanimous the EU is feeling.
Not particularly magnanimous I would think, they have not even provided the salve of helpful language since the WA was agreed. They're now just waiting for us to give in, one way or another, so I don't see how it is in their interest to give even a little more time.
Option 1 I assume will be tried at least once, depending on how the Commons votes on other options, but there's no reason to think the hugeness of the expected defeat can be overcome.
Option 2 could conceivably get support,
Option 3 is what so many clearly think should happen, but there's no way she can do it.
Option 4 will no doubt be tried, being unable to pass anything else but unwilling to quit, at least at first, but given as we've just seen even trying to prepare at this late stage is going to be frustrated I cannot see how that will last. No deal may not be as apocalyptic as the worst predictions, but it doesn't look like it will be good and given the sentiments in the Commons some Tories won't wear it.
Option 5 should have happened a long time ago, but I'm not sure what it solves anymore. She has, at least, run down the clock about as far as you can go, and yet everyone is still just acting like there is all the time in the world for their various solutions.
Brilliant - So we're still moving remorselessly to No Deal as that's the default option of A50 but now MP's have ensured that if it happens the government will be unable to spend any money?
What a total waste of space the Conservative Party is.
Didn't know Yvette Cooper was a member of the Conservative Party.
Government has accepted the Cooper amendment to the finance bill. Government all but certain to lose the vote; effectively depriving the government of supply in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Probability of UK leaving EU on 29 March is now down to 36% on Betfair. Brexit is sliding away.
Not surprisingly. Immediately after losing the Meaningful Vote is now clear that May will seek to extend Article 50 for a "pause for reflection" in the UK.
Brexiteers are going to lose their fucking minds, it's gonna be amazing.
That latter is rather a tardy observation.
And you are rather a fuckwit but don't let that stop you.
As I recall it was comments like that which led you, sensibly, to take a break from PB a while back.
Given your comment above, I'm not sure you're on very firm ground here.
I suggest there is a difference between generic comments about leavers or remainers - which are common on the site - and us throwing personal abuse at each other, which does nothing to improve th site.
Personally I don't see the distinction. If you want the debate to be less toxic, be less toxic.
Nope there is no distinction. Ian just wants to hide from the consequences of his actions. If he chooses to be offensive then he deserves to be treated the same in response.
Then we have no choice but to remain if the deal is voted down.
Remove the whip from Letwin and co and call a General Election.
Voting against on a finance bill ought to be a deselection issue.
Is it any different to Rooker/Wise amending Finance Bill back in 1977?
Very. That was a then rather minor tweak (though very consequential long term). It certainly didn't lead to a government shutdown. The fact that the most famous example of such an amendment is over 40 years ago says a lot too.
But there was no suggestion that Jeff Rooker and Audrey Wise should have been deselected on account of their action.
While I deplore the individual and his actions, I find it deeply disturbing that intermediaries such as paypal get to decide who or what people get to spend their money on.
I know Paypal is a private company, but when they are effectively able to deplatform individuals whose views they disagree with it is a disturbing trend.
And why stop there? If Visa was taken over by a fervent prohibitionist, should they be able to cancel my credit card if I buy alcohol with it? I don't care to have my spending policed.
Long term crypto is the only way forward.
They aren’t policing anyone’s expenditure. They are policing political fundraising using their infrastructure, which is a quite different thing.
And if they decided to ban the Conservative Party? Or Labour? Or Friends of the Earth?
Either all of it is OK, or none of it is OK.
Nope. It is perfectly acceptable for private companies to pick and choose who they do business with. I have done it myself with individuals I know to be organisers for local BNP groups. Why should I take their business when I object to everything they stand for? I am not stopping them from saying what they want or acting in whatever way they choose. I am simply refusing to do business with them.
Of course there is an issue when a company is so large and dominant in the market but then that is a case perhaps for examining their monopoly. But that is a different matter.
Indeed, that's what I said before:
"I know Paypal is a private company, but when they are effectively able to deplatform individuals whose views they disagree with it is a disturbing trend. "
Can anyone explain to me how a 2nd referendum is going to pass through the Commons, when even blocking 'No Deal' only gets a majority of 7, despite Corbyn's support?
If Tory MPs are not willing to even vote against the most extreme version of Brexit, I really can't see how they're going to vote to block Brexit altogether.
Excellent news from the Commons. Parliament taking back control. We need to start winnowing done the options and we are dangerously short of time. If the government loses on a fairly abstract amendment the majority against and actual no deal will be huge. Taking this nonsense off the table is helpful, stabilising and clarifying.
Brilliant - So we're still moving remorselessly to No Deal as that's the default option of A50 but now MP's have ensured that if it happens the government will be unable to spend any money?
What a total waste of space the Conservative Party is.
Didn't know Yvette Cooper was a member of the Conservative Party.
Well clearly it's Conservative Remainer MP's that have made the difference.
National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda
Which would you support? And which would be bigger?
Can I have a Brexit/Cameroon party please? Led by Michael Gove.
The best way to get a Brexit/Cameroon party is to be in the European Union, in order for the contradictions between the two to be viable within the same party. Eurosceptics should have voted Remain.
LOL. Keep trying William. At least you are good for a laugh if nothing else.
Can anyone explain to me how a 2nd referendum is going to pass through the Commons, when even blocking 'No Deal' only gets a majority of 7, despite Corbyn's support?
If Tory MPs are not willing to even vote against the most extreme version of Brexit, I really can't see how they're going to vote to block Brexit altogether.
It requires Mrs May supporting a second referendum which, in extremis, she might do.
I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.
Who is going to propose it. Tonights vote was almost certainly won by Olicer Letwin's passion against no deal and is the first really important vote to send a message to brexiteers.
TM WDA or remain through a referendum are increasingly the only two options
Ironically I am relaxed about either though I think a referendum would be horribly divisive
I don't know who will propose it. But since parliament doesn't even want to attempt to prepare for no deal this late, clearly any vote will not include it so there's not much point and they should just revoke.
Parliament is undercutting May's ability to point to the horror of no deal to convince people, and that's all she has to work with. She now has nothing to offer to the hard leavers, since she cannot get changes to the WA, and she cannot threaten the remainers since they know no deal will not happen, clearly parliament will bring her down if she tries it.
Brilliant - So we're still moving remorselessly to No Deal as that's the default option of A50 but now MP's have ensured that if it happens the government will be unable to spend any money?
What a total waste of space the Conservative Party is.
Didn't know Yvette Cooper was a member of the Conservative Party.
The opposition are expected to oppose. It's priced in. The variable is where the government can't whip its own MPs to support its business, and the Conservative Party has failed by that measure.
I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.
Who is going to propose it. Tonights vote was almost certainly won by Olicer Letwin's passion against no deal and is the first really important vote to send a message to brexiteers.
TM WDA or remain through a referendum are increasingly the only two options
Ironically I am relaxed about either though I think a referendum would be horribly divisive
As I said it changes nothing. It is like voting against gravity.
Can anyone explain to me how a 2nd referendum is going to pass through the Commons, when even blocking 'No Deal' only gets a majority of 7, despite Corbyn's support?
If Tory MPs are not willing to even vote against the most extreme version of Brexit, I really can't see how they're going to vote to block Brexit altogether.
Can anyone explain to me how a 2nd referendum is going to pass through the Commons, when even blocking 'No Deal' only gets a majority of 7, despite Corbyn's support?
If Tory MPs are not willing to even vote against the most extreme version of Brexit, I really can't see how they're going to vote to block Brexit altogether.
It requires Mrs May supporting a second referendum which, in extremis, she might do.
Brilliant - So we're still moving remorselessly to No Deal as that's the default option of A50 but now MP's have ensured that if it happens the government will be unable to spend any money?
What a total waste of space the Conservative Party is.
Didn't know Yvette Cooper was a member of the Conservative Party.
Well clearly it's Conservative Remainer MP's that have made the difference.
I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.
Who is going to propose it. Tonights vote was almost certainly won by Olicer Letwin's passion against no deal and is the first really important vote to send a message to brexiteers.
TM WDA or remain through a referendum are increasingly the only two options
Ironically I am relaxed about either though I think a referendum would be horribly divisive
As I said it changes nothing. It is like voting against gravity.
Which is going to be overturned, one way or another. The perceived crapness of the deal by too many Brexiteers combined with the ease of remaining given the A50 ruling giving remainers no reason to compromise will see it happen.
If Parliament won't accept no deal there is only one option left, regardless of the 2016 vote. They are intent on telling the public that leaving is too hard, and cannot be done - they are just currently arguing amongst themselves about how to do that.
The MV was pulled last month, and the deal doesn't seem to have made any progress at all among the Commons. That's as clear a sign as any it is over for Brexit, given the very real risk enough Tories will take action to prevent no deal.
Ok.
1. What I think should happen:
The Deal should be passed. The logical outcome of the 2016 referendum is a negotiated exit from the European Union. The Deal is that and there is no other Deal. Sign it.
2. What I want to happen:
Parliament to revoke article 50 and we remain. Do not even think about the nonsense of another referendum.
3. What I think is mostly likely to happen:
Need to do some overnight processing so will get back to you. Betfair still has a Brexit of some sort as a 70% chance.
Can anyone explain to me how a 2nd referendum is going to pass through the Commons, when even blocking 'No Deal' only gets a majority of 7, despite Corbyn's support?
If Tory MPs are not willing to even vote against the most extreme version of Brexit, I really can't see how they're going to vote to block Brexit altogether.
It requires Mrs May supporting a second referendum which, in extremis, she might do.
Well OK, theoretically if she comes out in support of a referendum (and she manages to hold onto the Tory leadership after supporting it), then it probably does get through the Commons.
But the "People's Vote" lot keep bleating that, as things are now, a 2nd referendum would pass the Commons if only Corbyn would come out in support of it. Today's vote suggests otherwise.
Brilliant - So we're still moving remorselessly to No Deal as that's the default option of A50 but now MP's have ensured that if it happens the government will be unable to spend any money?
What a total waste of space the Conservative Party is.
Didn't know Yvette Cooper was a member of the Conservative Party.
It's passed because of the Tories being so ridiculously divided. Labour look far more competent in parliamentary terms than the Tories. Corbyn is a terrible leader, but frankly the country cannot do much worse at the present time.
I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.
Who is going to propose it. Tonights vote was almost certainly won by Olicer Letwin's passion against no deal and is the first really important vote to send a message to brexiteers.
TM WDA or remain through a referendum are increasingly the only two options
Ironically I am relaxed about either though I think a referendum would be horribly divisive
As I said it changes nothing. It is like voting against gravity.
Gravity cannot be unilaterally revoked.
Nothing they have done makes revocation more likely. It just makes the consequences of NO Deal more difficult to deal with. And gives us someone different to blame for that.
Government has accepted the Cooper amendment to the finance bill. Government all but certain to lose the vote; effectively depriving the government of supply in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Probability of UK leaving EU on 29 March is now down to 36% on Betfair. Brexit is sliding away.
Not surprisingly. Immediately after losing the Meaningful Vote is now clear that May will seek to extend Article 50 for a "pause for reflection" in the UK.
Brexiteers are going to lose their fucking minds, it's gonna be amazing.
That latter is rather a tardy observation.
And you are rather a fuckwit but don't let that stop you.
As I recall it was comments like that which led you, sensibly, to take a break from PB a while back.
Given your comment above, I'm not sure you're on very firm ground here.
I suggest there is a difference between generic comments about leavers or remainers - which are common on the site - and us throwing personal abuse at each other, which does nothing to improve th site.
Personally I don't see the distinction. If you want the debate to be less toxic, be less toxic.
Says the guy who called remainers idiotic. And the rest.
Part of ‘the rest’ being declaring Jo Cox’s murder to be a false flag operation, and declining to withdraw his claim despite being given several opportunities to do so.
Probably not the best person to lecture others on toxicity.
Can anyone explain to me how a 2nd referendum is going to pass through the Commons, when even blocking 'No Deal' only gets a majority of 7, despite Corbyn's support?
If Tory MPs are not willing to even vote against the most extreme version of Brexit, I really can't see how they're going to vote to block Brexit altogether.
This amendment does not block 'No Deal'.
It signals that parliament will block it. How is less clear, but I do not think it can be ruled out that enough Tories will bring down the government over no deal.
I wonder if the vote to revoke A50 will be that close.
Who is going to propose it. Tonights vote was almost certainly won by Olicer Letwin's passion against no deal and is the first really important vote to send a message to brexiteers.
TM WDA or remain through a referendum are increasingly the only two options
Ironically I am relaxed about either though I think a referendum would be horribly divisive
As I said it changes nothing. It is like voting against gravity.
Not really, unless gravity was imposed by an act of Parliament which can be repealed by a simple majority vote of Parliament.
It's constitutionally interesting (to say the least) that the government can lose a vote on a money bill fettering its ability to raise taxes in certain circumstances and there's no significant discussion of whether the government has lost the confidence of parliament. Surely before the FTPA this would have been GE territory, and with a PM with any sense of honour it might still have been?
Comments
But I think you are wrong about any ultra Brexitteers accept they could throw away the whole thing.
For one, while we may mock many MPs most are relatively savvy, they can see various permutations in this debate, and they surely already know there is a possibility Brexit no longer happens. Some seem to prefer that to the only Brexit deal on offer.
For two, for every ultra Brexiteer who might consider switching because they could lose Brexit entirely, there's Tory ultra remainers and most of the Labour party and every other MP who also sees Brexit might not happen. And even if half or three quarters of ultra brexiteers accept they might lose the whole thing, May needs some of those remainers and opposition to back her too.
Ditto all of those who vote against the government's signature economic policy, the negotiated exit from the European Union.
Let's have some discipline in the Tory party.
Political career
From 1983 to 1986, he was a member of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's Policy Unit.
According to official government documents from 1985, released in December 2014 under the 30 years rule, Letwin recommended the Prime Minister to "use Scotland as a trail-blazer for the pure residence charge", i.e. the controversial Community Charge or 'Poll tax', having trialled it there first, and to implement it nationwide should "the exemplifications prove ... it is feasible."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Letwin
Turned out brilliantly that did... The guy's a complete dud. Everything he touches turns to ashes yet here he is, 30 years after being involved in the Poll Tax debacle (which should have killed his career stone dead right there and then) still dictating to the "riff raff".
That's not a broad church. It is possible, somehow, that is clings on somehow, but it shouldn't, and it doesn't deserve to.
And yes Labour have their issues there too, but the non-Corbynites seem to have given up (they remain quiet except for occasional foreign policy criticism and anti-semitism scandals) and have decided they are going nowhere.
But the Tories are in government and will either have to revoke A50 or pursue no deal, both of which are anathema to parts of their party. And if they believe even a quarter of what they say, the factions should be willing to bring down the government rather than allow vassalage or no deal chaos. Otherwise they are simply talking bollocks.
This is on New Clause 3, a Labour amendment, which I think will fail. It is amendments 7 and 8 that matter. I think the government will lose amendment 7 but possibly not lose amendment 8.
As I recall it was comments like that which led you, sensibly, to take a break from PB a while back.
Given your comment above, I'm not sure you're on very firm ground here. Says the guy who called remainers idiotic. And the rest.
Although I must say that I don't like talk of 'parliament' taking control when you have moments of votes like this, which you sometimes see, because parliament is deciding either way.
That was 125 years ago.
Say it ain't so!
But I haven't been making solemn suggestions that others take a break because they've called me a fuckwit, when in the very post above, I've called them and all their co-voters mentally ill. It was quite clearly hypocrisy, and I'm not sure how or why you're continuing to argue. I would suggest that you try to be more polite, and so will I.
Oliver Letwin has now finished. As he spoke, at times he seemed almost tearful. Whether that was prompted by the prospect of having to vote against his own government, or just his horror as he contemplated a no deal Brexit, was not clear. But it was a highly effective and memorable speech. Letwin is reputed to be one of the cleverest people in the Commons, he is the ultimate policy wonk, and having looked in detail at the implications of a no-deal Brexit, he appears to be petrified.
It isn't inconsistent or nihilist for Brexit to have similar divisions.
292 to 314. It needs 11 Tory rebels on Amendment 7. I think there are just 11. We'll see very shortly.
Why didn't he enact planning while he was responsible as per his earlier quote?
I see the ultra-sycophants are claiming May has had a good day even as she takes us another day toward the cliff edge (apparently).
No one quite seems to know what she will do when the WA vote is lost - I can't see her going for a Second Referendum having ruled it out repeatedly (though she has form for saying one thing and doing the opposite) so that leaves trying to make the best of the No Deal.
I can't get my head round the Morgan-Cooper proposal - the only way to stop No Deal once the WA has fallen is to unilaterally revoke A50. I can't see May or any other Conservative doing that as it will be equivalent to the 1983 Labour Manifesto (though shorter). Yet if Conservatives are complicit in forcing revocation the party will be split.
As a point, parties split for all sorts of reasons and none. Sometimes, as with the WW1 Liberals it was as much about personality as policy. When Labour split in 1981 it was the culmination of 30 years or more of argument over defence (mainly) and later Europe. Given the Conservatives have been going at it nearly as long I suppose a split of some sort can't be ruled out any more.
Those playing politics are frantically trying to spin the Morgan-Cooper amendments as a good thing for May but as she will never revoke A50 all it will do is hamper our already seemingly shoddy lack of preparation for leaving without a Deal on 29/3.
You are prioritising divergence with the EU and keeping NI fully aligned with with GB over the strong interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
National Conservatives led by Boris, following a Brexit/ Thatcherite agenda
Liberal Conservatives led by Amber Rudd, following a Cameroon agenda
Which would you support? And which would be bigger?
No Deal without alibis for the government, however...
The market is saying very clearly that we WILL be leaving the EU, one way or another, and I think that we will.
We have to really. We had a referendum on it.
If Parliament won't accept no deal there is only one option left, regardless of the 2016 vote. They are intent on telling the public that leaving is too hard, and cannot be done - they are just currently arguing amongst themselves about how to do that.
The MV was pulled last month, and the deal doesn't seem to have made any progress at all among the Commons. That's as clear a sign as any it is over for Brexit, given the very real risk enough Tories will take action to prevent no deal.
Either all of it is OK, or none of it is OK.
Noes 296
1) Try Again - I suppose if the defeat was close she might fancy her chances of getting the Whips to twist a few bits and pieces.
2) Referendum - she has repeatedly ruled this out. It's incredibly divisive - what would be the question (two options, three options?)
3) Revoke A50 - that would be her final act.
4) No Deal - I presume she'll then go all Britannia on us, invoke the Blitz or Dunkirk with every other sentence, keep up her pointless calls for unity and "coming together" and try to persuade us the Government has everything under control and not to panic as we probably won't run out of food for a few weeks.
5) Resign.
As far as the EU is concerned, it seems the only options are the WA, No Deal or a revocation of A50. I suppose if May grovels publicly she might buy a few weeks on the A50 process to sort something out - I suppose it'll depend on how magnanimous the EU is feeling.
Of course there is an issue when a company is so large and dominant in the market but then that is a case perhaps for examining their monopoly. But that is a different matter.
He did not go killing brown skinned people in sunny lands (this makes him better than any after Robin Cook imo).
He got criticised for the lady in Iran but now she is on hunger strike.
He got the world to chuck out Putins diplomats, the most in America when we are told Trump is Putins best mate, seems a heck of a diplomatic achievement.
I am glad to be in a safe industry, not one dependent on these buffoons.
"If only they could have let us take the sensible actions we needed, everything would have been fine."
TM WDA or remain through a referendum are increasingly the only two options
Ironically I am relaxed about either though I think a referendum would be horribly divisive
What a total waste of space the Conservative Party is.
Option 1 I assume will be tried at least once, depending on how the Commons votes on other options, but there's no reason to think the hugeness of the expected defeat can be overcome.
Option 2 could conceivably get support,
Option 3 is what so many clearly think should happen, but there's no way she can do it.
Option 4 will no doubt be tried, being unable to pass anything else but unwilling to quit, at least at first, but given as we've just seen even trying to prepare at this late stage is going to be frustrated I cannot see how that will last. No deal may not be as apocalyptic as the worst predictions, but it doesn't look like it will be good and given the sentiments in the Commons some Tories won't wear it.
Option 5 should have happened a long time ago, but I'm not sure what it solves anymore. She has, at least, run down the clock about as far as you can go, and yet everyone is still just acting like there is all the time in the world for their various solutions.
You don't think an election is on the cards?
Yet another achievement by May. Incidentally unlikely to have lost the vote had May not thrown away Cameron's majority.
"I know Paypal is a private company, but when they are effectively able to deplatform individuals whose views they disagree with it is a disturbing trend. "
If Tory MPs are not willing to even vote against the most extreme version of Brexit, I really can't see how they're going to vote to block Brexit altogether.
Parliament is undercutting May's ability to point to the horror of no deal to convince people, and that's all she has to work with. She now has nothing to offer to the hard leavers, since she cannot get changes to the WA, and she cannot threaten the remainers since they know no deal will not happen, clearly parliament will bring her down if she tries it.
Didn't it say 'in line with the member state's constitutional requirements'?
1. What I think should happen:
The Deal should be passed. The logical outcome of the 2016 referendum is a negotiated exit from the European Union. The Deal is that and there is no other Deal. Sign it.
2. What I want to happen:
Parliament to revoke article 50 and we remain. Do not even think about the nonsense of another referendum.
3. What I think is mostly likely to happen:
Need to do some overnight processing so will get back to you. Betfair still has a Brexit of some sort as a 70% chance.
But the "People's Vote" lot keep bleating that, as things are now, a 2nd referendum would pass the Commons if only Corbyn would come out in support of it. Today's vote suggests otherwise.
Part of ‘the rest’ being declaring Jo Cox’s murder to be a false flag operation, and declining to withdraw his claim despite being given several opportunities to do so.
Probably not the best person to lecture others on toxicity.
It's constitutionally interesting (to say the least) that the government can lose a vote on a money bill fettering its ability to raise taxes in certain circumstances and there's no significant discussion of whether the government has lost the confidence of parliament. Surely before the FTPA this would have been GE territory, and with a PM with any sense of honour it might still have been?