Off topic, all the warning signs are there this year (stock markets, trade figures over Christmas) of a fairly imminent global recession.
I hope I’m wrong.
Indeed. I hope you're wrong too. The Brexit recession*.
(*The Global Economic crisis of 2008, was often viewed through a national lens with some unscrupulous people blaming the govt for the whole thing)
It will certainly be blamed on Brexit, even though I think that will have virtually nothing to do with it if the deal passes and the transition period kicks in.
If we crash out to No Deal, it could justifiably be blamed on Brexit.
Disruption to trade between Britain and the EU due to Brexit would not have 'virtually nothing' to do with a recession. A larger cause could well be Trump's trade war. All in all Farage, who helped bring us both Brexit and Trump, would have a lot to answer for.
The government has shot itself in the foot with this approach.
Bercow looks very very uncomfortable.
So is the government going to be publishing the advice it received then?
I wish it would. I'm all for transparency.
The fact is that if Bone was told an amendment wasn't possible yet Grieve's amend was accepted... if Bercow was privy to that going on then it's naughty.
64% of British voterswant a#peoplesvote according to recent polling.
But the % falls drastically when asked if they support any particular one of the various possible formulations of the question(s) for one. None of them gets a majority. Bit like the current parliamentary impasse in that sense.
Sure, like Brexit itself, the abstract idea of a #peoplesvote is more popular than the concrete proposal. However it is wrong to depict the concept as unpopular.
This is just embarrasing. No speaker should ever be in this position
Agreed. His authority is utterly gone as he acts in the interests of his supporters alone. A disgrace to a noble and ancient office. This is unprecedented.
This is just embarrasing. No speaker should ever be in this position
Agreed. His authority is utterly gone as he acts in the interests of his supporters alone. A disgrace to a noble and ancient office. This is unprecedented.
And as he says, if precedent were always followed then nothing would change.
I quite like the fact that Bercow is defending his position - as a non-parliamentary procedural expert I'm loving the near Socratic process that is taking place.
What Brexit has shown above all else is that we don’t have MPs up to the job of governing Britain. What is urgently needed is reform of how all parties select candidates and how MPs progress once elected. The current system of promotion by patronage is barking mad. Too many MPs want to get paid just for doing as Brussels tells them.
The fact that there are so many competing agendas, some deliberately aimed at thwarting the referendum result, is a sad inditement of the inability of too many MPs to do what they actually claim to be doing - putting the national interest first.
The next Lib Dem leader ask a question, with a rather nasty sting in the tail.
even if you loathe May, you cannot say she's on Putin's side.
She might not be on Putin’s side but she’s doing what Putin wants.
Firstly, what do you think Putin wants?
Secondly, she is trying to do what the Great British Public voted for in a legitimate referendum. Putin's interference in that (and personally I think he tried, although I'm unsure if it had a major effect) is essentially irrelevant. What the GBP voted for is what matters - and the real problem lies not with Russian interference, but with leavers' inability to agree.
Putin wants to disrupt his opponents via his support of populist nativist movements everywhere, Brexit being one of these.
Discrediting the establishment, and its organs, is a common objective, but May and the Tories are merely Putins dupes rather than active agents. I am not so sure about some of the others.
What Putin wants is his opponents weakened. Chaos weakens brilliantly, and hence it's easy to argue that people who are campaigning for chaos by wanting to remain in the EU - against the will of the majority of the public - are being Putin's dupes.
Hence Moran's comment applies as much to herself as it does May.
And I have yet to hear any person wanting us to remain say how they'll sell the EU to the GBP so we won't just be going through this all again in a few years. Putin will be rubbing his hands in glee over that thought.
The polls show there is no majority for Brexit anymore so the point is mute.
Cancel the entire shit show.
And how will you ensure we're not back into this position in a few years? There are many valid complaints about the EU (and many invalid ones), and these will not go away. In addition, people will be able to claim that their voices were not listened to.
Cancelling without a referendum would be bad for democracy, bad for politics, bad for the UK and even bad for the EU. Putin would love that.
The government has a business motion which will result in the MV. At the time the provision for the MV was made it was expressly said that a Minister could tender an amendment but no one else. Grieve has proposed an amendment which essentially takes away the timetabling control of the motion from the government, allows MPs to speak twice and gives MPs the chance to determine what we do next. Precedent says that a back bencher cannot make an amendment to a business motion. Bercow received advice to that effect from the clerks. Notwithstanding that Bercow has decided to call the motion on the basis, presumably, that the will of Parliament is being subverted. He has confirmed, however, that even if the motion were to pass that would not repeal the legislation repealing the European Communities Act.
Is that where we are?
The context of Bercow's decision is presumably the withdrawal of the original MV motion by the PM before Christmas when it became evident that she was facing a heavy defeat. I remember there being a lot of unhappiness about the way that was done at the time.
Is he wrong? Almost certainly on the technicalities but arguably not on the substantive point. Control of the time tabling agenda is May's last weapon and she is abusing it.
I think you nail it by calling it displacement activity. The actual choices before them and actions needed for those options are not actually complicated but mps on all sides are dancing around those options, delaying, distracting, focusing on peripheral matters.
It's all pretty pointless. We know what core groups want and what three options are possible. Just pick one, stop tweaking and pressuring and on and on and on. They don't even need to wait for the MV for everyone to just be clear what they seek.
The fundamental problem remains (hah). The only thing that there has ever been a majority in the Commons for is remain. Some of those still gulp at the democratic outrage of ignoring the largest vote in our history but most have rationalised it to themselves by persuading themselves that we didn't know what we were doing, we were misled by a bus, things have changed, no one ever thought no deal was a possibility (really, I mean come on), May's deal is awful and not what was promised, we really should have another go, whatever.
Its pathetic and we all know ultimately they are going to prevent Brexit. This rationalisation process is just embarrassing. The damage to our country will be incalculable, far worse than even a no deal Brexit would have caused. But I am beginning to wish that they would just get on with it and stop the whining.
Remain-supporting MPs are under no pressure to accept the deal for as long as the true believers in Leave decisively reject it. Once it is rejected, all bets are legitimately off.
Those elected to implement Brexit have an obligation to do so in what they judge the best way possible, whether that is the deal or no deal. Their obligation does not vanish because others are behaving like irresponsible idiots.
They also have an obligation to hand the kingdom on to the next generation in a reasonable state. Ignoring a referendum is no light matter, but implementing it in a chaotic and damaging way would be worse. And given that there is nothing to stop Brexit being postponed for a period, which would mean the referendum result could still be implemented by a future government if that is what the voters want.
Comments
All in all Farage, who helped bring us both Brexit and Trump, would have a lot to answer for.
Which she's followed up.
The Government most certainly is.
With regards to the Leader of the House.
"Stupid Woman"she is now in favour of publishing advice!!!
BrexitBercow.The fact is that if Bone was told an amendment wasn't possible yet Grieve's amend was accepted... if Bercow was privy to that going on then it's naughty.
Big G TSE and TM against.
Strange
TM needs a plan B by next Friday
Hurrah for Mr Speaker
I quite like the fact that Bercow is defending his position - as a non-parliamentary procedural expert I'm loving the near Socratic process that is taking place.
Edit: watching it now.
The fact that there are so many competing agendas, some deliberately aimed at thwarting the referendum result, is a sad inditement of the inability of too many MPs to do what they actually claim to be doing - putting the national interest first.
Cancelling without a referendum would be bad for democracy, bad for politics, bad for the UK and even bad for the EU. Putin would love that.
Oh.
NEW THREAD
The government has a business motion which will result in the MV.
At the time the provision for the MV was made it was expressly said that a Minister could tender an amendment but no one else.
Grieve has proposed an amendment which essentially takes away the timetabling control of the motion from the government, allows MPs to speak twice and gives MPs the chance to determine what we do next.
Precedent says that a back bencher cannot make an amendment to a business motion.
Bercow received advice to that effect from the clerks.
Notwithstanding that Bercow has decided to call the motion on the basis, presumably, that the will of Parliament is being subverted.
He has confirmed, however, that even if the motion were to pass that would not repeal the legislation repealing the European Communities Act.
Is that where we are?
The context of Bercow's decision is presumably the withdrawal of the original MV motion by the PM before Christmas when it became evident that she was facing a heavy defeat. I remember there being a lot of unhappiness about the way that was done at the time.
Is he wrong? Almost certainly on the technicalities but arguably not on the substantive point. Control of the time tabling agenda is May's last weapon and she is abusing it.