One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see howd, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
So if the deal does not pass there should be a referendum.
Well actually since parliament seems pretty clear it does not want no deal, if the deal does not pass there should just be a revocation, since why ask the people to possibly approve options parliament thinks are totally unacceptable, but they surely do not have the balls for that. If they are unacceptable they are unacceptable even if the public votes for them.
The pressure on Corbyn from his party right now must be to pivot to a referendum and remain.
He has done very well to resist it to date, he has done so with more vigour than I had expected. It means if he should do such a pivot he cannot credibly be accused as having abandoned Brexit at the first opportunity.
Agreed. Parliament can't ask the public to endorse an agreement it 's just rejected by 2/1.
It will certainly be a one sided campaign if it is deal vs remain. Almost all of Labour, LDs, SNP, PC and a proportion of Tories for remain and...a similar proportion of Tories for the deal and no one else? Plus business, academia and media for remain, on the whole. Sure, institutional advantages couldn't stop leave last time, but the enthusiasm level would be down and no cross party backing where even leave had a mixture.
Not taking much part - Corbyn, giving a free pass to his members so he can later say he personally did not try to stop brexit. Angry Tories, formerly deal supporting tories who were only doing so out of party loyalty. UKIP
The government would campaign for its own deal, no?
A referendum would be opposed by many Tories so only happens with labour backing, so sure, the government would campaign for its own deal, but continuity remainer tories wouldn't, no dealers almost certainly wouldn't in protest and plenty of the rest are not exactly enthusiastic about the deal. I may be underestimating how many would campaign for the deal, but it certainly would not be even close to all Tories, up against everybody else, including a bunch of Tories.
Hmm, couple of straws in the wind from some esteemed PBers ( @Casino_Royale@GIN1138) tonight.
I wonder if this is being mirrored among Tory MPs - the realisation that "No Deal" will simply not be allowed to happen might mean that the vote on May's deal will be much closer than expected?
A few, presumably, though has any MP who came out against the deal changed their tune yet? Then we're back into discussions of how close is close enough to keep it alive, and of course the circular problem that they might still need, to justify their previous statements, vote against it the first time even now, which might ensure it is so heavily defeated there is no prospect of it coming back.
I see the Daily Mail has taken Bercow's decision well.
Back to their old ways, 'enemies of the people' style?
It's all a bit pointless. Bercow's motivations are probably clear, and he doesn't seem to have paid any thought to future consequences, but all this focus on him will just make him a hero to those in parliament seeking to reverse brexit and all the more desperate to ensure he stays in place as long as possible, as well as encouraging him to just keep doing what he is doing.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
So if the deal does not pass there should be a referendum.
Well actually since parliament seems pretty clear it does not want no deal, if the deal does not pass there should just be a revocation, since why ask the people to possibly approve options parliament thinks are totally unacceptable, but they surely do not have the balls for that. If they are unacceptable they are unacceptable even if the public votes for them.
The pressure on Corbyn from his party right now must be to pivot to a referendum and remain.
He has done very well to resist it to date, he has done so with more vigour than I had expected. It means if he should do such a pivot he cannot credibly be accused as having abandoned Brexit at the first opportunity.
Agreed. Parliament can't ask the public to endorse an agreement it 's just rejected by 2/1.
It will certainly be a one sided campaign if it is deal vs remain. Almost all of Labour, LDs, SNP, PC and a proportion of Tories for remain and...a similar proportion of Tories for the deal and no one else? Plus business, academia and media for remain, on the whole. Sure, institutional advantages couldn't stop leave last time, but the enthusiasm level would be down and no cross party backing where even leave had a mixture.
Not taking much part - Corbyn, giving a free pass to his members so he can later say he personally did not try to stop brexit. Angry Tories, formerly deal supporting tories who were only doing so out of party loyalty. UKIP
The government would campaign for its own deal, no?
What would be left of it might. I would expect the likes of Rudd and Hammond to back Remain.
Hmm, couple of straws in the wind from some esteemed PBers ( @Casino_Royale@GIN1138) tonight.
I wonder if this is being mirrored among Tory MPs - the realisation that "No Deal" will simply not be allowed to happen might mean that the vote on May's deal will be much closer than expected?
That was my conclusion from the days mad events.
Feels like it is on the edge now. Will the ultras blow their own dreams up in order to prove a point over purity?
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
I see the Daily Mail has taken Bercow's decision well.
Back to their old ways, 'enemies of the people' style?
Front page
"Daily Mail Comment: This egotistical preening popinjay has shamelessly put his anti-Brexit biasbefore the national interest - and is a disgrace to his office"
Other than that, the "OUT OF ORDER!" headline, smug-faced Bercow photo and reference to his flagrant prejudice causing Commons uproar I think they've been calm about it.
They do offer the helpful solution of slimming food to boost your mood by 5:2 creator Dr. Michael Mosley, so I suspect they might need some of what the doc's offering.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
So if the deal does not pass there should be a referendum.
Well actually since parliament seems pretty clear it does not want no deal, if the deal does not pass there should just be a revocation, since why ask the people to possibly approve options parliament thinks are totally unacceptable, but they surely do not have the balls for that. If they are unacceptable they are unacceptable even if the public votes for them.
The pressure on Corbyn from his party right now must be to pivot to a referendum and remain.
He has done very well to resist it to date, he has done so with more vigour than I had expected. It means if he should do such a pivot he cannot credibly be accused as having abandoned Brexit at the first opportunity.
Agreed. Parliament can't ask the public to endorse an agreement it 's just rejected by 2/1.
It will certainly be a one sided campaign if it is deal vs remain. Almost all of Labour, LDs, SNP, PC and a proportion of Tories for remain and...a similar proportion of Tories for the deal and no one else? Plus business, academia and media for remain, on the whole. Sure, institutional advantages couldn't stop leave last time, but the enthusiasm level would be down and no cross party backing where even leave had a mixture.
Not taking much part - Corbyn, giving a free pass to his members so he can later say he personally did not try to stop brexit. Angry Tories, formerly deal supporting tories who were only doing so out of party loyalty. UKIP
The government would campaign for its own deal, no?
What would be left of it might. I would expect the likes of Rudd and Hammond to back Remain.
Or at least stay quiet, with that much less deal support to gain traction.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
I wonder how the Commons clerks feel right now. I know I get irritated when my advice gets ignored, but ultimately it is usually someone elses's call so what can you do? More irritating is when people feel the need to check with a lawyer because you've got to trust lawyers, right? Even if they do not know the subject matter.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
He makes the point that you have made as well Alastair. Why the hell should those who actually support remain die in the trenches for May's deal when those who claim to want to leave are setting fire to it? Their patience will run out at some point and understandably so.
Tomorrow's Times is reporting that the Tory rebels are openly planning cross-party co-operation about what to do after the Deal is voted down, and May herself has started meeting groups of Labour MPs to try to win them over.
I don't get it. All this amendment means is May can't spend 3 weeks kicking the can down the road. She has to have a Plan B by next 21st.
Are we seriously saying a Plan B hasn't been discussed in the bunker?
The implication seems to be that his decision has impacts well beyond this one amendment. I'm not an expert who can judge that, but while precedent is not something that can never be cast aside, if it is to be it should be done carefully and with great consideration. Did Bercow do that, or was he only thinking about this single amendment?
Tomorrow's Times is reporting that the Tory rebels are openly planning cross-party co-operation about what to do after the Deal is voted down, and May herself has started meeting groups of Labour MPs to try to win them over.
1) I thought May's team had offered briefings to Labour MPs to try to do this months ago
2) What could possibly induce Lab MPs over now? Threaten them with no deal? They know they have the votes to stymie that.
Do people think May's Deal, or something very close to it, will pass, ultimately?
No. Views are too entrenched, and there are too many who benefit from no deal (be it official no dealers or, say, Corbyn) and too many who will accept nothing less than full remain. Either the latter will win out, or we crash out.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
If Corbyn moved towards them over the EU, I think Wollaston , Grieve, Soubry et al could tolerate him as PM. If Labour MP's dumped Corbyn for Starmer, it would be easy.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
So if the deal does not pass there should be a referendum.
Well actually since parliament seems pretty clear it does not want no deal, if the deal does not pass there should just be a revocation, since why ask the people to possibly approve options parliament thinks are totally unacceptable, but they surely do not have the balls for that. If they are unacceptable they are unacceptable even if the public votes for them.
The pressure on Corbyn from his party right now must be to pivot to a referendum and remain.
He has done very well to resist it to date, he has done so with more vigour than I had expected. It means if he should do such a pivot he cannot credibly be accused as having abandoned Brexit at the first opportunity.
Agreed. Parliament can't ask the public to endorse an agreement it 's just rejected by 2/1.
It will certainly be a one sided campaign if it is deal vs remain. Almost all of Labour, LDs, SNP, PC and a proportion of Tories for remain and...a similar proportion of Tories for the deal and no one else? Plus business, academia and media for remain, on the whole. Sure, institutional advantages couldn't stop leave last time, but the enthusiasm level would be down and no cross party backing where even leave had a mixture.
Not taking much part - Corbyn, giving a free pass to his members so he can later say he personally did not try to stop brexit. Angry Tories, formerly deal supporting tories who were only doing so out of party loyalty. UKIP
The government would campaign for its own deal, no?
Hopefully. The surest way of making sure the other side stands a good chance.
It would be very funny if May did go to Parliament to call an election and lots of those Remainer MPs looked over their shoulders and realised they may well get kicked out so would not vote for a dissolution.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
If Corbyn moved towards them over the EU, I think Wollaston , Grieve, Soubry et al could tolerate him as PM. If Labour MP's dumped Corbyn for Starmer, it would be easy.
The far left Jeremy Corbyn and Seamas Milne are part of never, ever compromises. It’s what does for it in the end. If John McDonnell were Labour leader it might be different.
After everything that’s happened over recent days is it only me wondering how on earth May’s new immigration legislation can possibly make it onto the statute books?
I see the Daily Mail has taken Bercow's decision well.
Back to their old ways, 'enemies of the people' style?
Front page
"Daily Mail Comment: This egotistical preening popinjay has shamelessly put his anti-Brexit biasbefore the national interest - and is a disgrace to his office"
Other than that, the "OUT OF ORDER!" headline, smug-faced Bercow photo and reference to his flagrant prejudice causing Commons uproar I think they've been calm about it.
They do offer the helpful solution of slimming food to boost your mood by 5:2 creator Dr. Michael Mosley, so I suspect they might need some of what the doc's offering.
It would be very funny if May did go to Parliament to call an election and lots of those Remainer MPs looked over their shoulders and realised they may well get kicked out so would not vote for a dissolution.
Yes, can you imagine it - 'Gov suffers humiliating defeat in Commons as Commons refuses to kick out the government'
I don't get it. All this amendment means is May can't spend 3 weeks kicking the can down the road. She has to have a Plan B by next 21st.
Are we seriously saying a Plan B hasn't been discussed in the bunker?
The implication seems to be that his decision has impacts well beyond this one amendment. I'm not an expert who can judge that, but while precedent is not something that can never be cast aside, if it is to be it should be done carefully and with great consideration. Did Bercow do that, or was he only thinking about this single amendment?
The implication, from the torrent of criticism he's faced from Conservative MPs, is that he hasn't. Members on the Government side have suspected that Bercow is biased against them for some time and now more and more are coming out into the open and saying so.
There are potential consequences for his decision in terms of the balance of power between executive and legislature, but what many of the critics are concentrating on is the potential for the politicisation of the Speakership, Having somebody in that office who keeps making moves to help you and hinder the other lot is all very funny, until one party next manages to win a General Election and then the Prime Minister decides to whip their MPs to get rid of an inconvenient incumbent and install someone more to their personal taste. The Speaker then becomes little different to a Government Minister, and the figure who's supposed to be the key upholder of the rights and privileges of Parliament is effectively removed.
Once MPs can no longer trust the Speaker to be a neutral umpire, then the temptation to attempt to install a replacement who will be partial in favour of their causes becomes enormous.
Which have the most long term impacts as a result of short term thinking? 3 or 4 perhaps. The first two just look to be embarrassing, but not actually changing anything.
The sectoral analyses were a tipping point for me.
It confirmed that Davis didn't have a fecking clue.
Ironically my own firm, like many in the sector, had done ongoing sectoral analyses on Brexit for years.
Ours started in early 2016 and really kicked up a gear when Vote Leave said we would leave the single market and customs union, we moved up a notch when Mrs May announced her red lines at Lancaster House in early 2017.
Did vote leave say we would be leaving single market and customs union?
Yes (after years when many of its leading lights said not).
But also:
“FACT: After we Vote Leave, we will have a friendly free trade deal with the EU. It is in all our interests”.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
Interestingly, Corbynite policies are very popular, and not just at home but also across Europe annd even the USA. Even the less popular ones have significant minority support, such as 30% of Americans opposing keeping nuclear weapons for example.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
I agree. If you’re going to take back control you need to do something with it. This is a constitutional crisis that is much too big for everyone who has helped to create it. We are becoming a failing state. There is no good or easy way out from here.
After everything that’s happened over recent days is it only me wondering how on earth May’s new immigration legislation can possibly make it onto the statute books?
To be honest with everything else that has been going on I didn't realise she had a new immigration policy. Is it much different from the previous 'foreigners bugger off' policy she seems to have been championing for the last 8 years?
I don't get it. All this amendment means is May can't spend 3 weeks kicking the can down the road. She has to have a Plan B by next 21st.
Are we seriously saying a Plan B hasn't been discussed in the bunker?
The implication seems to be that his decision has impacts well beyond this one amendment. I'm not an expert who can judge that, but while precedent is not something that can never be cast aside, if it is to be it should be done carefully and with great consideration. Did Bercow do that, or was he only thinking about this single amendment?
The implication, from the torrent of criticism he's faced from Conservative MPs, is that he hasn't. Members on the Government side have suspected that Bercow is biased against them for some time and now more and more are coming out into the open and saying so.
There are potential consequences for his decision in terms of the balance of power between executive and legislature, but what many of the critics are concentrating on is the potential for the politicisation of the Speakership, Having somebody in that office who keeps making moves to help you and hinder the other lot is all very funny, until one party next manages to win a General Election and then the Prime Minister decides to whip their MPs to get rid of an inconvenient incumbent and install someone more to their personal taste. The Speaker then becomes little different to a Government Minister, and the figure who's supposed to be the key upholder of the rights and privileges of Parliament is effectively removed.
Once MPs can no longer trust the Speaker to be a neutral umpire, then the temptation to attempt to install a replacement who will be partial in favour of their causes becomes enormous.
In some legislatures, the Speaker is acknowledged to be a partisan figure. I think that will be Bercow's legacy.
Tomorrow's Times is reporting that the Tory rebels are openly planning cross-party co-operation about what to do after the Deal is voted down, and May herself has started meeting groups of Labour MPs to try to win them over.
1) I thought May's team had offered briefings to Labour MPs to try to do this months ago
2) What could possibly induce Lab MPs over now? Threaten them with no deal? They know they have the votes to stymie that.
Some of them are in heavily Leave-voting seats and may genuinely be looking for a way to deliver some form of compromise Brexit for their constituents. Whether May can keep the number of rebellions from both wings of her party down to modest enough levels to rescue the Deal is, however, very doubtful - the support of the DUP, still more so.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
I agree. If you’re going to take back control you need to do something with it. This is a constitutional crisis that is much too big for everyone who has helped to create it. We are becoming a failing state. There is no good or easy way out from here.
I think that a bit rich, certainly we are trashing our brand in a spectacular Ratners moment, but hardly a failing state. We havent been a failed state since the Dark Ages.
After everything that’s happened over recent days is it only me wondering how on earth May’s new immigration legislation can possibly make it onto the statute books?
To be honest with everything else that has been going on I didn't realise she had a new immigration policy. Is it much different from the previous 'foreigners bugger off' policy she seems to have been championing for the last 8 years?
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
I agree. If you’re going to take back control you need to do something with it. This is a constitutional crisis that is much too big for everyone who has helped to create it. We are becoming a failing state. There is no good or easy way out from here.
I think that a bit rich, certainly we are trashing our brand in a spectacular Ratners moment, but hardly a failing state.
Well exactly. Epic mistake or not we're not exactly on that level. And we should not use not sinking to that level as our barrier for success, but it does no good to pretend we would near that.
After everything that’s happened over recent days is it only me wondering how on earth May’s new immigration legislation can possibly make it onto the statute books?
To be honest with everything else that has been going on I didn't realise she had a new immigration policy. Is it much different from the previous 'foreigners bugger off' policy she seems to have been championing for the last 8 years?
That’s pretty much it!!
Wow, legislation really is very direct these days!
After everything that’s happened over recent days is it only me wondering how on earth May’s new immigration legislation can possibly make it onto the statute books?
To be honest with everything else that has been going on I didn't realise she had a new immigration policy. Is it much different from the previous 'foreigners bugger off' policy she seems to have been championing for the last 8 years?
That’s pretty much it!!
She really is a complete fecking disaster. Even if she does somehow manage to get us out of the EU it will in no way compensate for her having been a xenophobic, authoritarian disaster throughout her time in office
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
If Corbyn moved towards them over the EU, I think Wollaston , Grieve, Soubry et al could tolerate him as PM. If Labour MP's dumped Corbyn for Starmer, it would be easy.
I think if Corbyn becomes PM without a GE, then a GE will shortly follow.
First, it is in Corbyn’s interests to strike when the Tories are at maximum disarray, and second, an alliance of remainer Tories+SNP+PC+Green+Lib+Lab is likely as stable as high explosive.
I think Wollaston, Grieve and Soubry would then be swept away in the subsequent GE. So, I am not sure they will take the action you suggest.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
I agree. If you’re going to take back control you need to do something with it. This is a constitutional crisis that is much too big for everyone who has helped to create it. We are becoming a failing state. There is no good or easy way out from here.
I think that a bit rich, certainly we are trashing our brand in a spectacular Ratners moment, but hardly a failing state. We havent been a failed state since the Dark Ages.
Hmm. I am pretty sure we were a failed state for much of the 15th century and for a good few years in the middle of the 17th century as well. You don't get much more failed than civil war.
If Corbyn moved towards them over the EU, I think Wollaston , Grieve, Soubry et al could tolerate him as PM. If Labour MP's dumped Corbyn for Starmer, it would be easy.
The far left Jeremy Corbyn and Seamas Milne are part of never, ever compromises. It’s what does for it in the end. If John McDonnell were Labour leader it might be different.
McDonnell is openly a Remainer past and future. Corbyn is just doggedly going through the stages agreed by the party conference. 1. Oppose a deal that doesn't meet Labour's tests (tick - was always likely) 2. Call for an election (tomorrow) 3. Move a VONC (next week) 4. Consider option including a referendum. (week after next)
The problem is not really Corbyn, but the fact that there doesn't appear to be a majority for a referendum yet. Most Tory MPs and a third of Labour MPs would IMO oppose it if there was a vote tomorrow. In two weeks, maybe not.
After everything that’s happened over recent days is it only me wondering how on earth May’s new immigration legislation can possibly make it onto the statute books?
To be honest with everything else that has been going on I didn't realise she had a new immigration policy. Is it much different from the previous 'foreigners bugger off' policy she seems to have been championing for the last 8 years?
Well, May published a white paper, sent THE SAJ on Today to defend it, and he immediately went off-message and repudiated pretty much the whole thing. Since then we've heard nothing about it, weirdly.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
I agree. If you’re going to take back control you need to do something with it. This is a constitutional crisis that is much too big for everyone who has helped to create it. We are becoming a failing state. There is no good or easy way out from here.
Failing States are places where murder is rife and where basic administration ceases to operate.
I don't get it. All this amendment means is May can't spend 3 weeks kicking the can down the road. She has to have a Plan B by next 21st.
Are we seriously saying a Plan B hasn't been discussed in the bunker?
The implication seems to be that his decision has impacts well beyond this one amendment. I'm not an expert who can judge that, but while precedent is not something that can never be cast aside, if it is to be it should be done carefully and with great consideration. Did Bercow do that, or was he only thinking about this single amendment?
The implication, from the torrent of criticism he's faced from Conservative MPs, is that he hasn't. Members on the Government side have suspected that Bercow is biased against them for some time and now more and more are coming out into the open and saying so.
There are potential consequences for his decision in terms of the balance of power between executive and legislature, but what many of the critics are concentrating on is the potential for the politicisation of the Speakership, Having somebody in that office who keeps making moves to help you and hinder the other lot is all very funny, until one party next manages to win a General Election and then the Prime Minister decides to whip their MPs to get rid of an inconvenient incumbent and install someone more to their personal taste. The Speaker then becomes little different to a Government Minister, and the figure who's supposed to be the key upholder of the rights and privileges of Parliament is effectively removed.
Once MPs can no longer trust the Speaker to be a neutral umpire, then the temptation to attempt to install a replacement who will be partial in favour of their causes becomes enormous.
Except in this case, he is being biased in favour of a majority of Parliament against the executive - which ought to be a at the very least a tenable position for a Speaker.
The pressure on Corbyn from his party right now must be to pivot to a referendum and remain.
That's what most Labour members have probably been wanting since they picked themselves up off the floor the day after the referendum. Has Corbyn moved one micron in their direction? No.
Seems to me that Corbyn's attutudes froze around the 1990s say. As a lefty I have found his lack of support for "Remain" and his foggy view of Labour anti-Semitism impossible to live with.
Corbyn's opposition to the EU is entirely consistent with traditional Left thinking. I would imagine that he would have little trouble borrowing many of the objections that Peter Shore and Tony Benn had to the Common Market in the 70s and recycling them today, if he were minded to do so.
The problem that he has is that the Left has moved on whereas his positions haven't - leaving him in the company of only a small fraction of his Parliamentary party and a handful of the more radical trades unions on this issue. Most of his supporters, especially the younger ones, have this completely opposite view of the EU as a paragon of virtue: upholder of workers' rights, internationalism in general, and open borders in particular.
This leaves two questions: how many Labour members are willing to forgive Jeremy for his sins on Europe, because they support him on most other issues? And how many of Labour's voters feel likewise? My guess is that few members will desert if Brexit proceeds without him doing a lot more to stop it. Voters *might* not be so forgiving, but then again if Brexit does actually happen then how many of them will desert to other parties or sit on their hands out of rage, and how many will resolve to put the sordid business behind them and vote Labour anyway, to get everything else out of Corbyn that they still want - and believe only he can deliver?
I have the feeling that Corbyn himself is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Like Mrs May is.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
I agree. If you’re going to take back control you need to do something with it. This is a constitutional crisis that is much too big for everyone who has helped to create it. We are becoming a failing state. There is no good or easy way out from here.
I think that a bit rich, certainly we are trashing our brand in a spectacular Ratners moment, but hardly a failing state. We havent been a failed state since the Dark Ages.
After everything that’s happened over recent days is it only me wondering how on earth May’s new immigration legislation can possibly make it onto the statute books?
To be honest with everything else that has been going on I didn't realise she had a new immigration policy. Is it much different from the previous 'foreigners bugger off' policy she seems to have been championing for the last 8 years?
Well, May published a white paper, sent THE SAJ on Today to defend it, and he immediately went off-message and repudiated pretty much the whole thing. Since then we've heard nothing about it, weirdly.
Some of them are in heavily Leave-voting seats and may genuinely be looking for a way to deliver some form of compromise Brexit for their constituents.
We've heard that from the start. And yet none of the supposedly amendable ones seem even tempted for this deal, and May needs more than just a few of them. With no deal being increasingly targeted May cannot threaten them, so what can she offer them so they can justify leave, bearing in mind they'll probably lose the Labour whip when they do it? Being more worker friendly will achieve that?
Nothing is impossible. And peoples' actions will not always match rhetoric. But when it is so much easier to say no, and none of the sides seem to believe they will suffer as a result of voting down the deal, it is close to impossible.
There are potential consequences for his decision in terms of the balance of power between executive and legislature, but what many of the critics are concentrating on is the potential for the politicisation of the Speakership, Having somebody in that office who keeps making moves to help you and hinder the other lot is all very funny, until one party next manages to win a General Election and then the Prime Minister decides to whip their MPs to get rid of an inconvenient incumbent and install someone more to their personal taste. The Speaker then becomes little different to a Government Minister, and the figure who's supposed to be the key upholder of the rights and privileges of Parliament is effectively removed.
Once MPs can no longer trust the Speaker to be a neutral umpire, then the temptation to attempt to install a replacement who will be partial in favour of their causes becomes enormous.
And whether one believes Bercow has crossed that line or not today, I find it disingenuous given the criticisms for people to act like it is only about this amendment. Perhaps the cries of constitutional outrage are overdone, let's accept that for the sake of argument (and in any case I think it pointless as it only strengthens the resolve of those who need Bercow in place), that doesn't take away that the complaint is about more than the selection of the amendment but about the implications of that.
And his reported responses do not give the impression he considered any such implications.
The pressure on Corbyn from his party right now must be to pivot to a referendum and remain.
That's what most Labour members have probably been wanting since they picked themselves up off the floor the day after the referendum. Has Corbyn moved one micron in their direction? No.
Seems to me that Corbyn's attutudes froze around the 1990s say. As a lefty I have found his lack of support for "Remain" and his foggy view of Labour anti-Semitism impossible to live with.
Corbyn's opposition to the EU is entirely consistent with traditional Left thinking. I would imagine that he would have little trouble borrowing many of the objections that Peter Shore and Tony Benn had to the Common Market in the 70s and recycling them today, if he were minded to do so.
The problem that he has is that the Left has moved on whereas his positions haven't - leaving him in the company of only a small fraction of his Parliamentary party and a handful of the more radical trades unions on this issue. Most of his supporters, especially the younger ones, have this completely opposite view of the EU as a paragon of virtue: upholder of workers' rights, internationalism in general, and open borders in particular.
This leaves two questions: how many Labour members are willing to forgive Jeremy for his sins on Europe, because they support him on most other issues? And how many of Labour's voters feel likewise? My guess is that few members will desert if Brexit proceeds without him doing a lot more to stop it. Voters *might* not be so forgiving, but then again if Brexit does actually happen then how many of them will desert to other parties or sit on their hands out of rage, and how many will resolve to put the sordid business behind them and vote Labour anyway, to get everything else out of Corbyn that they still want - and believe only he can deliver?
I have the feeling that Corbyn himself is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Like Mrs May is.
He might still salvage things, but on Brexit at least I think you're right. He's not carrying his party with him on this, so either he holds firm and faces problems, or he goes with them.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
I agree. If you’re going to take back control you need to do something with it. This is a constitutional crisis that is much too big for everyone who has helped to create it. We are becoming a failing state. There is no good or easy way out from here.
Failing States are places where murder is rife and where basic administration ceases to operate.
The government cannot govern. We are about to inflict major economic and social harm on ourselves. The country in its current form may well cease to exist within a decade. We’re beginning to fail. It will be a rarely-seen first world version of the concept.
The pressure on Corbyn from his party right now must be to pivot to a referendum and remain.
That's what most Labour members have probably been wanting since they picked themselves up off the floor the day after the referendum. Has Corbyn moved one micron in their direction? No.
Corbyn and McDonnell have spent most of their political careers being very anti-EU. It would be surprising if they changed now.
Quick primer on 300 years of Parliamentary convention for Brexiteers a bit confused by this.
The speaker is not NEUTRAL. The speaker in not IMPARTIAL.
The speaker should be non-partisan. The speaker should stand up for the right of Parliament to Take Back Control from an overbearing executive.
The fact that the Brexit Buccaneers are howling with impotent, gammony rage because the wrong sort of control has been taken back is, of course, evidence that Bercow has done his job beautifully.
The government cannot govern. We are about to inflict major economic and social harm on ourselves. The country in its current form may well cease to exist within a decade. We’re beginning to fail. It will be a rarely-seen first world version of the concept.
The country is in a much better state than it was in the 1970s, when the government really couldn't govern. Despite all the parliamentary chaos, government is actually working pretty well - better than the US or France in recent weeks, for a starter.
If Corbyn moved towards them over the EU, I think Wollaston , Grieve, Soubry et al could tolerate him as PM. If Labour MP's dumped Corbyn for Starmer, it would be easy.
The far left Jeremy Corbyn and Seamas Milne are part of never, ever compromises. It’s what does for it in the end. If John McDonnell were Labour leader it might be different.
McDonnell is openly a Remainer past and future. Corbyn is just doggedly going through the stages agreed by the party conference. 1. Oppose a deal that doesn't meet Labour's tests (tick - was always likely) 2. Call for an election (tomorrow) 3. Move a VONC (next week) 4. Consider option including a referendum. (week after next)
The problem is not really Corbyn, but the fact that there doesn't appear to be a majority for a referendum yet. Most Tory MPs and a third of Labour MPs would IMO oppose it if there was a vote tomorrow. In two weeks, maybe not.
Yes, the only reason Corbyn hasn't worked his way down the list yet is because May has pushed back the moment of truth. This 'never compromises' meme I do not buy, particularly from someone who has already stated he backed remain (however lukewarmly he did so) and, in defiance of what people think is his preferred option, accepted all options are on the table. He's more hard nosed than he was when first elected leader.
Which is actually quite amusing as the more he grows into the role (inasmuch as he can) the less the reasons for his initial appeal apply, as far as I can see it (in that he's having to employ the kinds of cynical politicking that, as an outsider before, he would not have done).
If Corbyn moved towards them over the EU, I think Wollaston , Grieve, Soubry et al could tolerate him as PM. If Labour MP's dumped Corbyn for Starmer, it would be easy.
The far left Jeremy Corbyn and Seamas Milne are part of never, ever compromises. It’s what does for it in the end. If John McDonnell were Labour leader it might be different.
McDonnell is openly a Remainer past and future. Corbyn is just doggedly going through the stages agreed by the party conference. 1. Oppose a deal that doesn't meet Labour's tests (tick - was always likely) 2. Call for an election (tomorrow) 3. Move a VONC (next week) 4. Consider option including a referendum. (week after next)
The problem is not really Corbyn, but the fact that there doesn't appear to be a majority for a referendum yet. Most Tory MPs and a third of Labour MPs would IMO oppose it if there was a vote tomorrow. In two weeks, maybe not.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
I agree. If you’re going to take back control you need to do something with it. This is a constitutional crisis that is much too big for everyone who has helped to create it. We are becoming a failing state. There is no good or easy way out from here.
I think that a bit rich, certainly we are trashing our brand in a spectacular Ratners moment, but hardly a failing state. We havent been a failed state since the Dark Ages.
I have the feeling that Corbyn himself is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Like Mrs May is.
Yes, Dominic Grieve seems to be the leader of the opposition at the moment.
He's pretty effective at it. It's noteworthy that fanatics like he and the ERG are referred to separately to the main body of Tories as they are practically apart already.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
I agree. If you’re going to take back control you need to do something with it. This is a constitutional crisis that is much too big for everyone who has helped to create it. We are becoming a failing state. There is no good or easy way out from here.
Failing States are places where murder is rife and where basic administration ceases to operate.
It's certainly not outwith the bounds of possibility that Corbyn will be no-confidenced by the PLP if he doesn't switch to a 2nd ref before much longer. I imagine a Starmer-led putsch could be a much more serious threat to his authority than the last one.
I have the feeling that Corbyn himself is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Like Mrs May is.
Yes, Dominic Grieve seems to be the leader of the opposition at the moment.
He's pretty effective at it. It's noteworthy that fanatics like he and the ERG are referred to separately to the main body of Tories as they are practically apart already.
Absurd to call Grieve a fanatic. He is the only one keeping the show on the road.
Any Labour MP who backs May's deal on the first vote will be accused by activists of preventing Corbyn getting his precious - a General Election. Labour defections in significant numbers won't happen till the deal has been defeated at least once, a VoNC has failed and a second referendum looks more likely to spook some of them. In terms of concessions to the government MV text the problem is the same as the Swire amendment. So what ? We are dealing with an International Treaty text vs a HoC motion.
It would be very funny if May did go to Parliament to call an election and lots of those Remainer MPs looked over their shoulders and realised they may well get kicked out so would not vote for a dissolution.
It is interesting to think what would happen if three days after her deal is defeated she goes to Parliament and announces she's going to take her deal to the country in a general election.
Obviously all the opposition parties would be up for it but how many Conservatives would have to vote for it to get a dissolution?
Thursday 28th February looks a possibility if she did decide it's time to go to the country?
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
Interestingly, Corbynite policies are very popular, and not just at home but also across Europe annd even the USA. Even the less popular ones have significant minority support, such as 30% of Americans opposing keeping nuclear weapons for example.
I have the feeling that Corbyn himself is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Like Mrs May is.
Yes, Dominic Grieve seems to be the leader of the opposition at the moment.
He's pretty effective at it. It's noteworthy that fanatics like he and the ERG are referred to separately to the main body of Tories as they are practically apart already.
Dominic Grieve is the Prime Minister, a case study:
1) He commands the confidence of the majority of the house 2) He sets the timetabling of government business 3) He is shaping the narrative into the runup to the meaningful vote 4) He is building a cross-party consensus
I have the feeling that Corbyn himself is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Like Mrs May is.
Yes, Dominic Grieve seems to be the leader of the opposition at the moment.
He's pretty effective at it. It's noteworthy that fanatics like he and the ERG are referred to separately to the main body of Tories as they are practically apart already.
Absurd to call Grieve a fanatic. He is the only one keeping the show on the road.
He is prepared to do absolutely anything to achieve his goal with no care as to anything else, escalating risks hugely in pursuit of that goal. He's smart, and his goal may be better than the no dealers, but he is still a fanatic. He's no different to Rees-Mogg, except in goal.
Edit: Indeed, people may think fanatics are a good thing, if fanatical in pursuit of a noble goal. But they are still fanatics.
Quick primer on 300 years of Parliamentary convention for Brexiteers a bit confused by this.
The speaker is not NEUTRAL. The speaker in not IMPARTIAL.
The speaker should be non-partisan. The speaker should stand up for the right of Parliament to Take Back Control from an overbearing executive.
The fact that the Brexit Buccaneers are howling with impotent, gammony rage because the wrong sort of control has been taken back is, of course, evidence that Bercow has done his job beautifully.
If the Speaker is not impartial, he is a partisan. We have a speaker who is anti-Brexit and anti-Conservative.
If the Speaker is a partisan, then governments should whip their MP's to get the Speaker they want.
The pressure on Corbyn from his party right now must be to pivot to a referendum and remain.
That's what most Labour members have probably been wanting since they picked themselves up off the floor the day after the referendum. Has Corbyn moved one micron in their direction? No.
Seems to me that Corbyn's attutudes froze around the 1990s say. As a lefty I have found his lack of support for "Remain" and his foggy view of Labour anti-Semitism impossible to live with.
Corbyn's opposition to the EU is entirely consistent with traditional Left thinking. I would imagine that he would have little trouble borrowing many of the objections that Peter Shore and Tony Benn had to the Common Market in the 70s and recycling them today, if he were minded to do so.
The problem that he has is that the Left has moved on whereas his positions haven't - leaving him in the company of only a small fraction of his Parliamentary party and a handful of the more radical trades unions on this issue. Most of his supporters, especially the younger ones, have this completely opposite view of the EU as a paragon of virtue: upholder of workers' rights, internationalism in general, and open borders in particular.
This leaves two questions: how many Labour members are willing to forgive Jeremy for his sins on Europe, because they support him on most other issues? And how many of Labour's voters feel likewise? My guess is that few members will desert if Brexit proceeds without him doing a lot more to stop it. Voters *might* not be so forgiving, but then again if Brexit does actually happen then how many of them will desert to other parties or sit on their hands out of rage, and how many will resolve to put the sordid business behind them and vote Labour anyway, to get everything else out of Corbyn that they still want - and believe only he can deliver?
I have the feeling that Corbyn himself is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Like Mrs May is.
I think so too. Indeed Yvette Cooper and Dominic Grieve seem to be Taking Control of a defacto government of national unity. One or other of them may well become the dejure PM next.
I have the feeling that Corbyn himself is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Like Mrs May is.
Yes, Dominic Grieve seems to be the leader of the opposition at the moment.
He's pretty effective at it. It's noteworthy that fanatics like he and the ERG are referred to separately to the main body of Tories as they are practically apart already.
Dominic Grieve is the Prime Minister, a case study:
1) He commands the confidence of the majority of the house 2) He sets the timetabling of government business 3) He is shaping the narrative into the runup to the meaningful vote 4) He is building a cross-party consensus
Q.E.D.
Not a bad case, quite frankly. The hard leave fanatics should look at him and realise how much more effective they should have been.
I see the Daily Mail has taken Bercow's decision well.
Back to their old ways, 'enemies of the people' style?
Front page
"Daily Mail Comment: This egotistical preening popinjay has shamelessly put his anti-Brexit biasbefore the national interest - and is a disgrace to his office"
Picturesque language. I wonder how many Mail readers even know what a popinjay is.
Whatever next? This whey-faced poltroon? This knavish varlet? This uffish bandersnatch?
I have the feeling that Corbyn himself is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Like Mrs May is.
Yes, Dominic Grieve seems to be the leader of the opposition at the moment.
He's pretty effective at it. It's noteworthy that fanatics like he and the ERG are referred to separately to the main body of Tories as they are practically apart already.
Absurd to call Grieve a fanatic. He is the only one keeping the show on the road.
Grieve is as much a fanatic as Andrew Bridgen, but far more intelligent.
I have the feeling that Corbyn himself is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Like Mrs May is.
Yes, Dominic Grieve seems to be the leader of the opposition at the moment.
He's pretty effective at it. It's noteworthy that fanatics like he and the ERG are referred to separately to the main body of Tories as they are practically apart already.
After everything that’s happened over recent days is it only me wondering how on earth May’s new immigration legislation can possibly make it onto the statute books?
To be honest with everything else that has been going on I didn't realise she had a new immigration policy. Is it much different from the previous 'foreigners bugger off' policy she seems to have been championing for the last 8 years?
Lol. Nor me, I had no idea she had a new policy either!
I have the feeling that Corbyn himself is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Like Mrs May is.
Yes, Dominic Grieve seems to be the leader of the opposition at the moment.
He's pretty effective at it. It's noteworthy that fanatics like he and the ERG are referred to separately to the main body of Tories as they are practically apart already.
Dominic Grieve is the Prime Minister, a case study:
1) He commands the confidence of the majority of the house 2) He sets the timetabling of government business 3) He is shaping the narrative into the runup to the meaningful vote 4) He is building a cross-party consensus
Q.E.D.
The hard leave fanatics should look at him and realise how much more effective they should have been.
Of course we haven't reached the end of all this yet...
It would be very funny if May did go to Parliament to call an election and lots of those Remainer MPs looked over their shoulders and realised they may well get kicked out so would not vote for a dissolution.
It is interesting to think what would happen if three days after her deal is defeated she goes to Parliament and announces she's going to take her deal to the country in a general election.
Obviously all the opposition parties would be up for it but how many Conservatives would have to vote for it to get a dissolution?
Thursday 28th February looks a possibility if she did decide it's time to go to the country?
I see the Daily Mail has taken Bercow's decision well.
Back to their old ways, 'enemies of the people' style?
Front page
"Daily Mail Comment: This egotistical preening popinjay has shamelessly put his anti-Brexit biasbefore the national interest - and is a disgrace to his office"
Picturesque language. I wonder how many Mail readers even know what a popinjay is.
Whatever next? This whey-faced poltroon? This knavish varlet? This uffish bandersnatch?
The first edition led with "JOHN BERCOW IS A SILLY SAUSAGE AND SMELLS OF POO POO".
It's certainly not outwith the bounds of possibility that Corbyn will be no-confidenced by the PLP if he doesn't switch to a 2nd ref before much longer. I imagine a Starmer-led putsch could be a much more serious threat to his authority than the last one.
I don't think they need to no-confidence him. They'd be better to just ignore him. The framing they've got set up now - independent parliamentarians vs an out-of-touch government and right-wing extremists - has *much* better optics than Labour trying to stop the Conservatives doing Brexit. It's also much easier for Tory Remainers to get behind.
Clearly " Failed State " usually refers to somewhere like Somalia. We aren't that. Though if we get a no deal Brexit we'll have #indyref2 and a Northern Ireland Border poll in short order. I don't know the result of either but the trauma of two parts of the UK debating and voting on secession will be huge. If both went we would surely meet a First World defination of a failed state. It's still very very early days in the ' Brexit ' process ( yes really ) but so far our institutions have done a very poor job. It may be still very unlikely but it's now not unthinkable we'll have a no deal Brexit and the UK will break up. In a furst workd context that seems to fit a looser but meaningful definition of failed state.
Quick primer on 300 years of Parliamentary convention for Brexiteers a bit confused by this.
The speaker is not NEUTRAL. The speaker in not IMPARTIAL.
The speaker should be non-partisan. The speaker should stand up for the right of Parliament to Take Back Control from an overbearing executive.
The fact that the Brexit Buccaneers are howling with impotent, gammony rage because the wrong sort of control has been taken back is, of course, evidence that Bercow has done his job beautifully.
If the Speaker is not impartial, he is a partisan. We have a speaker who is anti-Brexit and anti-Conservative.
If the Speaker is a partisan, then governments should whip their MP's to get the Speaker they want.
He must feel pretty silly about all those years he spent as a Conservative MP.
It would be very funny if May did go to Parliament to call an election and lots of those Remainer MPs looked over their shoulders and realised they may well get kicked out so would not vote for a dissolution.
It is interesting to think what would happen if three days after her deal is defeated she goes to Parliament and announces she's going to take her deal to the country in a general election.
Obviously all the opposition parties would be up for it but how many Conservatives would have to vote for it to get a dissolution?
Thursday 28th February looks a possibility if she did decide it's time to go to the country?
About 100 by my reckoning.
That's probably do'able then even with hard Con Remainers and hard Con Leavers voting against.
Would be nice to see all the MP's get sent back to their constituency's and be forced to explain their behaviour to their electorate's.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
Interestingly, Corbynite policies are very popular, and not just at home but also across Europe annd even the USA. Even the less popular ones have significant minority support, such as 30% of Americans opposing keeping nuclear weapons for example.
Majority or plurality support across the board for higher taxes on the rich, free tuition fees, workers on company boards, rent capped at the rate of inflation even in the USA (although the US is less keen on nationalising utilities and the railways than Europe). Confirms why capitalism is probably past its peak in the West
Quick primer on 300 years of Parliamentary convention for Brexiteers a bit confused by this.
The speaker is not NEUTRAL. The speaker in not IMPARTIAL.
The speaker should be non-partisan. The speaker should stand up for the right of Parliament to Take Back Control from an overbearing executive.
The fact that the Brexit Buccaneers are howling with impotent, gammony rage because the wrong sort of control has been taken back is, of course, evidence that Bercow has done his job beautifully.
If the Speaker is not impartial, he is a partisan. We have a speaker who is anti-Brexit and anti-Conservative.
If the Speaker is a partisan, then governments should whip their MP's to get the Speaker they want.
He must feel pretty silly about all those years he spent as a Conservative MP.
I mean, if he were still a Tory he'd obviously be square in the middle of the Soubry/Grieve/Clark camp, and his actions are supported by the same people.
It's certainly not outwith the bounds of possibility that Corbyn will be no-confidenced by the PLP if he doesn't switch to a 2nd ref before much longer. I imagine a Starmer-led putsch could be a much more serious threat to his authority than the last one.
I don't think they need to no-confidence him. They'd be better to just ignore him. The framing they've got set up now - independent parliamentarians vs an out-of-touch government and right-wing extremists - has *much* better optics than Labour trying to stop the Conservatives doing Brexit. It's also much easier for Tory Remainers to get behind.
Indeed. Brexit has now become an issue that is tearing to pieces the party system, as we have seen in recent days.
We may have a government of national unity by default via backbench votes rather than around the Cabinet table.
It would be very funny if May did go to Parliament to call an election and lots of those Remainer MPs looked over their shoulders and realised they may well get kicked out so would not vote for a dissolution.
It is interesting to think what would happen if three days after her deal is defeated she goes to Parliament and announces she's going to take her deal to the country in a general election.
Obviously all the opposition parties would be up for it but how many Conservatives would have to vote for it to get a dissolution?
Thursday 28th February looks a possibility if she did decide it's time to go to the country?
Some of the SMT activity within my Trust looks to be attempting to clear the decks for action, a lot of paid overtime despite our poor finances. Smells of election preparation to me.
Majority or plurality support across the board for higher taxes on the rich, free tuition fees, workers on company boards, rent capped at the rate of inflation even in the USA (although the US is less keen on nationalising utilities and the railways than Europe). Confirms why capitalism is probably past its peak in the West
This is what I think is causing AOC derangement syndrome. Republicans have managed to keep socialist ideas suppressed mostly by keeping left wing politicians totally cowed and too scared to express them. When they're actually expressed, they're sometimes damn popular in the US too.
AOC is *unashamedly* socialist, and Republicans cannot understand why their traditional shaming tactics don't work on her and it makes them furious. And these DANGEROUS UNAMERICAN IDEAS like paying people a decent wage and letting everyone have healthcare appears to be catching on...
It would be very funny if May did go to Parliament to call an election and lots of those Remainer MPs looked over their shoulders and realised they may well get kicked out so would not vote for a dissolution.
It is interesting to think what would happen if three days after her deal is defeated she goes to Parliament and announces she's going to take her deal to the country in a general election.
Obviously all the opposition parties would be up for it but how many Conservatives would have to vote for it to get a dissolution?
Thursday 28th February looks a possibility if she did decide it's time to go to the country?
About 100 by my reckoning.
That's probably do'able then even with hard Con Remainers and hard Con Leavers voting against.
Would be nice to see all the MP's get sent back to their constituency's and be forced to explain their behaviour to their electorate's.
Not sure what it would solve, but personally I think more likely, given the history of using GEs as escape valves at times of crisis, than May going for 2nd vote.
I note she has repeatedly said 2nd vote is out. But not said too much about an early GE.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
If a handful of conservatives who claim that no deal is unacceptable are not willing to sacrifice their careers by bringing down the government and, however temporarily, installing someone who will ensure no deal does not happen, then what is the point of their weeping about no deal? Sure, it is very hard and most just won't be able to do it, but a handful?
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
I agree. If you’re going to take back control you need to do something with it. This is a constitutional crisis that is much too big for everyone who has helped to create it. We are becoming a failing state. There is no good or easy way out from here.
Failing States are places where murder is rife and where basic administration ceases to operate.
One wonders what on earth the EU member states must be making of it all.
I don't see how that is much of a concern. Every nation is going to have moments of horrible, divisive politics, and they need to resolve it in whatever way seems best without worrying about what other nations think about it all. Any relations and image issues can be tackled once the issue is resolved, not before.
They think we're bonkers.
They think the Britain doesn't know what it wants and it's not their job to help us work it out.
They can see we’re in the process of becoming a failing state. And this is just the start. We have a No Deal to cope with yet.
I don't think we'll get No Deal. If Alistair Meeks is correct that 50 Conservatives will not countenance No Deal (and I have no reason to doubt him) then there will be a change of government
I just cannot see how that would work.
Snip
They’ll not back Corbyn to be PM and most Labour MPs will not back anyone who is not Corbyn.
Then their howling about no deal is entirely false. Either it must be stopped or it is not so bad if a very likely crap PM like Corbyn is to be worse than what they claim to believe about no deal. I could respect them if they actually believed what they say about no deal.
Interestingly, Corbynite policies are very popular, and not just at home but also across Europe annd even the USA. Even the less popular ones have significant minority support, such as 30% of Americans opposing keeping nuclear weapons for example.
Majority or plurality support across the board for higher taxes on the rich, free tuition fees, workers on company boards, rent capped at the rate of inflation even in the USA (although the US is less keen on nationalising utilities and the railways than Europe). Confirms why capitalism is probably past its peak in the West
I think you are probably oversimplifying. Franchising of the railway and water is so far removed from any reasonable notion of market capitalism your argument doesn’t follow. I challenge you to pick which company the water from your tap in Epping Forest is supplied by.
Comments
It's all a bit pointless. Bercow's motivations are probably clear, and he doesn't seem to have paid any thought to future consequences, but all this focus on him will just make him a hero to those in parliament seeking to reverse brexit and all the more desperate to ensure he stays in place as long as possible, as well as encouraging him to just keep doing what he is doing.
"Daily Mail Comment: This egotistical preening popinjay has shamelessly put his anti-Brexit biasbefore the national interest - and is a disgrace to his office"
Other than that, the "OUT OF ORDER!" headline, smug-faced Bercow photo and reference to his flagrant prejudice causing Commons uproar I think they've been calm about it.
They do offer the helpful solution of slimming food to boost your mood by 5:2 creator Dr. Michael Mosley, so I suspect they might need some of what the doc's offering.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1083124329087422464
I say 'we'...
I don't get it. All this amendment means is May can't spend 3 weeks kicking the can down the road. She has to have a Plan B by next 21st.
Are we seriously saying a Plan B hasn't been discussed in the bunker?
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1083131743153078279
2) What could possibly induce Lab MPs over now? Threaten them with no deal? They know they have the votes to stymie that.
We should revoke Article 50. Then 96 days later re-invoke it. Then, 104 days later, revoke it again. Repeat this cycle indefinitely.
That way, we are Leaving 52% of the time, and Remaining 48% of the time - a perfect implementation of the referendum result.
There are potential consequences for his decision in terms of the balance of power between executive and legislature, but what many of the critics are concentrating on is the potential for the politicisation of the Speakership, Having somebody in that office who keeps making moves to help you and hinder the other lot is all very funny, until one party next manages to win a General Election and then the Prime Minister decides to whip their MPs to get rid of an inconvenient incumbent and install someone more to their personal taste. The Speaker then becomes little different to a Government Minister, and the figure who's supposed to be the key upholder of the rights and privileges of Parliament is effectively removed.
Once MPs can no longer trust the Speaker to be a neutral umpire, then the temptation to attempt to install a replacement who will be partial in favour of their causes becomes enormous.
But also:
“FACT: After we Vote Leave, we will have a friendly free trade deal with the EU. It is in all our interests”.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_opinion.html
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1082922720923398145?s=19
First, it is in Corbyn’s interests to strike when the Tories are at maximum disarray, and second, an alliance of remainer Tories+SNP+PC+Green+Lib+Lab is likely as stable as high explosive.
I think Wollaston, Grieve and Soubry would then be swept away in the subsequent GE. So, I am not sure they will take the action you suggest.
1. Oppose a deal that doesn't meet Labour's tests (tick - was always likely)
2. Call for an election (tomorrow)
3. Move a VONC (next week)
4. Consider option including a referendum. (week after next)
The problem is not really Corbyn, but the fact that there doesn't appear to be a majority for a referendum yet. Most Tory MPs and a third of Labour MPs would IMO oppose it if there was a vote tomorrow. In two weeks, maybe not.
Nothing is impossible. And peoples' actions will not always match rhetoric. But when it is so much easier to say no, and none of the sides seem to believe they will suffer as a result of voting down the deal, it is close to impossible. And whether one believes Bercow has crossed that line or not today, I find it disingenuous given the criticisms for people to act like it is only about this amendment. Perhaps the cries of constitutional outrage are overdone, let's accept that for the sake of argument (and in any case I think it pointless as it only strengthens the resolve of those who need Bercow in place), that doesn't take away that the complaint is about more than the selection of the amendment but about the implications of that.
And his reported responses do not give the impression he considered any such implications.
The speaker is not NEUTRAL.
The speaker in not IMPARTIAL.
The speaker should be non-partisan.
The speaker should stand up for the right of Parliament to Take Back Control from an overbearing executive.
The fact that the Brexit Buccaneers are howling with impotent, gammony rage because the wrong sort of control has been taken back is, of course, evidence that Bercow has done his job beautifully.
https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1083140071828713474
Which is actually quite amusing as the more he grows into the role (inasmuch as he can) the less the reasons for his initial appeal apply, as far as I can see it (in that he's having to employ the kinds of cynical politicking that, as an outsider before, he would not have done).
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/01/brexit-labour-must-let-its-members-decide-its-next-step
Obviously all the opposition parties would be up for it but how many Conservatives would have to vote for it to get a dissolution?
Thursday 28th February looks a possibility if she did decide it's time to go to the country?
1) He commands the confidence of the majority of the house
2) He sets the timetabling of government business
3) He is shaping the narrative into the runup to the meaningful vote
4) He is building a cross-party consensus
Q.E.D.
Edit: Indeed, people may think fanatics are a good thing, if fanatical in pursuit of a noble goal. But they are still fanatics.
If the Speaker is a partisan, then governments should whip their MP's to get the Speaker they want.
Whatever next? This whey-faced poltroon? This knavish varlet? This uffish bandersnatch?
Of course we haven't reached the end of all this yet...
Would be nice to see all the MP's get sent back to their constituency's and be forced to explain their behaviour to their electorate's.
Bercow is showing a shameful pro-Tory bias.
We may have a government of national unity by default via backbench votes rather than around the Cabinet table.
AOC is *unashamedly* socialist, and Republicans cannot understand why their traditional shaming tactics don't work on her and it makes them furious. And these DANGEROUS UNAMERICAN IDEAS like paying people a decent wage and letting everyone have healthcare appears to be catching on...
I note she has repeatedly said 2nd vote is out. But not said too much about an early GE.