She is on course for the biggest Commons defeat in Parliamentary history - beating the minority Labour government's losing tally of 166 in 1924.
Looks like it.
MASSIVE Commons rejection of Brexit with a Deal.
And as we know, MASSIVE Commons rejection of Brexit without a Deal.
Put that together, bit of simple algebra, and what do we get?
MASSIVE Commons rejection of Brexit!
That poor old 2016 referendum. So high and mighty, back in the day, so loud and proud, and now with as much status and influence as a eunuch at an orgy.
Lesson there somewhere.
Yep. MPs are not there for the people, only for themselves.
The lesson is: government by referendums would be totally shite.
The Irish manage well with it.
Infrequent (But massive) referenda + FPTP is a recipe for failure though.
Has anyone yet raised the intervention by the former head of MI6 and former Chief of Defence staff claiming that May's deal will threaten national security and urging a No Deal Brexit?
Rather too easy a dismissal I would think. Writing to the Constituency Chairmen to get them to put pressure on their MPs can't exactly help May.
And how many people would even know when he was head of MI6? All they will see will be head of MI6 and Chief of Defence staff and assume they know what they are talking about.
We discussed it a while back when he wrote to the PM. It was a completely incoherent whinge; he seemed to be complaining simultaneously that Theresa May was wanting to cooperate too closely with the EU, and that she was not wanting to cooperate closely enough.
She is on course for the biggest Commons defeat in Parliamenary history - beating the minority Labour government's losing tally of 166 in 1924.
The Deal cannot return after that, not in any form, not even if she gets meaningless promises from Brussels cast in Welsh gold and deposited at the centre of the earth.
That leaves No Deal, new GE, 2nd referendum. No?
As I keep saying, 'new GE' and 'EURef2' are not Brexit outcomes, they're processes (though they are related possible consequences).
If you can narrow it down to two defined outcomes that parliament cannot decide between, either you have a referendum or get a new parliament. A referendum seems like the better option if the reason parliament can’t decide is that it’s inhibited by the result of another referendum.
If there is another referendum and Remain won. Who would want to be PM for that sh1t show ?
She is on course for the biggest Commons defeat in Parliamenary history - beating the minority Labour government's losing tally of 166 in 1924.
The Deal cannot return after that, not in any form, not even if she gets meaningless promises from Brussels cast in Welsh gold and deposited at the centre of the earth.
That leaves No Deal, new GE, 2nd referendum. No?
As I keep saying, 'new GE' and 'EURef2' are not Brexit outcomes, they're processes (though they are related possible consequences).
If you can narrow it down to two defined outcomes that parliament cannot decide between, either you have a referendum or get a new parliament. A referendum seems like the better option if the reason parliament can’t decide is that it’s inhibited by the result of another referendum.
If there is another referendum and Remain won. Who would want to be PM for that sh1t show ?
She is on course for the biggest Commons defeat in Parliamenary history - beating the minority Labour government's losing tally of 166 in 1924.
The Deal cannot return after that, not in any form, not even if she gets meaningless promises from Brussels cast in Welsh gold and deposited at the centre of the earth.
That leaves No Deal, new GE, 2nd referendum. No?
As I keep saying, 'new GE' and 'EURef2' are not Brexit outcomes, they're processes (though they are related possible consequences).
If you can narrow it down to two defined outcomes that parliament cannot decide between, either you have a referendum or get a new parliament. A referendum seems like the better option if the reason parliament can’t decide is that it’s inhibited by the result of another referendum.
If there is another referendum and Remain won. Who would want to be PM for that sh1t show ?
She is on course for the biggest Commons defeat in Parliamenary history - beating the minority Labour government's losing tally of 166 in 1924.
The Deal cannot return after that, not in any form, not even if she gets meaningless promises from Brussels cast in Welsh gold and deposited at the centre of the earth.
That leaves No Deal, new GE, 2nd referendum. No?
As I keep saying, 'new GE' and 'EURef2' are not Brexit outcomes, they're processes (though they are related possible consequences).
If you can narrow it down to two defined outcomes that parliament cannot decide between, either you have a referendum or get a new parliament. A referendum seems like the better option if the reason parliament can’t decide is that it’s inhibited by the result of another referendum.
If there is another referendum and Remain won. Who would want to be PM for that sh1t show ?
She is on course for the biggest Commons defeat in Parliamenary history - beating the minority Labour government's losing tally of 166 in 1924.
The Deal cannot return after that, not in any form, not even if she gets meaningless promises from Brussels cast in Welsh gold and deposited at the centre of the earth.
That leaves No Deal, new GE, 2nd referendum. No?
As I keep saying, 'new GE' and 'EURef2' are not Brexit outcomes, they're processes (though they are related possible consequences).
If you can narrow it down to two defined outcomes that parliament cannot decide between, either you have a referendum or get a new parliament. A referendum seems like the better option if the reason parliament can’t decide is that it’s inhibited by the result of another referendum.
If there is another referendum and Remain won. Who would want to be PM for that sh1t show ?
Corbyn would
He'd be even happier to be PM after No Deal though... Jeremy Corbyn has been Leave for 40 years doncha know!
They want him deselected as their candidate. It does not affect his current status as an MP until the next election. And according to the most recent YouGov poll in the constituency support for Brexit has actually gone up rather than down since the referendum.
Personally I am on the same page as Boles when it comes to the preferred form of Brexit but that is apparently not a view shared by his constituents.
Boles, of course, merely has to let it be known he will happily stand as an Independent and split the Tory vote, if that is the outcome they desire.
Oh yes. I am not saying I agree with their choice but to claim somehow it is undemocratic for an association to choose who they want as their candidate under the system as it stands seems rather perverse.
The nation would be a better place – and better governed – if members of political parties were barred from voting at all.
Ah now you are talking. I get a lot of stick on here (and will again) for railing against the parties and the whips. I feel strongly that the party system is a corruption of our political system and should be massively reformed. It will never happen of course because there are too many vested interests opposing change.
Was there a time where we had party-free representative democracy? I thought if anything the party system came before there was a broad franchise.
Completely party free no. But the power of the whips has increased massively over the last century and that has been much to the detriment of our politics. My answer, which is always scorned, would be to make the party bribing (via promotion promises etc) or blackmailing (through deselection threats) an MP a criminal offence just as it is if anyone outside does it.
MPs would declare their party affiliation (which would be confirmed by the party) at the time of selection but once they had been elected all votes in Parliament would be free votes with perhaps the exception of the finance bills.
MPs would be representing their constituents rather than their party.
As I say it will never happen but it would be great if it did.
Has anyone yet raised the intervention by the former head of MI6 and former Chief of Defence staff claiming that May's deal will threaten national security and urging a No Deal Brexit?
Apparently though the spooks are hopping mad due to some of the bollocks May deal would have the UK sign up to e.g. Basically paying for access to shared intell, which the UK provides the vast majority of the info to.
As someone said, the more you look into TMay’s deal, the worse it gets. It is dreadful, and we cannot escape it - we will end up simply abrogating, with all the damage that does to our standing.
As a Leaver, I would far rather Remain, than sign this disgraceful suicide note.
She is on course for the biggest Commons defeat in Parliamentary history - beating the minority Labour government's losing tally of 166 in 1924.
Looks like it.
MASSIVE Commons rejection of Brexit with a Deal.
And as we know, MASSIVE Commons rejection of Brexit without a Deal.
Put that together, bit of simple algebra, and what do we get?
MASSIVE Commons rejection of Brexit!
That poor old 2016 referendum. So high and mighty, back in the day, so loud and proud, and now with as much status and influence as a eunuch at an orgy.
Lesson there somewhere.
Yep. MPs are not there for the people, only for themselves.
The lesson is: government by referendums would be totally shite.
Nope. As long as the referendums were proper binary choices and MPs could not refuse to enact them. It is the way forward and far more democratic than the current system.
She is on course for the biggest Commons defeat in Parliamenary history - beating the minority Labour government's losing tally of 166 in 1924.
I know this question makes me sound a bit thick (as usual), but can anyone explain why the figures are expected to be different in the key vote compared to the two that the government lost in the last few days?
Don't ever worry about asking questions you fear may be dumb on PB - I do it all the time!
I think the difference is the 120+ Tories who have stated they are agin the Deal. Most of those voted for the Govt in the recent votes.
Specifically the Hard Brexit opponents of the deal voted with the government in the recent votes as they are quite happy to see no deal happen.
She is on course for the biggest Commons defeat in Parliamentary history - beating the minority Labour government's losing tally of 166 in 1924.
Looks like it.
MASSIVE Commons rejection of Brexit with a Deal.
And as we know, MASSIVE Commons rejection of Brexit without a Deal.
Put that together, bit of simple algebra, and what do we get?
MASSIVE Commons rejection of Brexit!
That poor old 2016 referendum. So high and mighty, back in the day, so loud and proud, and now with as much status and influence as a eunuch at an orgy.
Lesson there somewhere.
Yep. MPs are not there for the people, only for themselves.
The lesson is: government by referendums would be totally shite.
Nope. As long as the referendums were proper binary choices and MPs could not refuse to enact them. It is the way forward and far more democratic than the current system.
She is on course for the biggest Commons defeat in Parliamenary history - beating the minority Labour government's losing tally of 166 in 1924.
I know this question makes me sound a bit thick (as usual), but can anyone explain why the figures are expected to be different in the key vote compared to the two that the government lost in the last few days?
The last few days' votes were driven by pro-remain Conservatives voting against the government.
The key vote will also have all the pro-no-deal Conservatives and the DUP voting against it.
Has anyone yet raised the intervention by the former head of MI6 and former Chief of Defence staff claiming that May's deal will threaten national security and urging a No Deal Brexit?
Apparently though the spooks are hopping mad due to some of the bollocks May deal would have the UK sign up to e.g. Basically paying for access to shared intell, which the UK provides the vast majority of the info to.
As someone said, the more you look into TMay’s deal, the worse it gets. It is dreadful, and we cannot escape it - we will end up simply abrogating, with all the damage that does to our standing.
As a Leaver, I would far rather Remain, than sign this disgraceful suicide note.
She is on course for the biggest Commons defeat in Parliamentary history - beating the minority Labour government's losing tally of 166 in 1924.
Looks like it.
MASSIVE Commons rejection of Brexit with a Deal.
And as we know, MASSIVE Commons rejection of Brexit without a Deal.
Put that together, bit of simple algebra, and what do we get?
MASSIVE Commons rejection of Brexit!
That poor old 2016 referendum. So high and mighty, back in the day, so loud and proud, and now with as much status and influence as a eunuch at an orgy.
Lesson there somewhere.
Yep. MPs are not there for the people, only for themselves.
The lesson is: government by referendums would be totally shite.
The Irish manage well with it.
Infrequent (But massive) referenda + FPTP is a recipe for failure though.
Frequent referendums + STV =
The Irish have also started having citizens assemblies to find a sensible compromise to bring forward to a referendum vote. If we had done something like that before the referendum (or even after) we would be in a much better place. Unfortunately these assemblies seem to involve "experts" and so are anathema to the British political class.
She is on course for the biggest Commons defeat in Parliamentary history - beating the minority Labour government's losing tally of 166 in 1924.
Looks like it.
MASSIVE Commons rejection of Brexit with a Deal.
And as we know, MASSIVE Commons rejection of Brexit without a Deal.
Put that together, bit of simple algebra, and what do we get?
MASSIVE Commons rejection of Brexit!
That poor old 2016 referendum. So high and mighty, back in the day, so loud and proud, and now with as much status and influence as a eunuch at an orgy.
Lesson there somewhere.
Yep. MPs are not there for the people, only for themselves.
The lesson is: government by referendums would be totally shite.
Nope. As long as the referendums were proper binary choices and MPs could not refuse to enact them. It is the way forward and far more democratic than the current system.
We need a referendum we can all unite around and I've got the perfect question:
Would You Like To See The Current House Of Lords Abolished?
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Yes, definitely. No Deal has to go. And remove the 2nd referendum too, since with Labour opposed that has precious little support in the House.
But what on earth does that leave?
Brian, has that Deal thing already gone in the shredder? It has? Ah.
They want him deselected as their candidate. It does not affect his current status as an MP until the next election. And according to the most recent YouGov poll in
Personally I am on the same page as Boles when it comes to the preferred form of Brexit but that is apparently not a view shared by his constituents.
Boles, of course, merely has to let it be known he will happily stand as an Independent and split the Tory vote, if that is the outcome they desire.
Oh yes. I am not saying I agree with their choice but to claim somehow it is undemocratic for an association to choose who they want as their candidate under the system as it stands seems rather perverse.
The nation would be a better place – and better governed – if members of political parties were barred from voting at all.
Ah now you are talking. I get a lot of stick on here (and will again) for railing against the parties and the whips. I feel strongly that the party system is a corruption of our political system and should be massively reformed. It will never happen of course because there are too many vested interests opposing change.
Was there a time where we had party-free representative democracy? I thought if anything the party system came before there was a broad franchise.
Completely party free no. But the power of the whips has increased massively over the last century and that has been much to the detriment of our politics. My answer, which is always scorned, would be to make the party bribing (via promotion promises etc) or blackmailing (through deselection threats) an MP a criminal offence just as it is if anyone outside does it.
MPs would declare their party affiliation (which would be confirmed by the party) at the time of selection but once they had been elected all votes in Parliament would be free votes with perhaps the exception of the finance bills.
MPs would be representing their constituents rather than their party.
As I say it will never happen but it would be great if it did.
Doesn’t seem to deserve scorn, I guess it would be very difficult to police the ‘bribing’ offence though. And I’m not sure how you could deal with the threat of deselection, given that is driven by local party members. What would be the point of party affiliation under this system?
It’s not too dissimilar to the revolutionary system called ‘democracy’ that Jim Hacker briefly flirted with in Yes Prime Minister.
1) The government comes to a decision it wishes to amend the constitution. 2) Government convenes a constitutional committee to draft a constitutional amendment. 3) Amendment is ratified by both houses. 4) The amendment is put to the people in a referendum. 5) The President signs the amendment as soon as possible after the referendum result has been certified and it becomes effective forthwith.
Do you see how very different that is from what Call Me Dave did?
Has anyone yet raised the intervention by the former head of MI6 and former Chief of Defence staff claiming that May's deal will threaten national security and urging a No Deal Brexit?
Apparently though the spooks are hopping mad due to some of the bollocks May deal would have the UK sign up to e.g. Basically paying for access to shared intell, which the UK provides the vast majority of the info to.
As someone said, the more you look into TMay’s deal, the worse it gets. It is dreadful, and we cannot escape it - we will end up simply abrogating, with all the damage that does to our standing.
As a Leaver, I would far rather Remain, than sign this disgraceful suicide note.
It’s not too dissimilar to the revolutionary system called ‘democracy’ that Jim Hacker briefly flirted with in Yes Prime Minister.
It's actually pretty close to the system that China uses, with lower level assemblies electing members for the next level up.
Far from being democratic, that gives the local party machine at each level almost complete control of who moves up the chain of command, and ensures that there's always an opposition-proof majority of party members at every level.
That's not democracy, that's hierarchical oligarchy.
Has anyone yet raised the intervention by the former head of MI6 and former Chief of Defence staff claiming that May's deal will threaten national security and urging a No Deal Brexit?
Rather too easy a dismissal I would think. Writing to the Constituency Chairmen to get them to put pressure on their MPs can't exactly help May.
And how many people would even know when he was head of MI6? All they will see will be head of MI6 and Chief of Defence staff and assume they know what they are talking about.
We discussed it a while back when he wrote to the PM. It was a completely incoherent whinge; he seemed to be complaining simultaneously that Theresa May was wanting to cooperate too closely with the EU, and that she was not wanting to cooperate closely enough.
Additionally impossible to separate their personal views on Brexit from their professional opinions. They might have had more credibility if they had said that either No Deal or Remain was preferable rather than promoting No Deal.
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Yes, definitely. No Deal has to go. And remove the 2nd referendum too, since with Labour opposed that has precious little support in the House.
Again, "No Deal" can't "go" unless and until A50 is extended or revoked as it's the default option at the end of A50.
And Parliament can't extend or revoke A50 on its own only the government can do that.
Has anyone yet raised the intervention by the former head of MI6 and former Chief of Defence staff claiming that May's deal will threaten national security and urging a No Deal Brexit?
Apparently though the spooks are hopping mad due to some of the bollocks May deal would have the UK sign up to e.g. Basically paying for access to shared intell, which the UK provides the vast majority of the info to.
As someone said, the more you look into TMay’s deal, the worse it gets. It is dreadful, and we cannot escape it - we will end up simply abrogating, with all the damage that does to our standing.
As a Leaver, I would far rather Remain, than sign this disgraceful suicide note.
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Again. Not possible. It is the only option that is actually assured if all other options fail.
No Deal is the Vampire Option. The Undead, unless and until Parliament can decide whether to use crosses, holy water or a stake through the heart and beheading.
If May tries to arrange an extension or another referendum she is utter toast.
Doesn’t seem to deserve scorn, I guess it would be very difficult to police the ‘bribing’ offence though. And I’m not sure how you could deal with the threat of deselection, given that is driven by local party members. What would be the point of party affiliation under this system?
It’s not too dissimilar to the revolutionary system called ‘democracy’ that Jim Hacker briefly flirted with in Yes Prime Minister.
LOL. Indeed. Mind you the arguments about difficulty of policing were all touted way back when they were tightening up on bribery at the beginning of the last century. Apparently the HoC and MPs were specifically excluded from the Prevention of Corruption Acts as being an MP did not constitute a public office.
I am pretty sure that it wold become possible to police eventually after a few high profile cases were pursued.
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Again. Not possible. It is the only option that is actually assured if all other options fail.
No Deal is the Vampire Option. The Undead, unless and until Parliament can decide whether to use crosses, holy water or a stake through the heart and beheading.
If May tries to arrange an extension or another referendum she is utter toast.
It depends on how this evolves. If an amendment to that effect passes she will have little choice
She is on course for the biggest Commons defeat in Parliamentary history - beating the minority Labour government's losing tally of 166 in 1924.
Looks like it.
MASSIVE Commons rejection of Brexit with a Deal.
And as we know, MASSIVE Commons rejection of Brexit without a Deal.
Put that together, bit of simple algebra, and what do we get?
MASSIVE Commons rejection of Brexit!
That poor old 2016 referendum. So high and mighty, back in the day, so loud and proud, and now with as much status and influence as a eunuch at an orgy.
Lesson there somewhere.
Yep. MPs are not there for the people, only for themselves.
The lesson is: government by referendums would be totally shite.
Nope. As long as the referendums were proper binary choices and MPs could not refuse to enact them. It is the way forward and far more democratic than the current system.
Who gets to dictate the questions?
An independent body. Look at the way it is done in other countries with a long record of referendums.
Also look at the great enjoyment we would all get from being able to educate people about why the word is referendums not referenda.
1) The government comes to a decision it wishes to amend the constitution. 2) Government convenes a constitutional committee to draft a constitutional amendment. 3) Amendment is ratified by both houses. 4) The amendment is put to the people in a referendum. 5) The President signs the amendment as soon as possible after the referendum result has been certified and it becomes effective forthwith.
Do you see how very different that is from what Call Me Dave did?
We could have spent years coming up with our ideal leave outcome and then have the EU say no the moment A50 is triggered.
Has anyone yet raised the intervention by the former head of MI6 and former Chief of Defence staff claiming that May's deal will threaten national security and urging a No Deal Brexit?
Apparently though the spooks are hopping mad due to some of the bollocks May deal would have the UK sign up to e.g. Basically paying for access to shared intell, which the UK provides the vast majority of the info to.
As someone said, the more you look into TMay’s deal, the worse it gets. It is dreadful, and we cannot escape it - we will end up simply abrogating, with all the damage that does to our standing.
As a Leaver, I would far rather Remain, than sign this disgraceful suicide note.
Nah. Nothing is worse than remaining.
pitiful.
Something caught in your throat there Ian? Have a good cough mate.
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Yes, definitely. No Deal has to go. And remove the 2nd referendum too, since with Labour opposed that has precious little support in the House.
Again, "No Deal" can't "go" unless and until A50 is extended or revoked as it's the default option at the end of A50.
And Parliament can't extend or revoke A50 on its own only the government can do that.
The EU will not extend A50 other than for a general election or second referendum.
It’s not too dissimilar to the revolutionary system called ‘democracy’ that Jim Hacker briefly flirted with in Yes Prime Minister.
It's actually pretty close to the system that China uses, with lower level assemblies electing members for the next level up.
Far from being democratic, that gives the local party machine at each level almost complete control of who moves up the chain of command, and ensures that there's always an opposition-proof majority of party members at every level.
That's not democracy, that's hierarchical oligarchy.
Nope it is nothing like the Chinese system because the elections themselves would still be as they are now based on normal constituencies. Or on PR or whatever other system was preferred. But the only difference is the parties would be unable to put undue pressure on the MPs.
Has anyone yet raised the intervention by the former head of MI6 and former Chief of Defence staff claiming that May's deal will threaten national security and urging a No Deal Brexit?
Apparently though the spooks are hopping mad due to some of the bollocks May deal would have the UK sign up to e.g. Basically paying for access to shared intell, which the UK provides the vast majority of the info to.
As someone said, the more you look into TMay’s deal, the worse it gets. It is dreadful, and we cannot escape it - we will end up simply abrogating, with all the damage that does to our standing.
As a Leaver, I would far rather Remain, than sign this disgraceful suicide note.
Nah. Nothing is worse than remaining.
pitiful.
Something caught in your throat there Ian? Have a good cough mate.
They are both ultra brexiteers wanting WTO so it is the ultras speaking to the ultras
Michael Gove on top form in the Commons, talking about Labour's six Brexit 'tests':
"[Barry Gardiner] summed them up, pithily, in a word which in Spanish translates as ‘cojones’ and in English rhymes with ‘rollocks’. I know, Mr Speaker, there are some distinguished citizens in this country who have put on their cars a poster or sticker saying ‘bollocks to Brexit’ - but we now know from Labour’s own frontbench that their official Brexit position is bollocks.
I have to say that the shadow international trade secretary is a jewel and an ornament to the Labour front bench. He speaks the truth with perfect clarity, and in his description of Labour’s own policy can I say across the House we’re grateful to him, grateful to the constant Gardiner for the way in which he has cast light on the testicular nature of Labour’s position."
Huh. I think I'm reaching my limit on what I will accept as being too stupid for Trump to say. Did he really say that, or is someone using that new video technology to put words into his mouth?
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Yes, definitely. No Deal has to go. And remove the 2nd referendum too, since with Labour opposed that has precious little support in the House.
Again, "No Deal" can't "go" unless and until A50 is extended or revoked as it's the default option at the end of A50.
And Parliament can't extend or revoke A50 on its own only the government can do that.
Hasn't Bercow proved that he could do it (or enable the remain majority of MPs to) if he wanted to?
Bad news for those (no names, no pack drill) seeking respite from Brexit in concupiscence.
"Super gonorrhea ‘has reached the UK’, doctors warn
‘Super gonorrhea’ hit the headlines after a British tourist contracted a case described as ‘the world’s worst’ in Thailand last year – but the infection has now reached Britain."
She is on course for the biggest Commons defeat in Parliamenary history - beating the minority Labour government's losing tally of 166 in 1924.
Impressive, in a bizarre way. I find the idea of can be salvaged to be one of the most bizarre theories sticking around.
Well, once you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however improbable, must come to pass. It looks like there is a Parliamentary majority determined to avoid no deal. The PM is determined to avoid no Brexit. Unless the former are prepared to replace the latter then the only outcome is the deal.
Whichever side of the Brexit debate you're on as a Tory MP there is value in pivoting to the deal to "have done all you could" to make it law and thereafter repivot back to No Brexit or No deal.
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Yes, definitely. No Deal has to go. And remove the 2nd referendum too, since with Labour opposed that has precious little support in the House.
Again, "No Deal" can't "go" unless and until A50 is extended or revoked as it's the default option at the end of A50.
And Parliament can't extend or revoke A50 on its own only the government can do that.
Hasn't Bercow proved that he could do it (or enable the remain majority of MPs to) if he wanted to?
No.
He was quite clear yesterday. Primary legislation is needed to replace primary legislation.
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Yes, definitely. No Deal has to go. And remove the 2nd referendum too, since with Labour opposed that has precious little support in the House.
Again, "No Deal" can't "go" unless and until A50 is extended or revoked as it's the default option at the end of A50.
And Parliament can't extend or revoke A50 on its own only the government can do that.
Hasn't Bercow proved that he could do it (or enable the remain majority of MPs to) if he wanted to?
No.
He was quite clear yesterday. Primary legislation is needed to replace primary legislation.
Can anyone other than the Gov't create primary legislation ?
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Yes, definitely. No Deal has to go. And remove the 2nd referendum too, since with Labour opposed that has precious little support in the House.
Again, "No Deal" can't "go" unless and until A50 is extended or revoked as it's the default option at the end of A50.
And Parliament can't extend or revoke A50 on its own only the government can do that.
Hasn't Bercow proved that he could do it (or enable the remain majority of MPs to) if he wanted to?
No.
He was quite clear yesterday. Primary legislation is needed to replace primary legislation.
He was also quite clear that the chair can change the rules if the chair wants to.
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Again. Not possible. It is the only option that is actually assured if all other options fail.
No Deal is the Vampire Option. The Undead, unless and until Parliament can decide whether to use crosses, holy water or a stake through the heart and beheading.
If May tries to arrange an extension or another referendum she is utter toast.
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Yes, definitely. No Deal has to go. And remove the 2nd referendum too, since with Labour opposed that has precious little support in the House.
Again, "No Deal" can't "go" unless and until A50 is extended or revoked as it's the default option at the end of A50.
And Parliament can't extend or revoke A50 on its own only the government can do that.
Hasn't Bercow proved that he could do it (or enable the remain majority of MPs to) if he wanted to?
No.
He was quite clear yesterday. Primary legislation is needed to replace primary legislation.
He was also quite clear that the chair can change the rules if the chair wants to.
That would be quite a change. Perhaps he'd also like to change the rule that Parliament has to vote on laws, and he can instead decide what passes and what doesn't?
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Yes, definitely. No Deal has to go. And remove the 2nd referendum too, since with Labour opposed that has precious little support in the House.
Again, "No Deal" can't "go" unless and until A50 is extended or revoked as it's the default option at the end of A50.
And Parliament can't extend or revoke A50 on its own only the government can do that.
Hasn't Bercow proved that he could do it (or enable the remain majority of MPs to) if he wanted to?
No.
He was quite clear yesterday. Primary legislation is needed to replace primary legislation.
Can anyone other than the Gov't create primary legislation ?
It is possible via a backbench bill, however all the slots for the backbench bills are allocated for this session and cannot be changed.
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Yes, definitely. No Deal has to go. And remove the 2nd referendum too, since with Labour opposed that has precious little support in the House.
Again, "No Deal" can't "go" unless and until A50 is extended or revoked as it's the default option at the end of A50.
And Parliament can't extend or revoke A50 on its own only the government can do that.
Hasn't Bercow proved that he could do it (or enable the remain majority of MPs to) if he wanted to?
No.
He was quite clear yesterday. Primary legislation is needed to replace primary legislation.
He was also quite clear that the chair can change the rules if the chair wants to.
The chair can only do so much, perhaps you should go on a refresher on how laws are created.
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Again. Not possible. It is the only option that is actually assured if all other options fail.
No Deal is the Vampire Option. The Undead, unless and until Parliament can decide whether to use crosses, holy water or a stake through the heart and beheading.
If May tries to arrange an extension or another referendum she is utter toast.
Yup. 12 11 months security of tenure my arse.
As I have commented, if the HOC votes an amendment for either of the above, the government will have little choice
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Yes, definitely. No Deal has to go. And remove the 2nd referendum too, since with Labour opposed that has precious little support in the House.
Again, "No Deal" can't "go" unless and until A50 is extended or revoked as it's the default option at the end of A50.
And Parliament can't extend or revoke A50 on its own only the government can do that.
Hasn't Bercow proved that he could do it (or enable the remain majority of MPs to) if he wanted to?
No.
He was quite clear yesterday. Primary legislation is needed to replace primary legislation.
Can anyone other than the Gov't create primary legislation ?
It is possible via a backbench bill, however all the slots for the backbench bills are allocated for this session and cannot be changed.
Is that set by legislation or could the speaker create some new precedent?
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Yes, definitely. No Deal has to go. And remove the 2nd referendum too, since with Labour opposed that has precious little support in the House.
Again, "No Deal" can't "go" unless and until A50 is extended or revoked as it's the default option at the end of A50.
And Parliament can't extend or revoke A50 on its own only the government can do that.
Hasn't Bercow proved that he could do it (or enable the remain majority of MPs to) if he wanted to?
No.
He was quite clear yesterday. Primary legislation is needed to replace primary legislation.
Can anyone other than the Gov't create primary legislation ?
It is possible via a backbench bill, however all the slots for the backbench bills are allocated for this session and cannot be changed.
Unless the non-arbitrary chair wants them changed.
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Yes, definitely. No Deal has to go. And remove the 2nd referendum too, since with Labour opposed that has precious little support in the House.
Again, "No Deal" can't "go" unless and until A50 is extended or revoked as it's the default option at the end of A50.
And Parliament can't extend or revoke A50 on its own only the government can do that.
Hasn't Bercow proved that he could do it (or enable the remain majority of MPs to) if he wanted to?
No.
He was quite clear yesterday. Primary legislation is needed to replace primary legislation.
He was also quite clear that the chair can change the rules if the chair wants to.
The chair can only do so much, perhaps you should go on a refresher on how laws are created.
Huh. I think I'm reaching my limit on what I will accept as being too stupid for Trump to say. Did he really say that, or is someone using that new video technology to put words into his mouth?
The confidence of his assertions are astonishing.
His entire career has been based on talking bollocks and ripping people off, so it's not as though his present skills have been won lightly.
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Yes, definitely. No Deal has to go. And remove the 2nd referendum too, since with Labour opposed that has precious little support in the House.
Again, "No Deal" can't "go" unless and until A50 is extended or revoked as it's the default option at the end of A50.
And Parliament can't extend or revoke A50 on its own only the government can do that.
Hasn't Bercow proved that he could do it (or enable the remain majority of MPs to) if he wanted to?
No.
He was quite clear yesterday. Primary legislation is needed to replace primary legislation.
He was also quite clear that the chair can change the rules if the chair wants to.
The chair can only do so much, perhaps you should go on a refresher on how laws are created.
Bercow may be a fan of l'etat c,ear moi
I really disliked Speaker Martin, but my loathing of Bercow knows few bounds. Just seeing his picture irritates me. Perfect example of LMS.
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Yes, definitely. No Deal has to go. And remove the 2nd referendum too, since with Labour opposed that has precious little support in the House.
Again, "No Deal" can't "go" unless and until A50 is extended or revoked as it's the default option at the end of A50.
And Parliament can't extend or revoke A50 on its own only the government can do that.
Hasn't Bercow proved that he could do it (or enable the remain majority of MPs to) if he wanted to?
No.
He was quite clear yesterday. Primary legislation is needed to replace primary legislation.
Can anyone other than the Gov't create primary legislation ?
It is possible via a backbench bill, however all the slots for the backbench bills are allocated for this session and cannot be changed.
Is that set by legislation or could the speaker create some new precedent?
No, there's a vote at the start of each Parliamentary session right after the Queen's speech.
The government has to allocate time for these bills, so stop them being talked out like a 10 minute rule bill.
You cannot also change a backbench bill midway through it has to be on same original substance.
You cannot change the 'Ban cyclists who don't wear helmets' bill into the 'Ban pineapple on pizza' bill from when it is was originally selected.
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Yes, definitely. No Deal has to go. And remove the 2nd referendum too, since with Labour opposed that has precious little support in the House.
Again, "No Deal" can't "go" unless and until A50 is extended or revoked as it's the default option at the end of A50.
And Parliament can't extend or revoke A50 on its own only the government can do that.
Hasn't Bercow proved that he could do it (or enable the remain majority of MPs to) if he wanted to?
No.
He was quite clear yesterday. Primary legislation is needed to replace primary legislation.
He was also quite clear that the chair can change the rules if the chair wants to.
The chair can only do so much, perhaps you should go on a refresher on how laws are created.
He could in any event only take such extreme action with the backing of a majority of parliament - and if you could really find sufficient MPs who are that determined, you could form a new government for the purpose.
Isn't that old news? It was reported some time ago that they were bringing forward their usual planned summer maintenance shutdown from August to April this year in case of any logistics issues. Sensible approach.
Yep. MPs are not there for the people, only for themselves.
I would not normally agree with that sentiment but, in this case, harsh but fair. The actions of each faction make sense according to their own beliefs and objectives, on the whole they do anyway, but taken together as a collective the effect is malign.
Then again we are being premature. I am still confident that we will be leaving the EU under the Withdrawal Treaty at some point in the first half of this year. Perhaps all this late stage brinkmanship and grandstanding was inevitable and, in an odd way, necessary.
Bad news for those (no names, no pack drill) seeking respite from Brexit in concupiscence.
"Super gonorrhea ‘has reached the UK’, doctors warn
‘Super gonorrhea’ hit the headlines after a British tourist contracted a case described as ‘the world’s worst’ in Thailand last year – but the infection has now reached Britain."
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Yes, definitely. No Deal has to go. And remove the 2nd referendum too, since with Labour opposed that has precious little support in the House.
Again, "No Deal" can't "go" unless and until A50 is extended or revoked as it's the default option at the end of A50.
And Parliament can't extend or revoke A50 on its own only the government can do that.
Hasn't Bercow proved that he could do it (or enable the remain majority of MPs to) if he wanted to?
No.
He was quite clear yesterday. Primary legislation is needed to replace primary legislation.
He was also quite clear that the chair can change the rules if the chair wants to.
The chair can only do so much, perhaps you should go on a refresher on how laws are created.
He could in any event only take such extreme action with the backing of a majority of parliament - and if you could really find sufficient MPs who are that determined, you could form a new government for the purpose.
You don't need the Speaker to form a new government without an election.
She is on course for the biggest Commons defeat in Parliamenary history - beating the minority Labour government's losing tally of 166 in 1924.
In terms of the future prospects of the Conservative Party, the sight of the Government trying but being unable to deliver any sort of Brexit could amount to an expedient damage limitation exercise, provided that the Government's fallback position is not to try to extend A50 or seek a second referendum. If the vote for a second referendum was instead forced on the HoC by a solid mass of Labour, LD and SNP MPs with a few Conservatives tacked on, it might be an expedient way out politically for the Conservatives. I don't think that that being defeated by parliamentary arithmetic would cause that many Leavers to give up on the Conservatives, nor would it provide any reason for Conservative Remainers to jump ship, since they would have achieved the outcome they always wanted.
Ripe market for a spread bet, come on Sporting Index and put one up!
Seconded. I really hope they do. If they don't, I mean, call themselves a spread betting firm?
They are noticeably less adventurous on politics these days. I remember when you could get markets such as how many days would so & so survive as such & such.
Personally, I've backed Amy Klobuchar to win POTUS 2020 at odds of 33/1 (currently best-priced at around 25/1). For my money she's the feistiest of all the Democratic front runners, a characteristic which should hold her in good stead against Trump.
Parliament needs to come to a settled view. That means May needs to remove some of the options from the table, to make things easier. The easiest option to remove from the table is No Deal.
Yes, definitely. No Deal has to go. And remove the 2nd referendum too, since with Labour opposed that has precious little support in the House.
Again, "No Deal" can't "go" unless and until A50 is extended or revoked as it's the default option at the end of A50.
And Parliament can't extend or revoke A50 on its own only the government can do that.
Hasn't Bercow proved that he could do it (or enable the remain majority of MPs to) if he wanted to?
No.
He was quite clear yesterday. Primary legislation is needed to replace primary legislation.
Can anyone other than the Gov't create primary legislation ?
It is possible via a backbench bill, however all the slots for the backbench bills are allocated for this session and cannot be changed.
Is that set by legislation or could the speaker create some new precedent?
No, there's a vote at the start of each Parliamentary session right after the Queen's speech.
The government has to allocate time for these bills, so stop them being talked out like a 10 minute rule bill.
You cannot also change a backbench bill midway through it has to be on same original substance.
You cannot change the 'Ban cyclists who don't wear helmets' bill into the 'Ban pineapple on pizza' bill from when it is was originally selected.
If a bill already on the agenda is amended does that count as primary legislation?
IE if the "Ban cyclists who don't wear helmets' bill is amended into a 'ban cyclists who don't wear helmets and pineapple on pizza' does that count?
Comments
Infrequent (But massive) referenda + FPTP is a recipe for failure though.
Frequent referendums + STV =
Still, Brexit cancelled - believe it when I see it and not before.
He'd be even happier to be PM after No Deal though... Jeremy Corbyn has been Leave for 40 years doncha know!
One of the many bits The Apprentice would have edited out...
MPs would declare their party affiliation (which would be confirmed by the party) at the time of selection but once they had been elected all votes in Parliament would be free votes with perhaps the exception of the finance bills.
MPs would be representing their constituents rather than their party.
As I say it will never happen but it would be great if it did.
The key vote will also have all the pro-no-deal Conservatives and the DUP voting against it.
Would You Like To See The Current House Of Lords Abolished?
YES
NO
YES wins by 90%?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-5-key-constituencies-of-the-2020-democratic-primary/
But what on earth does that leave?
Brian, has that Deal thing already gone in the shredder? It has? Ah.
It’s not too dissimilar to the revolutionary system called ‘democracy’ that Jim Hacker briefly flirted with in Yes Prime Minister.
https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/jan/10/america-cheese-surplus-production-dairy-farmers
1) The government comes to a decision it wishes to amend the constitution.
2) Government convenes a constitutional committee to draft a constitutional amendment.
3) Amendment is ratified by both houses.
4) The amendment is put to the people in a referendum.
5) The President signs the amendment as soon as possible after the referendum result has been certified and it becomes effective forthwith.
Do you see how very different that is from what Call Me Dave did?
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/424674-kamala-harris-to-enter-presidential-race-on-or-around-mlk-day-report
Far from being democratic, that gives the local party machine at each level almost complete control of who moves up the chain of command, and ensures that there's always an opposition-proof majority of party members at every level.
That's not democracy, that's hierarchical oligarchy.
And Parliament can't extend or revoke A50 on its own only the government can do that.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/10/border-lawmakers-spurn-trump-wall-proposal-1071707
(And it's notable that states on the Mexico border have lower crime rates than the national average.)
I am pretty sure that it wold become possible to police eventually after a few high profile cases were pursued.
Also look at the great enjoyment we would all get from being able to educate people about why the word is referendums not referenda.
"[Barry Gardiner] summed them up, pithily, in a word which in Spanish translates as ‘cojones’ and in English rhymes with ‘rollocks’. I know, Mr Speaker, there are some distinguished citizens in this country who have put on their cars a poster or sticker saying ‘bollocks to Brexit’ - but we now know from Labour’s own frontbench that their official Brexit position is bollocks.
I have to say that the shadow international trade secretary is a jewel and an ornament to the Labour front bench. He speaks the truth with perfect clarity, and in his description of Labour’s own policy can I say across the House we’re grateful to him, grateful to the constant Gardiner for the way in which he has cast light on the testicular nature of Labour’s position."
https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1083394867601002497
"Super gonorrhea ‘has reached the UK’, doctors warn
‘Super gonorrhea’ hit the headlines after a British tourist contracted a case described as ‘the world’s worst’ in Thailand last year – but the infection has now reached Britain."
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/super-gonorrhea-reached-uk-doctors-warn-111238930.html
He was quite clear yesterday. Primary legislation is needed to replace primary legislation.
1211 months security of tenure my arse.She just said "gangplank", which I misheard as "gang-f@ck".
What more can I say?
Edit damn autocorrect.
She actually said gang-bang....
The government has to allocate time for these bills, so stop them being talked out like a 10 minute rule bill.
You cannot also change a backbench bill midway through it has to be on same original substance.
You cannot change the 'Ban cyclists who don't wear helmets' bill into the 'Ban pineapple on pizza' bill from when it is was originally selected.
Then again we are being premature. I am still confident that we will be leaving the EU under the Withdrawal Treaty at some point in the first half of this year. Perhaps all this late stage brinkmanship and grandstanding was inevitable and, in an odd way, necessary.
They are noticeably less adventurous on politics these days. I remember when you could get markets such as how many days would so & so survive as such & such.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/424688-steve-king-asks-how-terms-white-nationalist-and-white-supremacist-became
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) is questioning how terms such as "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" became offensive in the U.S.
“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?” King asked...
IE if the "Ban cyclists who don't wear helmets' bill is amended into a 'ban cyclists who don't wear helmets and pineapple on pizza' does that count?