There will not be a deal. Parliament had to choose between no deal crash out and revokation/extension of article 50. And in extremis it will choose the latter.
But we will go right to the precipice before that happens.
At this point I think that's Labour's policy. Force May to stand on the cliff edge, with no deal concluded, no stay of execution from the EU forthcoming, and Corbyn daring her to jump.
They've told you a million times. They hate the backstop and would rather crash out with No Deal than agree to it.
It's not those MPs he's talking about. In the interview he says c. 80 for No Deal, maybe 180 for a 2nd ref, so c. 400 in favour of some sort of Deal. Only 200 of those voted for this Deal.
But the 400 could never agree on what sort of deal to accept. They range from those who want SM/CU and full economic integration to those who want little more than managed no deal. And May has made no effort to try to build consensus.
There will not be a deal. Parliament had to choose between no deal crash out and revokation/extension of article 50. And in extremis it will choose the latter.
Macron and others will ask "Why should we extend? To do what? Give you more time to form a circle jerk? Non...."
Which is why the options are crash out or Revoke. Either way I'll be a few quid up but my bank balance would prefer May to go and for Lidington to be PM for a bit first.
Corbyn's position is pathetic. May's deal may be ropey but at least she has a plausible position. Disruption may occur with no deal, but that's also a realistic possibility. Remaining throws up significant democratic questions, but it's also a credible turn of events.
That's because it's not his position. The Unicorns are meant to distract us from Labour's real policy, which is to force May all the way to the cliff edge.
Corbyn's position is pathetic. May's deal may be ropey but at least she has a plausible position. Disruption may occur with no deal, but that's also a realistic possibility. Remaining throws up significant democratic questions, but it's also a credible turn of events.
Corbyn's position is utter bullshit. If he wants a customs union and to stay in EU regulations, he should grow some balls and come out for staying in.
He doesn't want May's deal. He doesn't want no deal. He doesn't want to remain. He wants vague nonsense that doesn't survive contact with reality.
Actually, I think him and his cronies want No Deal, because the chaos is more likely to lead to a earlier GE than 2022. Don't forget most of the inner circle are old school anti-EU left.
Corbyn can't come out for that, because it would tear his party in two (with his bit being the smaller most likely) and there'll be no more Glasto singing for him.
He's trying to sleep walk us into No Deal in a complex, unspoken dance with the ultras on Tory backbench imho.
That looks like a sensible compromise to me. There is no other deal, and I believe there is a majority for it in the HoC [not to mention the country at large], once one of the other two options is definitively ruled out. Which option, and how to rule it out, is now the million-dollar question.
I was just thinking something along these lines - the indicative votes should merely be on-the-table/off-the-table, with at least two options and all 50% options on the table at all times.
So one could envisage an order based on the number of contingencies needed to enact - 1 is the default, 2-4 need parliamentary work, 5 and above are contingent on the EU and so may collapse as possibilties:
1. No deal without referendum on the table 2. Keep May Deal without referendum on the table (one assumes merely keeping on the table gets somewhat > 202 votes) 3. Revoke without referendum... 4. Variants of the above (e.g. May deal plus Mann amendment etc etc) 5. Seek extension to A50 to hold 3 way referendum, method by further indication. 6. Seek extension to A50 to hold binding Deal Vs No Deal referendum 7. Seek extension to A50 to hold binding referendum with revoke (for me, not remain - revoke is a point in time option) option vs other on the table option. 8. Seek extension to A50 to discuss Norway/CU deal and return to parliament with result for further indication 9. Seek extension to A50 to discuss removal of the backstop and return (if EU reject, this will then come off the table anyway. In fact, MPs may determine this is already off the table)
Repeat until only 2 options are on the table, at least one of which must be implementable without seeking extension.
Btw, is seeking to extend A50 a one shot thing or could we ask multiple times for different reasons?
That's not a list of options - that's a list of wishes - and most are reliant on the EU accepting an extension and I suspect they really wouldn't unless we had very concrete options on the table.
What you really should be doing there is asking for how do you want things to end - seeking an extension isn't important there it's what outcome do you want.
Corbyn's position is pathetic. May's deal may be ropey but at least she has a plausible position. Disruption may occur with no deal, but that's also a realistic possibility. Remaining throws up significant democratic questions, but it's also a credible turn of events.
Corbyn's position is utter bullshit. If he wants a customs union and to stay in EU regulations, he should grow some balls and come out for staying in.
He doesn't want May's deal. He doesn't want no deal. He doesn't want to remain. He wants vague nonsense that doesn't survive contact with reality.
He wants to fuck up the Tories. Everything else is a very poor second.
Corbyn's position is pathetic. May's deal may be ropey but at least she has a plausible position. Disruption may occur with no deal, but that's also a realistic possibility. Remaining throws up significant democratic questions, but it's also a credible turn of events.
Corbyn's position is utter bullshit. If he wants a customs union and to stay in EU regulations, he should grow some balls and come out for staying in.
He doesn't want May's deal. He doesn't want no deal. He doesn't want to remain. He wants vague nonsense that doesn't survive contact with reality.
Actually, I think him and his cronies want No Deal, because the chaos is more likely to lead to a earlier GE than 2022. Don't forget most of the inner circle are old school anti-EU left.
Corbyn can't come out for that, because it would tear his party in two (with his bit being the smaller most likely) and there'll be no more Glasto singing for him.
He's trying to sleep walk us into No Deal in a complex, unspoken dance with the ultras on Tory backbench imho.
So his performance in PMQs yesterday was all a bit of a lark really.
That looks like a sensible compromise to me. There is no other deal, and I believe there is a majority for it in the HoC [not to mention the country at large], once one of the other two options is definitively ruled out. Which option, and how to rule it out, is now the million-dollar question.
I was just thinking something along these lines - the indicative votes should merely be on-the-table/off-the-table, with at least two options and all 50% options on the table at all times.
So one could envisage an order based on the number of contingencies needed to enact - 1 is the default, 2-4 need parliamentary work, 5 and above are contingent on the EU and so may collapse as possibilties:
1. No deal without referendum on the table 2. Keep May Deal without referendum on the table (one assumes merely keeping on the table gets somewhat > 202 votes) 3. Revoke without referendum... 4. Variants of the above (e.g. May deal plus Mann amendment etc etc) 5. Seek extension to A50 to hold 3 way referendum, method by further indication. 6. Seek extension to A50 to hold binding Deal Vs No Deal referendum 7. Seek extension to A50 to hold binding referendum with revoke (for me, not remain - revoke is a point in time option) option vs other on the table option. 8. Seek extension to A50 to discuss Norway/CU deal and return to parliament with result for further indication 9. Seek extension to A50 to discuss removal of the backstop and return (if EU reject, this will then come off the table anyway. In fact, MPs may determine this is already off the table)
Repeat until only 2 options are on the table, at least one of which must be implementable without seeking extension.
Btw, is seeking to extend A50 a one shot thing or could we ask multiple times for different reasons?
That's not a list of options - that's a list of wishes - and most are reliant on the EU accepting an extension and I suspect they really wouldn't unless we had very concrete options on the table.
This also plays in a loop until the wishes collapse and only actual options are left, indeed separating the wishes from the options is part of the necessary process.
As a Remain voter who actively took part in the campaign I would certainly not be voting to Remain again should there be a second referendum. I cannot see how any referendum that included a Remain option could possibly be justified...the result of the referendum should be respected...if we cannot agree a deal then we leave without one
There will not be a deal. Parliament had to choose between no deal crash out and revokation/extension of article 50. And in extremis it will choose the latter.
But we will go right to the precipice before that happens.
At this point I think that's Labour's policy. Force May to stand on the cliff edge, with no deal concluded, no stay of execution from the EU forthcoming, and Corbyn daring her to jump.
Yes I agree. We will be well into March with no deal looming and panic buying emptying the shops and only then will parliament confront the issue. A50 will be revoked and either a referendum or general election, or perhaps both, will follow shortly thereafter,
Still can't see the Tory members electing the Most P****able Face in Politics as next leader.
How the hell do they sell him on the doorsteps? "Vote for Michael Gove as your next Prime Minister because....er.....eek......"
I hear you. He has terrible teeth too.
But I see May getting a Brexit deal through eventually, and then I see her rewarding Gove by giving him strategic command of the Trade talks. He will be the Brexit Czar. Might well be called that officially.
Any case, who cares what he's called, the point is that he will shine in the role, and so by the time Mrs May stands down in 2021 he will be de facto leader in waiting. Brown to May's Blair. He will not, as now, be a big beast amongst many other big beasts, he will be an enormous beast amongst beasts who are not even big at all. So the membership will have little choice.
I would happily switch from Leave to Remain if the EU definitively stopped the ever closer union drive and put the commission firmly under the control of the parliament rather than ploughing its own ideological furlough
To be honest as someone who is elderly (and voted remain) the idea politicians are pleased people are dying so they can fulfil their political hopes is just so sad. Where is respect
Still can't see the Tory members electing the Most P****able Face in Politics as next leader.
How the hell do they sell him on the doorsteps? "Vote for Michael Gove as your next Prime Minister because....er.....eek......"
I hear you. He has terrible teeth too.
But I see May getting a Brexit deal through eventually, and then I see her rewarding Gove by giving him strategic command of the Trade talks. He will be the Brexit Czar. Might well be called that officially.
Any case, who cares what he's called, the point is that he will shine in the role, and so by the time Mrs May stands down in 2021 he will be de facto leader in waiting. Brown to May's Blair. He will not, as now, be a big beast amongst many other big beasts, he will be an enormous beast amongst beasts who are not even big at all. So the membership will have little choice.
Still can't see the Tory members electing the Most P****able Face in Politics as next leader.
How the hell do they sell him on the doorsteps? "Vote for Michael Gove as your next Prime Minister because....er.....eek......"
I hear you. He has terrible teeth too.
But I see May getting a Brexit deal through eventually, and then I see her rewarding Gove by giving him strategic command of the Trade talks. He will be the Brexit Czar. Might well be called that officially.
Any case, who cares what he's called, the point is that he will shine in the role, and so by the time Mrs May stands down in 2021 he will be de facto leader in waiting. Brown to May's Blair. He will not, as now, be a big beast amongst many other big beasts, he will be an enormous beast amongst beasts who are not even big at all. So the membership will have little choice.
May's Deal as it stands can't go through without triggering an election. Relenting on the customs union to solve the backstop would mean there'd be no point in having trade talks, and the Tory Party would probably collapse anyway. Regardless, any deal = General Election.
Despite the SNP's Westminster leader Ian Blackford meeting the premier last night, Mrs Sturgeon today pulled the SNP out of the talks, claiming she would not be 'complicit in more time wasting'.
Corbyn's position is pathetic. May's deal may be ropey but at least she has a plausible position. Disruption may occur with no deal, but that's also a realistic possibility. Remaining throws up significant democratic questions, but it's also a credible turn of events.
Corbyn's position is utter bullshit. If he wants a customs union and to stay in EU regulations, he should grow some balls and come out for staying in.
He doesn't want May's deal. He doesn't want no deal. He doesn't want to remain. He wants vague nonsense that doesn't survive contact with reality.
Actually, I think him and his cronies want No Deal, because the chaos is more likely to lead to a earlier GE than 2022. Don't forget most of the inner circle are old school anti-EU left.
Corbyn can't come out for that, because it would tear his party in two (with his bit being the smaller most likely) and there'll be no more Glasto singing for him.
He's trying to sleep walk us into No Deal in a complex, unspoken dance with the ultras on Tory backbench imho.
So his performance in PMQs yesterday was all a bit of a lark really.
And, as Stephen Bush is arguing today, even if Corbyn isn't a No Dealer, he may end up there by default because the idea of a 2nd vote is even more of anathema to his plans.
Well that's an attack. It has however removed the threat of a no confidence vote on January 30th so we should be thankful for small mercies...
And there's little point in a General Election if the opposition isn't putting out a clear position, let alone the government. The need here is to resolve the impasse, not to switch one bunch of incompetent bums on seats for another.
I wonder if the difference between the polling and OGH's anecdotal experience comes down to political sophistication. If you folllow politics closely you were probably already expecting at least some degree of clown shoes, but a lot of people out there must have assumed the government at least partly knows what it's doing, and brexit must be basically workable or they wouldn't have put it on the ballot.
Still can't see the Tory members electing the Most P****able Face in Politics as next leader.
How the hell do they sell him on the doorsteps? "Vote for Michael Gove as your next Prime Minister because....er.....eek......"
I hear you. He has terrible teeth too.
But I see May getting a Brexit deal through eventually, and then I see her rewarding Gove by giving him strategic command of the Trade talks. He will be the Brexit Czar. Might well be called that officially.
Any case, who cares what he's called, the point is that he will shine in the role, and so by the time Mrs May stands down in 2021 he will be de facto leader in waiting. Brown to May's Blair. He will not, as now, be a big beast amongst many other big beasts, he will be an enormous beast amongst beasts who are not even big at all. So the membership will have little choice.
Gove? The Michael Gove whose first instinct is always to get his retaliation in first, who recruited Dominic Cummings to play the good cop? The one who sees experts as enemies: that Michael Gove?
In any case, Theresa May has already offered to make him Brexit Czar DExEU Sec but Gove turned it down because he was not allowed to tear up Theresa May's deal and renegotiate with the EU. The deal he didn't support yesterday when reaching out to the Opposition by insulting them.
This also plays in a loop until the wishes collapse and only actual options are left, indeed separating the wishes from the options is part of the necessary process.
Sorry but seek an extension is a wish - As I really can't see the EU offering it.
Now you can list a set of options for the eventual end state and even the we can't make a decision so lets split the country permanently in half with another referendum option but seek an extension isn't part of any of those end states.
Then once you've decided on the end state that Parliament wants you can then work out how on earth you get there. As I suspect the only way you get an extension is to walk in with a notice to Revoke and ask very politely...
Why can't we just extend Article 50 by several months (maybe a year, perhaps more) and use that time to negotiate hard with the EU and thrash out the future relationship agreement? Isn't that the obvious way to avoid the backstop coming in, or trying to find some compromise that prevents it (eg Corbyn's permanent customs union concession), by sorting the future deal now so it never becomes an issue?
I know the EU wants us over a barrel with an exit first, followed then and only then by negotiating the future deal, but the current mess has all come about because of the EU's insistence on that approach and our supine and utterly bonkers agreement to it (David D, I am pointing at you...).
On topic: I agree with the analysis that says Leave should (in theory) win a second referendum, but I just don't see how they manage it in practice, given how comprehensively the Withdrawal Agreement has been trashed, the unlikelihood of renegotiating it, and the inevitable war between No Dealers and Dealers as to who represents the "true" face of Leave.
I have noticed on here that whenever the Tories have a turned in another disastrous shocker, the PBT attacks on Corbyn go from merely sedately constant to absolute rabid fever pitch. It is fascinating to watch the correlation.
I would happily switch from Leave to Remain if the EU definitively stopped the ever closer union drive and put the commission firmly under the control of the parliament rather than ploughing its own ideological furlough
cant see it happening though
Why? For the UK, Cameron's deal gave us an exclusion from that.
And the one thing the EU does know is that major constitutional changes toward further integration that require referendums in member countries are a non-starter.
On topic: I agree with the analysis that says Leave should (in theory) win a second referendum, but I just don't see how they manage it in practice, given how comprehensively the Withdrawal Agreement has been trashed, the unlikelihood of renegotiating it, and the inevitable war between No Dealers and Dealers as to who represents the "true" face of Leave.
But that is why the campaign slogon will be something like "Leave means Leave" so that everyone can once again vote for their version of Brexit that doesn't features Doctors and Nurses going home and their workplace closing due to unknown side effects.
I have noticed on here that whenever the Tories have a turned in another disastrous shocker, the PBT attacks on Corbyn go from merely sedately constant to absolute rabid fever pitch. It is fascinating to watch the correlation.
On topic: I agree with the analysis that says Leave should (in theory) win a second referendum, but I just don't see how they manage it in practice, given how comprehensively the Withdrawal Agreement has been trashed, the unlikelihood of renegotiating it, and the inevitable war between No Dealers and Dealers as to who represents the "true" face of Leave.
But that is why the campaign slogon will be something like "Leave means Leave" so that everyone can once again vote for their version of Brexit that doesn't features Doctors and Nurses going home and their workplace closing due to unknown side effects.
But before that, any referendum will require an official grouping to be selected by the Electoral Commission as representing the Leave campaign. There will inevitably be a hard leave ERG/UKIP candidate proposing No Deal, and a mainstream alternative led by the likes of Gove/Mordaunt/Leadsome etc, backing some form of May's Deal. One of those will be selected and one won't. What on earth happens then? I don't see them putting aside their differences and agreeing to co-operate for the duration of the campaign.
In any case it would be trivial (in a way that it wasn't first time round) for the Remain campaign to point out just how divided their opponents were.
That number includes just 10 percent of Republicans but 91 percent of Democrats and almost two thirds, 62 percent, of registered independent voters, according to the survey.
I would happily switch from Leave to Remain if the EU definitively stopped the ever closer union drive and put the commission firmly under the control of the parliament rather than ploughing its own ideological furlough
cant see it happening though
Why? For the UK, Cameron's deal gave us an exclusion from that.
And the one thing the EU does know is that major constitutional changes toward further integration that require referendums in member countries are a non-starter.
My position is staightforward
I believe what European politicians say are their goals and think anything were told on EU by UK politicans is lying to their electorate or wishful thinking
The current political shambles simply reinforces that view
March 21st given that we need 2 weeks to get the legalise out of the way before the 5 weeks can begin....
21st March assumes the two weeks of new government forming after a VoNC on 30th Jan and then absolutely no business to wind up at the end of the two weeks before parliament dissolves. Is an immediate dissolution realistic, even with no confirmed government and no business? (on a previous estimate, I added a customary 2 weeks to wind up business, which may be wrong for a post VoNC dissolution).
A Thursday is not essential for a GE, but I do make Thu 21/3 as 25 days after a dissolution on Weds 13 Feb since Bank Holidays anywhere in the UK don't count, so St. Patrick's holiday in NI is relevant to any election date.
That’s just delusional. The EU have set out a deal. If we don’t want it, we have no deal. Why anyone would choose that in order to appease a party which is out of step with the majority of voters in its province beats me?
The government is prevaricating. The options are what I set out yesterday not all this sound and fury signifying nothing.
Your options are not options at all. They are just slightly different ways of getting to Remain.
I have noticed on here that whenever the Tories have a turned in another disastrous shocker, the PBT attacks on Corbyn go from merely sedately constant to absolute rabid fever pitch. It is fascinating to watch the correlation.
Only 8 in favour of a second ref? Fewer than DUP 10 + There's the handful of Labour MP's that would be against a second Ref.
So after all this never ending "People's Vote" talk for the past year it's by no means certain there's even a majority for it in the Commons?
Well indeed. That shows to me (though the EU are against it) what remains likely to garner a clear majority is a deal with the EU stripping back/out the backstop and setting the stage for a Canada-style deal in the future.
If that wins over the Canada/Better Deal and No Backstop factions as I suspect it would then that swings immediately 81 votes (162 net change). Almost there then.
If those 81 publicly embraced the deal that would put immense pressure then upon the 18 WTOers that a Canada Brexit is better than risking no Brexit (36 net change). That's a net change of 198, bloody close to being there.
DUP 10 would also switch with that being resolved. 10 more. Net change of 218 - within touching distance.
A few more from all sides wanting this to be over would be enough to get it over the line.
All along the backstop is the issue stopping a deal and risking what the backstop is meant to prevent - a possible future no deal.
Correct. And the Uk going to the EU with a deal that can pass is a powerful position.
If the EU says sod off - well then they take the blame.
So if we go to the EU with a proposal that they pay us £39bn instead and they tell us to get lost they take the blame do they?
They are under no obligation to accept any deal. They have offered a deal which was acceptable to the UK government if not the HoC. That meets any obligation they might have under Art 50. We have to accept we have no room for maneuver here. The next stage during the transition may be different but the WA is take it or leave it.
So we leave it.
Though do the EU truly want that. Would they really let the ideal be the enemy of the good?
I have noticed on here that whenever the Tories have a turned in another disastrous shocker, the PBT attacks on Corbyn go from merely sedately constant to absolute rabid fever pitch. It is fascinating to watch the correlation.
Perhaps as the thought of his winning an election doesn’t seem quite so unlikely ?
Correlation isn’t causation, though, or we’d have to include the BBC for airing its Chavez documentary last night...
Only 8 in favour of a second ref? Fewer than DUP 10 + There's the handful of Labour MP's that would be against a second Ref.
So after all this never ending "People's Vote" talk for the past year it's by no means certain there's even a majority for it in the Commons?
Well indeed. That shows to me (though the EU are against it) what remains likely to garner a clear majority is a deal with the EU stripping back/out the backstop and setting the stage for a Canada-style deal in the future.
If that wins over the Canada/Better Deal and No Backstop factions as I suspect it would then that swings immediately 81 votes (162 net change). Almost there then.
If those 81 publicly embraced the deal that would put immense pressure then upon the 18 WTOers that a Canada Brexit is better than risking no Brexit (36 net change). That's a net change of 198, bloody close to being there.
DUP 10 would also switch with that being resolved. 10 more. Net change of 218 - within touching distance.
A few more from all sides wanting this to be over would be enough to get it over the line.
All along the backstop is the issue stopping a deal and risking what the backstop is meant to prevent - a possible future no deal.
Correct. And the Uk going to the EU with a deal that can pass is a powerful position.
If the EU says sod off - well then they take the blame.
So if we go to the EU with a proposal that they pay us £39bn instead and they tell us to get lost they take the blame do they?
They are under no obligation to accept any deal. They have offered a deal which was acceptable to the UK government if not the HoC. That meets any obligation they might have under Art 50. We have to accept we have no room for maneuver here. The next stage during the transition may be different but the WA is take it or leave it.
So we leave it.
Though do the EU truly want that. Would they really let the ideal be the enemy of the good?
On topic: I agree with the analysis that says Leave should (in theory) win a second referendum, but I just don't see how they manage it in practice, given how comprehensively the Withdrawal Agreement has been trashed, the unlikelihood of renegotiating it, and the inevitable war between No Dealers and Dealers as to who represents the "true" face of Leave.
But that is why the campaign slogon will be something like "Leave means Leave" so that everyone can once again vote for their version of Brexit that doesn't features Doctors and Nurses going home and their workplace closing due to unknown side effects.
But before that, any referendum will require an official grouping to be selected by the Electoral Commission as representing the Leave campaign. There will inevitably be a hard leave ERG/UKIP candidate proposing No Deal, and a mainstream alternative led by the likes of Gove/Mordaunt/Leadsome etc, backing some form of May's Deal. One of those will be selected and one won't. What on earth happens then? I don't see them putting aside their differences and agreeing to co-operate for the duration of the campaign.
In any case it would be trivial (in a way that it wasn't first time round) for the Remain campaign to point out just how divided their opponents were.
Who would lead remain ? Caroline Lucas, Nicla and Vince Cable ?
On topic: I agree with the analysis that says Leave should (in theory) win a second referendum, but I just don't see how they manage it in practice, given how comprehensively the Withdrawal Agreement has been trashed, the unlikelihood of renegotiating it, and the inevitable war between No Dealers and Dealers as to who represents the "true" face of Leave.
But that is why the campaign slogon will be something like "Leave means Leave" so that everyone can once again vote for their version of Brexit that doesn't features Doctors and Nurses going home and their workplace closing due to unknown side effects.
But before that, any referendum will require an official grouping to be selected by the Electoral Commission as representing the Leave campaign. There will inevitably be a hard leave ERG/UKIP candidate proposing No Deal, and a mainstream alternative led by the likes of Gove/Mordaunt/Leadsome etc, backing some form of May's Deal. One of those will be selected and one won't. What on earth happens then? I don't see them putting aside their differences and agreeing to co-operate for the duration of the campaign.
In any case it would be trivial (in a way that it wasn't first time round) for the Remain campaign to point out just how divided their opponents were.
They will not need to cooperate any more than Vote Leave and Leave.EU had to.
This also plays in a loop until the wishes collapse and only actual options are left, indeed separating the wishes from the options is part of the necessary process.
Sorry but seek an extension is a wish - As I really can't see the EU offering it.
Now you can list a set of options for the eventual end state and even the we can't make a decision so lets split the country permanently in half with another referendum option but seek an extension isn't part of any of those end states.
Then once you've decided on the end state that Parliament wants you can then work out how on earth you get there. As I suspect the only way you get an extension is to walk in with a notice to Revoke and ask very politely...
They will let us Revoke. That is their end game, their desired outcome. The only question is whether they get even greedier and decide to ask for something in return. That would be quite rational given the UK Government's willingness to roll over in negotiations to date and the overwhelming support for Remain from our parliamentarians in contrast to the people who elect them.
As an interim measure, I suspect that they would also let us initially extend A50, again at a price (which they could name in the knowledge that our Remainer PM would yet again roll over and accept it). It depends upon whether the EU is sensitive to the likely public reaction if the EU presented revoking as the only option on the table, and insisted it be done before any second referendum.
Only 8 in favour of a second ref? Fewer than DUP 10 + There's the handful of Labour MP's that would be against a second Ref.
So after all this never ending "People's Vote" talk for the past year it's by no means certain there's even a majority for it in the Commons?
Well indeed. That shows to me (though the EU are against it) what remains likely to garner a clear majority is a deal with the EU stripping back/out the backstop and setting the stage for a Canada-style deal in the future.
If that wins over the Canada/Better Deal and No Backstop factions as I suspect it would then that swings immediately 81 votes (162 net change). Almost there then.
If those 81 publicly embraced the deal that would put immense pressure then upon the 18 WTOers that a Canada Brexit is better than risking no Brexit (36 net change). That's a net change of 198, bloody close to being there.
DUP 10 would also switch with that being resolved. 10 more. Net change of 218 - within touching distance.
A few more from all sides wanting this to be over would be enough to get it over the line.
All along the backstop is the issue stopping a deal and risking what the backstop is meant to prevent - a possible future no deal.
Correct. And the Uk going to the EU with a deal that can pass is a powerful position.
If the EU says sod off - well then they take the blame.
So if we go to the EU with a proposal that they pay us £39bn instead and they tell us to get lost they take the blame do they?
They are under no obligation to accept any deal. They have offered a deal which was acceptable to the UK government if not the HoC. That meets any obligation they might have under Art 50. We have to accept we have no room for maneuver here. The next stage during the transition may be different but the WA is take it or leave it.
So we leave it.
Though do the EU truly want that. Would they really let the ideal be the enemy of the good?
If they follow our example.
What they are proposing isn't good. It is though entirely written by and for them, so they can get 95% of what they've written or none of it.
That’s just delusional. The EU have set out a deal. If we don’t want it, we have no deal. Why anyone would choose that in order to appease a party which is out of step with the majority of voters in its province beats me?
The government is prevaricating. The options are what I set out yesterday not all this sound and fury signifying nothing.
Your options are not options at all. They are just slightly different ways of getting to Remain.
I thought leavers are confident of winnning a second referendum ?
Have a look back - in recent years, DUNNO has had consistent leads.
Hence ‘maintains its comfortable lead’...
Just saying its absolutely not newsworthy. It was the case between Cameron and Miliband, it was only just before the election that Cameron pulled ahead of lol dunno.
I have noticed on here that whenever the Tories have a turned in another disastrous shocker, the PBT attacks on Corbyn go from merely sedately constant to absolute rabid fever pitch. It is fascinating to watch the correlation.
Don’t be daft. Corbyn fucked up at a key moment by being partisan when a statesman was required. Not fatal, but disappointing nonetheless.
When the next VONC comes round he’ll need to strike a very different tone.
I have noticed on here that whenever the Tories have a turned in another disastrous shocker, the PBT attacks on Corbyn go from merely sedately constant to absolute rabid fever pitch. It is fascinating to watch the correlation.
Yeah, Corbyn played a blinder this week.
Oh, wait...
And yet no signs of the polls moving noticeably in 18 months.
Almost certainly another election would still leave a hung parliament.
I disagree with the header, I have met quite a few switchers in each direction but mostly to Remain, particularly amongst immigrant friends. I think the divide will continue whatever happens after Britain's Ratners moment, but cannot see a #peoplesvote making it worse.
I have noticed on here that whenever the Tories have a turned in another disastrous shocker, the PBT attacks on Corbyn go from merely sedately constant to absolute rabid fever pitch. It is fascinating to watch the correlation.
Don’t be daft. Corbyn fucked up at a key moment by being partisan when a statesman was required. Not fatal, but disappointing nonetheless.
When the next VONC comes round he’ll need to strike a very different tone.
Corbyn did what Corbyn always does. He spoke to his base and forget anyone else.
This also plays in a loop until the wishes collapse and only actual options are left, indeed separating the wishes from the options is part of the necessary process.
Sorry but seek an extension is a wish - As I really can't see the EU offering it.
Now you can list a set of options for the eventual end state and even the we can't make a decision so lets split the country permanently in half with another referendum option but seek an extension isn't part of any of those end states.
Then once you've decided on the end state that Parliament wants you can then work out how on earth you get there. As I suspect the only way you get an extension is to walk in with a notice to Revoke and ask very politely...
They will let us Revoke. That is their end game, their desired outcome. The only question is whether they get even greedier and decide to ask for something in return. That would be quite rational given the UK Government's willingness to roll over in negotiations to date and the overwhelming support for Remain from our parliamentarians in contrast to the people who elect them.
As an interim measure, I suspect that they would also let us initially extend A50, again at a price (which they could name in the knowledge that our Remainer PM would yet again roll over and accept it). It depends upon whether the EU is sensitive to the likely public reaction if the EU presented revoking as the only option on the table, and insisted it be done before any second referendum.
The EU have no say in us revoking. As long as we do it in accordance with our constitution we revoke and remain as if nothing has happened and retain all our present benefits
The only possible option would be May's Deal vs Remain. The former is leaving, the latter staying. Anything else would cause more confusion than we have today which would be A LOT of confusion.
I'm coming round to the idea. I don't particularly like it - but I can't see many alternatives which I dislike less.
Me too. No Deal is irresponsible in any shape or form. May's Deal has been clobbered in parliament because almost no-one voted for it at the time of the referendum. Which leaves three options I think:
1. Revoke Article 50 and set up a commission to work out ways forward. This would be sensible policy option in situations where you need a rethink, but the politics is dire.
2. Rework May's Deal into something acceptable to at least half of MPs, which probably means SM+CU. This has some merit because that's the likely direction of travel after leaving anyway. It doesn't feel good though because you are focusing on what gets through the process rather than on the intrinsic merit of the solution.
3. Accept that the population narrowly voted to leave the European Union and also that no good way of doing so has been found. So you go back to ask the people do you wish to go ahead anyway? The fact it's divisive is actually an argument for a referendum. Given you are going to piss off half the population, it's best to piss them off democratically. And this route is clear cut. May's Deal or Remain. No further discussions required (until we leave the EU in the case of May's Deal).
Not likely to endear the LibDems to Remain voters - particularly as they have been pressing for such a vote!
If Labour won't come out at least for a further vote, what's the point in a GE? Nobody seriously believes that Corbyn and his disfunctional shadow cabinet would do any better than May and her dwarfs.
On topic: I agree with the analysis that says Leave should (in theory) win a second referendum, but I just don't see how they manage it in practice, given how comprehensively the Withdrawal Agreement has been trashed, the unlikelihood of renegotiating it, and the inevitable war between No Dealers and Dealers as to who represents the "true" face of Leave.
But that is why the campaign slogon will be something like "Leave means Leave" so that everyone can once again vote for their version of Brexit that doesn't features Doctors and Nurses going home and their workplace closing due to unknown side effects.
But before that, any referendum will require an official grouping to be selected by the Electoral Commission as representing the Leave campaign. There will inevitably be a hard leave ERG/UKIP candidate proposing No Deal, and a mainstream alternative led by the likes of Gove/Mordaunt/Leadsome etc, backing some form of May's Deal. One of those will be selected and one won't. What on earth happens then? I don't see them putting aside their differences and agreeing to co-operate for the duration of the campaign.
In any case it would be trivial (in a way that it wasn't first time round) for the Remain campaign to point out just how divided their opponents were.
They will not need to cooperate any more than Vote Leave and Leave.EU had to.
They do have to not actively be at war with each other though.
On topic: I agree with the analysis that says Leave should (in theory) win a second referendum, but I just don't see how they manage it in practice, given how comprehensively the Withdrawal Agreement has been trashed, the unlikelihood of renegotiating it, and the inevitable war between No Dealers and Dealers as to who represents the "true" face of Leave.
But that is why the campaign slogon will be something like "Leave means Leave" so that everyone can once again vote for their version of Brexit that doesn't features Doctors and Nurses going home and their workplace closing due to unknown side effects.
But before that, any referendum will require an official grouping to be selected by the Electoral Commission as representing the Leave campaign. There will inevitably be a hard leave ERG/UKIP candidate proposing No Deal, and a mainstream alternative led by the likes of Gove/Mordaunt/Leadsome etc, backing some form of May's Deal. One of those will be selected and one won't. What on earth happens then? I don't see them putting aside their differences and agreeing to co-operate for the duration of the campaign.
In any case it would be trivial (in a way that it wasn't first time round) for the Remain campaign to point out just how divided their opponents were.
They will not need to cooperate any more than Vote Leave and Leave.EU had to.
They do have to not actively be at war with each other though.
So they ignore each other. That is what happened last time.
The only possible option would be May's Deal vs Remain. The former is leaving, the latter staying. Anything else would cause more confusion than we have today which would be A LOT of confusion.
I'm coming round to the idea. I don't particularly like it - but I can't see many alternatives which I dislike less.
Me too. No Deal is irresponsible in any shape or form. May's Deal has been clobbered in parliament because almost no-one voted for it at the time of the referendum. Which leaves three options I think:
1. Revoke Article 50 and set up a commission to work out ways forward. This would be sensible policy option in situations where you need a rethink, but the politics is dire.
2. Rework May's Deal into something acceptable to at least half of MPs, which probably means SM+CU. This has some merit because that's the likely direction of travel after leaving anyway. It doesn't feel good though because you are focusing on what gets through the process rather than on the intrinsic merit of the solution.
3. Accept that the population narrowly voted to leave the European Union and also that no good way of doing so has been found. So you go back to ask the people do you wish to go ahead anyway? The fact it's divisive is actually an argument for a referendum. Given you are going to piss off half the population, it's best to piss them off democratically. And this route is clear cut. May's Deal or Remain. No further discussions required (until we leave the EU in the case of May's Deal).
So your three options are
1. Remain 2. Remain in all but name. 3. Try and get public to vote Remain this time.
I have noticed on here that whenever the Tories have a turned in another disastrous shocker, the PBT attacks on Corbyn go from merely sedately constant to absolute rabid fever pitch. It is fascinating to watch the correlation.
Yeah, Corbyn played a blinder this week.
Oh, wait...
And yet no signs of the polls moving noticeably in 18 months.
Almost certainly another election would still leave a hung parliament.
I disagree with the header, I have met quite a few switchers in each direction but mostly to Remain, particularly amongst immigrant friends. I think the divide will continue whatever happens after Britain's Ratners moment, but cannot see a #peoplesvote making it worse.
I'm obsessed by politics and bore all my friends and neighbours rigid with it. At a recent lunch, a £1 fine was imposed for every time the word Brexit was used.
However my experience is the same as OGH's. I haven't met a single Leaver to Remainer switch. Though I don't know many Leavers, I do know some who I respect. But four of my Remainers friends have switched to Leave. Two of them are members of the Tory party and I think have switched in solidarity with Mrs May. The other two are concerned about civil unrest if we don't leave.
I wonder if the difference between the polling and OGH's anecdotal experience comes down to political sophistication. If you folllow politics closely you were probably already expecting at least some degree of clown shoes, but a lot of people out there must have assumed the government at least partly knows what it's doing, and brexit must be basically workable or they wouldn't have put it on the ballot.
Possibly the encountering-switchers issue is a factor of which groups are switching. Looking at the detail, it would appear that women are more likely to have switched from Leave to Remain, and younger respondents are also more likely to have switched (after all, neither young nor old were monolithic masses in one direction or the other).
Many of us hang around with people of our own age groups, genders, and such like, as well as within political partisan groups (which aren't indicative). I know that I haven't been hanging around with groups of younger, politically less-interested women and certainly haven't been talking Brexit with them.
On topic: I agree with the analysis that says Leave should (in theory) win a second referendum, but I just don't see how they manage it in practice, given how comprehensively the Withdrawal Agreement has been trashed, the unlikelihood of renegotiating it, and the inevitable war between No Dealers and Dealers as to who represents the "true" face of Leave.
But that is why the campaign slogon will be something like "Leave means Leave" so that everyone can once again vote for their version of Brexit that doesn't features Doctors and Nurses going home and their workplace closing due to unknown side effects.
But before that, any referendum will require an official grouping to be selected by the Electoral Commission as representing the Leave campaign. There will inevitably be a hard leave ERG/UKIP candidate proposing No Deal, and a mainstream alternative led by the likes of Gove/Mordaunt/Leadsome etc, backing some form of May's Deal. One of those will be selected and one won't. What on earth happens then? I don't see them putting aside their differences and agreeing to co-operate for the duration of the campaign.
In any case it would be trivial (in a way that it wasn't first time round) for the Remain campaign to point out just how divided their opponents were.
They will not need to cooperate any more than Vote Leave and Leave.EU had to.
They do have to not actively be at war with each other though.
How will the No Dealers campaign when the options are Deal Remain ?
This also plays in a loop until the wishes collapse and only actual options are left, indeed separating the wishes from the options is part of the necessary process.
Sorry but seek an extension is a wish - As I really can't see the EU offering it.
Now you can list a set of options for the eventual end state and even the we can't make a decision so lets split the country permanently in half with another referendum option but seek an extension isn't part of any of those end states.
Then once you've decided on the end state that Parliament wants you can then work out how on earth you get there. As I suspect the only way you get an extension is to walk in with a notice to Revoke and ask very politely...
They will let us Revoke. That is their end game, their desired outcome. The only question is whether they get even greedier and decide to ask for something in return. That would be quite rational given the UK Government's willingness to roll over in negotiations to date and the overwhelming support for Remain from our parliamentarians in contrast to the people who elect them.
As an interim measure, I suspect that they would also let us initially extend A50, again at a price (which they could name in the knowledge that our Remainer PM would yet again roll over and accept it). It depends upon whether the EU is sensitive to the likely public reaction if the EU presented revoking as the only option on the table, and insisted it be done before any second referendum.
The EU have no say in us revoking. As long as we do it in accordance with our constitution we revoke and remain as if nothing has happened and retain all our present benefits
The only possible option would be May's Deal vs Remain. The former is leaving, the latter staying. Anything else would cause more confusion than we have today which would be A LOT of confusion.
I'm coming round to the idea. I don't particularly like it - but I can't see many alternatives which I dislike less.
Me too. No Deal is irresponsible in any shape or form. May's Deal has been clobbered in parliament because almost no-one voted for it at the time of the referendum. Which leaves three options I think:
1. Revoke Article 50 and set up a commission to work out ways forward. This would be sensible policy option in situations where you need a rethink, but the politics is dire.
2. Rework May's Deal into something acceptable to at least half of MPs, which probably means SM+CU. This has some merit because that's the likely direction of travel after leaving anyway. It doesn't feel good though because you are focusing on what gets through the process rather than on the intrinsic merit of the solution.
3. Accept that the population narrowly voted to leave the European Union and also that no good way of doing so has been found. So you go back to ask the people do you wish to go ahead anyway? The fact it's divisive is actually an argument for a referendum. Given you are going to piss off half the population, it's best to piss them off democratically. And this route is clear cut. May's Deal or Remain. No further discussions required (until we leave the EU in the case of May's Deal).
1. can’t happen; as you say, the politics are impossible. It would also require defenestration May, which is in irself unlikely, and no conceivable replacement is going to revoke in those grounds.
Well that's an attack. It has however removed the threat of a no confidence vote on January 30th so we should be thankful for small mercies...
It has done no such thing. It would help Labour in places like Sheffield Hallam to table a VONC with the LibDems supporting the Tories or abstaining. LibDems are also at serious risk of losing or being denied anti-Tory tactical votes in seats already held or targetted.
Only 8 in favour of a second ref? Fewer than DUP 10 + There's the handful of Labour MP's that would be against a second Ref.
So after all this never ending "People's Vote" talk for the past year it's by no means certain there's even a majority for it in the Commons?
Well indeed. That shows to me (though the EU are against it) what remains likely to garner a clear majority is a deal with the EU stripping back/out the backstop and setting the stage for a Canada-style deal in the future.
If that wins over the Canada/Better Deal and No Backstop factions as I suspect it would then that swings immediately 81 votes (162 net change). Almost there then.
If those 81 publicly embraced the deal that would put immense pressure then upon the 18 WTOers that a Canada Brexit is better than risking no Brexit (36 net change). That's a net change of 198, bloody close to being there.
DUP 10 would also switch with that being resolved. 10 more. Net change of 218 - within touching distance.
A few more from all sides wanting this to be over would be enough to get it over the line.
All along the backstop is the issue stopping a deal and risking what the backstop is meant to prevent - a possible future no deal.
Correct. And the Uk going to the EU with a deal that can pass is a powerful position.
If the EU says sod off - well then they take the blame.
The EU can say they've come to the UK with a deal that can pass all of them (27 nations instead of just one). Here it is.
If the UK says sod off - well then they take the blame.
In all seriousness, all of the "May can just strip out the bits we don't want, go to the EU and dare them to say no" talk founders on the rocks of reality: the EU then say "Oh, dear. We have a deal and if you don't want it, that's regrettable, but it's your decision. It remains on the table until the last moment if you want to change your mind. Over to you."
The only possible option would be May's Deal vs Remain. The former is leaving, the latter staying. Anything else would cause more confusion than we have today which would be A LOT of confusion.
I'm coming round to the idea. I don't particularly like it - but I can't see many alternatives which I dislike less.
Me too. No Deal is irresponsible in any shape or form. May's Deal has been clobbered in parliament because almost no-one voted for it at the time of the referendum. Which leaves three options I think:
1. Revoke Article 50 and set up a commission to work out ways forward. This would be sensible policy option in situations where you need a rethink, but the politics is dire.
2. Rework May's Deal into something acceptable to at least half of MPs, which probably means SM+CU. This has some merit because that's the likely direction of travel after leaving anyway. It doesn't feel good though because you are focusing on what gets through the process rather than on the intrinsic merit of the solution.
3. Accept that the population narrowly voted to leave the European Union and also that no good way of doing so has been found. So you go back to ask the people do you wish to go ahead anyway? The fact it's divisive is actually an argument for a referendum. Given you are going to piss off half the population, it's best to piss them off democratically. And this route is clear cut. May's Deal or Remain. No further discussions required (until we leave the EU in the case of May's Deal).
So your three options are
1. Remain 2. Remain in all but name. 3. Try and get public to vote Remain this time.
Let me take one guess how you voted in 2016 ...
I think No Deal irresponsible. I guess parliament could overturn its 230 vote objection to May's Deal and say it's fine after all. You tell me?
In any case people can vote for May's Deal in a referendum.
Corbyn is campaigning for the next election and, given how marginal Hastings is, he’s being very canny.
First he needs to win a no confidence and the LibDems have just walked from his little scheme.
He's thinking of 2022. If beforehand doesn't work. Endless campaigning below the radar in lots of marginal seats. It's clever politics. Corbyn, loathsome as he and his politics beliefs are, should never be underestimated. Too many are doing just that.
The only possible option would be May's Deal vs Remain. The former is leaving, the latter staying. Anything else would cause more confusion than we have today which would be A LOT of confusion.
I'm coming round to the idea. I don't particularly like it - but I can't see many alternatives which I dislike less.
Me too. No Deal is irresponsible in any shape or form. May's Deal has been clobbered in parliament because almost no-one voted for it at the time of the referendum. Which leaves three options I think:
1. Revoke Article 50 and set up a commission to work out ways forward. This would be sensible policy option in situations where you need a rethink, but the politics is dire.
2. Rework May's Deal into something acceptable to at least half of MPs, which probably means SM+CU. This has some merit because that's the likely direction of travel after leaving anyway. It doesn't feel good though because you are focusing on what gets through the process rather than on the intrinsic merit of the solution.
3. Accept that the population narrowly voted to leave the European Union and also that no good way of doing so has been found. So you go back to ask the people do you wish to go ahead anyway? The fact it's divisive is actually an argument for a referendum. Given you are going to piss off half the population, it's best to piss them off democratically. And this route is clear cut. May's Deal or Remain. No further discussions required (until we leave the EU in the case of May's Deal).
So your three options are
1. Remain 2. Remain in all but name. 3. Try and get public to vote Remain this time.
Let me take one guess how you voted in 2016 ...
...and no need for us to guess which leave faction you belong to.
This also plays in a loop until the wishes collapse and only actual options are left, indeed separating the wishes from the options is part of the necessary process.
Sorry but seek an extension is a wish - As I really can't see the EU offering it.
Now you can list a set of options for the eventual end state and even the we can't make a decision so lets split the country permanently in half with another referendum option but seek an extension isn't part of any of those end states.
Then once you've decided on the end state that Parliament wants you can then work out how on earth you get there. As I suspect the only way you get an extension is to walk in with a notice to Revoke and ask very politely...
They will let us Revoke. That is their end game, their desired outcome. The only question is whether they get even greedier and decide to ask for something in return. That would be quite rational given the UK Government's willingness to roll over in negotiations to date and the overwhelming support for Remain from our parliamentarians in contrast to the people who elect them.
As an interim measure, I suspect that they would also let us initially extend A50, again at a price (which they could name in the knowledge that our Remainer PM would yet again roll over and accept it). It depends upon whether the EU is sensitive to the likely public reaction if the EU presented revoking as the only option on the table, and insisted it be done before any second referendum.
The EU have no say in us revoking. As long as we do it in accordance with our constitution we revoke and remain as if nothing has happened and retain all our present benefits
That would be ideal, but MUST be coupled with addressing the concerns of the 'left behind'. The Tories might be able to do that but they'd need a new leader, otherwise Labour will try (and fail).
Not likely to endear the LibDems to Remain voters - particularly as they have been pressing for such a vote!
I don't think that follows. Remain voters want a second referendum and see Corbyn as deliberating frustrating that with his threats of continuing VONCs. If Cable can stop the games playing and wasting of valuable parliamentary time, he'll be applauded by Remainers.
I would happily switch from Leave to Remain if the EU definitively stopped the ever closer union drive and put the commission firmly under the control of the parliament rather than ploughing its own ideological furlough
cant see it happening though
You mean like a document which excluded us from ever closer union? Something like that?
On topic: I agree with the analysis that says Leave should (in theory) win a second referendum, but I just don't see how they manage it in practice, given how comprehensively the Withdrawal Agreement has been trashed, the unlikelihood of renegotiating it, and the inevitable war between No Dealers and Dealers as to who represents the "true" face of Leave.
But that is why the campaign slogon will be something like "Leave means Leave" so that everyone can once again vote for their version of Brexit that doesn't features Doctors and Nurses going home and their workplace closing due to unknown side effects.
But before that, any referendum will require an official grouping to be selected by the Electoral Commission as representing the Leave campaign. There will inevitably be a hard leave ERG/UKIP candidate proposing No Deal, and a mainstream alternative led by the likes of Gove/Mordaunt/Leadsome etc, backing some form of May's Deal. One of those will be selected and one won't. What on earth happens then? I don't see them putting aside their differences and agreeing to co-operate for the duration of the campaign.
In any case it would be trivial (in a way that it wasn't first time round) for the Remain campaign to point out just how divided their opponents were.
They will not need to cooperate any more than Vote Leave and Leave.EU had to.
They do have to not actively be at war with each other though.
How will the No Dealers campaign when the options are Deal Remain ?
In reality this is probably the best argument for there not being a second referendum. We can't have all the possible options on the ballot paper, and we also can't leave any of them off.
So on one side we have the weirdo yellow jacket lot hassling MPs and the other some journos talking about erecting gallows and wishing people die off as fast as possible in order for Remain to win another referendum.
Can't be long until we see articles talking about if it is acceptable to punch a Nazi Leaver / Remainer.
I would happily switch from Leave to Remain if the EU definitively stopped the ever closer union drive and put the commission firmly under the control of the parliament rather than ploughing its own ideological furlough
cant see it happening though
You mean like a document which excluded us from ever closer union? Something like that?
The understanding of matters relating to the EU by the average Brexit supporter once again demonstrated by Mr Alanbrooke. And they claim it isn't all about old fashioned prejudice
So on one side we have the weirdo yellow jacket lot hassling MPs and the other some journos talking about erecting gallows and wishing people die off as fast as possible in order for Remain to win another referendum.
Can't be long until we see articles talking about if it is acceptable to punch a Nazi Leaver / Remainer.
That’s just delusional. The EU have set out a deal. If we don’t want it, we have no deal. Why anyone would choose that in order to appease a party which is out of step with the majority of voters in its province beats me?
The government is prevaricating. The options are what I set out yesterday not all this sound and fury signifying nothing.
Your options are not options at all. They are just slightly different ways of getting to Remain.
Since one of them is No Deal, the default - and IMO - now the most likely outcome and one is a referendum, the result of which I would not care to predict, you are wrong.
Not likely to endear the LibDems to Remain voters - particularly as they have been pressing for such a vote!
I don't think that follows. Remain voters want a second referendum and see Corbyn as deliberating frustrating that with his threats of continuing VONCs. If Cable can stop the games playing and wasting of valuable parliamentary time, he'll be applauded by Remainers.
Well that's an attack. It has however removed the threat of a no confidence vote on January 30th so we should be thankful for small mercies...
It has done no such thing. It would help Labour in places like Sheffield Hallam to table a VONC with the LibDems supporting the Tories or abstaining. LibDems are also at serious risk of losing or being denied anti-Tory tactical votes in seats already held or targetted.
Nah - might have been true had the Lib Dems not supported the first motion of no confidence, or the DUP reversed position.
Actually putting the pressure on Corbyn to follow his own party policy will be very useful both to get a result, and to campaign against Corbyn, whose ratings are going down fast
Awful! It really is hard to believe how far we've fallen!
I never thought I'd see things become so nasty as they have done in past couple of years.
It is quite a nasty post. It is a great sadness, however, that another big downside to this whole unnecessary nonsense is that it has the older generation, of which I am almost part, saying to the younger, "fuck what you want, we want to exercise our rights to be prejudiced against the foreigners"
Comments
At this point I think that's Labour's policy. Force May to stand on the cliff edge, with no deal concluded, no stay of execution from the EU forthcoming, and Corbyn daring her to jump.
Corbyn can't come out for that, because it would tear his party in two (with his bit being the smaller most likely) and there'll be no more Glasto singing for him.
He's trying to sleep walk us into No Deal in a complex, unspoken dance with the ultras on Tory backbench imho.
What you really should be doing there is asking for how do you want things to end - seeking an extension isn't important there it's what outcome do you want.
https://twitter.com/libdemvoice/status/1085877063016431616
'Let's persuade Leavers nicely'
https://twitter.com/pollytoynbee/status/1085875822693634048
'The old people are dying. Rejoice!'
But I see May getting a Brexit deal through eventually, and then I see her rewarding Gove by giving him strategic command of the Trade talks. He will be the Brexit Czar. Might well be called that officially.
Any case, who cares what he's called, the point is that he will shine in the role, and so by the time Mrs May stands down in 2021 he will be de facto leader in waiting. Brown to May's Blair. He will not, as now, be a big beast amongst many other big beasts, he will be an enormous beast amongst beasts who are not even big at all. So the membership will have little choice.
I would happily switch from Leave to Remain if the EU definitively stopped the ever closer union drive and put the commission firmly under the control of the parliament rather than ploughing its own ideological furlough
cant see it happening though
They elected IDS remember......over Ken Clarke.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-news-latest-support-for-staying-in-eu-hits-highest-level-since-referendum-as-56-per-cent-say-a4041406.html
Unfortunately for Polly Toynbee, she is 72.
On the other hand, this detailed YouGov survey would suggest the kind of tight outcome that the thread suggests.
In any case, Theresa May has already offered to make him Brexit Czar DExEU Sec but Gove turned it down because he was not allowed to tear up Theresa May's deal and renegotiate with the EU. The deal he didn't support yesterday when reaching out to the Opposition by insulting them.
Now you can list a set of options for the eventual end state and even the we can't make a decision so lets split the country permanently in half with another referendum option but seek an extension isn't part of any of those end states.
Then once you've decided on the end state that Parliament wants you can then work out how on earth you get there. As I suspect the only way you get an extension is to walk in with a notice to Revoke and ask very politely...
I know the EU wants us over a barrel with an exit first, followed then and only then by negotiating the future deal, but the current mess has all come about because of the EU's insistence on that approach and our supine and utterly bonkers agreement to it (David D, I am pointing at you...).
And the one thing the EU does know is that major constitutional changes toward further integration that require referendums in member countries are a non-starter.
Oh, wait...
In any case it would be trivial (in a way that it wasn't first time round) for the Remain campaign to point out just how divided their opponents were.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/425782-poll-most-voters-wont-support-trump-in-2020
In a PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist Institute survey released Thursday, 57 percent of registered voters said that they would definitely not support Trump for reelection.
That number includes just 10 percent of Republicans but 91 percent of Democrats and almost two thirds, 62 percent, of registered independent voters, according to the survey.
I believe what European politicians say are their goals and think anything were told on EU by UK politicans is lying to their electorate or wishful thinking
The current political shambles simply reinforces that view
A Thursday is not essential for a GE, but I do make Thu 21/3 as 25 days after a dissolution on Weds 13 Feb since Bank Holidays anywhere in the UK don't count, so St. Patrick's holiday in NI is relevant to any election date.
Though do the EU truly want that. Would they really let the ideal be the enemy of the good?
Correlation isn’t causation, though, or we’d have to include the BBC for airing its Chavez documentary last night...
As an interim measure, I suspect that they would also let us initially extend A50, again at a price (which they could name in the knowledge that our Remainer PM would yet again roll over and accept it). It depends upon whether the EU is sensitive to the likely public reaction if the EU presented revoking as the only option on the table, and insisted it be done before any second referendum.
They're not paying us we are paying them.
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/axuqr6j92z/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Leaders-Perceptions-220415.pdf
When the next VONC comes round he’ll need to strike a very different tone.
Almost certainly another election would still leave a hung parliament.
I disagree with the header, I have met quite a few switchers in each direction but mostly to Remain, particularly amongst immigrant friends. I think the divide will continue whatever happens after Britain's Ratners moment, but cannot see a #peoplesvote making it worse.
1. Revoke Article 50 and set up a commission to work out ways forward. This would be sensible policy option in situations where you need a rethink, but the politics is dire.
2. Rework May's Deal into something acceptable to at least half of MPs, which probably means SM+CU. This has some merit because that's the likely direction of travel after leaving anyway. It doesn't feel good though because you are focusing on what gets through the process rather than on the intrinsic merit of the solution.
3. Accept that the population narrowly voted to leave the European Union and also that no good way of doing so has been found. So you go back to ask the people do you wish to go ahead anyway? The fact it's divisive is actually an argument for a referendum. Given you are going to piss off half the population, it's best to piss them off democratically. And this route is clear cut. May's Deal or Remain. No further discussions required (until we leave the EU in the case of May's Deal).
1. Remain
2. Remain in all but name.
3. Try and get public to vote Remain this time.
Let me take one guess how you voted in 2016 ...
However my experience is the same as OGH's. I haven't met a single Leaver to Remainer switch. Though I don't know many Leavers, I do know some who I respect. But four of my Remainers friends have switched to Leave. Two of them are members of the Tory party and I think have switched in solidarity with Mrs May. The other two are concerned about civil unrest if we don't leave.
Looking at the detail, it would appear that women are more likely to have switched from Leave to Remain, and younger respondents are also more likely to have switched (after all, neither young nor old were monolithic masses in one direction or the other).
Many of us hang around with people of our own age groups, genders, and such like, as well as within political partisan groups (which aren't indicative). I know that I haven't been hanging around with groups of younger, politically less-interested women and certainly haven't been talking Brexit with them.
Deal
Remain
?
If we revoke, it will be to Remain.
If the UK says sod off - well then they take the blame.
In all seriousness, all of the "May can just strip out the bits we don't want, go to the EU and dare them to say no" talk founders on the rocks of reality: the EU then say "Oh, dear. We have a deal and if you don't want it, that's regrettable, but it's your decision. It remains on the table until the last moment if you want to change your mind. Over to you."
I never thought I'd see things become so nasty as they have done in past couple of years.
In any case people can vote for May's Deal in a referendum.
Can't be long until we see articles talking about if it is acceptable to punch a
NaziLeaver / Remainer.Since one of them is No Deal, the default - and IMO - now the most likely outcome and one is a referendum, the result of which I would not care to predict, you are wrong.
Actually putting the pressure on Corbyn to follow his own party policy will be very useful both to get a result, and to campaign against Corbyn, whose ratings are going down fast