I think a commitment to seek single market membership (ie Norway) in the Political Declaration would get through the House.
So would, but perhaps more tightly, a People’s Vote.
I am less sure about a commitment to a permanent Customs Union because I think May would carry even less of her Party than her Deal did.
So: which will May cave on: the No FOM redline or the No More Vote redline?
You really think she's going to cave on any red line?
Yes.
May's apparent interest in the citizens' assembly idea suggests she'll compromise on process in order to kick the can rather than compromising on content.
That's why it's an easier option for her, and for most politicians. It doesn't reflect anyone's preexisting position.
But I sense she and we are not quite ready for this denouement yet.
No, we are in for days of everyone putting forward their originally preferred solution as the only way out of the impasse. Just like on PB.
It would need an extension, however, to avoid coming up against the deadline.
Yes - but PB are on a higher level than our mps and broadcast journalists and even we have no ides
I think a commitment to seek single market membership (ie Norway) in the Political Declaration would get through the House.
So would, but perhaps more tightly, a People’s Vote.
I am less sure about a commitment to a permanent Customs Union because I think May would carry even less of her Party than her Deal did.
So: which will May cave on: the No FOM redline or the No More Vote redline?
You really think she's going to cave on any red line?
Yes.
May's apparent interest in the citizens' assembly idea suggests she'll compromise on process in order to kick the can rather than compromising on content.
That's why it's an easier option for her, and for most politicians. It doesn't reflect anyone's preexisting position.
But I sense she and we are not quite ready for this denouement yet.
No, we are in for days of everyone putting forward their originally preferred solution as the only way out of the impasse. Just like on PB.
It would need an extension, however, to avoid coming up against the deadline.
Yes - but PB are on a higher level than our mps and broadcast journalists and even we have no ides
Speak for yourself. I think we will get to "Back against the wall" time and then go for the only solution that is near instant - revocation. One letter and it is done.
And who is going to write that letter and under which constitutional process required by the ECJ
In view of everything, there is one really off-the-wall idea it might be worth considering. How about asking Her Majesty what we ought to do?
If only she would play ball .....
Good evening, everybody.
Good evening.
T May probably has. But I imagine we shall never know the response...
Funnily enough, in view of the Prince Philip car crash earlier today, the Rook household has just been having a discussion (in very poor taste - apologies) about what happens if a senior royal goes and dies in the middle of all this nonsense.
Pretty much everything else has gone wrong already, after all.
I think a commitment to seek single market membership (ie Norway) in the Political Declaration would get through the House.
So would, but perhaps more tightly, a People’s Vote.
I am less sure about a commitment to a permanent Customs Union because I think May would carry even less of her Party than her Deal did.
So: which will May cave on: the No FOM redline or the No More Vote redline?
You really think she's going to cave on any red line?
Yes.
May's apparent interest in the citizens' assembly idea suggests she'll compromise on process in order to kick the can rather than compromising on content.
That's why it's an easier option for her, and for most politicians. It doesn't reflect anyone's preexisting position.
But I sense she and we are not quite ready for this denouement yet.
No, we are in for days of everyone putting forward their originally preferred solution as the only way out of the impasse. Just like on PB.
It would need an extension, however, to avoid coming up against the deadline.
Yes - but PB are on a higher level than our mps and broadcast journalists and even we have no ides
Speak for yourself. I think we will get to "Back against the wall" time and then go for the only solution that is near instant - revocation. One letter and it is done.
And who is going to write that letter and under which constitutional process required by the ECJ
The Maybot or her replacement. As for constitutional process... well, since we lack a constitution we can substitute a vote in the HoC instead. That will do.
In view of everything, there is one really off-the-wall idea it might be worth considering. How about asking Her Majesty what we ought to do?
If only she would play ball .....
Good evening, everybody.
Good evening.
T May probably has. But I imagine we shall never know the response...
Funnily enough, in view of the Prince Philip car crash earlier today, the Rook household has just been having a discussion (in very poor taste - apologies) about what happens if a senior royal goes and dies in the middle of all this nonsense.
Pretty much everything else has gone wrong already, after all.
My (Italian) PT raised that with me about a month ago. I thought it was a very smart question. Would they necessarily announce it?
In view of everything, there is one really off-the-wall idea it might be worth considering. How about asking Her Majesty what we ought to do?
If only she would play ball .....
Good evening, everybody.
Good evening.
T May probably has. But I imagine we shall never know the response...
Funnily enough, in view of the Prince Philip car crash earlier today, the Rook household has just been having a discussion (in very poor taste - apologies) about what happens if a senior royal goes and dies in the middle of all this nonsense.
Pretty much everything else has gone wrong already, after all.
My (Italian) PT raised that with me about a month ago. I thought it was a very smart question. Would they necessarily announce it?
I think a commitment to seek single market membership (ie Norway) in the Political Declaration would get through the House.
So would, but perhaps more tightly, a People’s Vote.
I am less sure about a commitment to a permanent Customs Union because I think May would carry even less of her Party than her Deal did.
So: which will May cave on: the No FOM redline or the No More Vote redline?
You really think she's going to cave on any red line?
Yes.
May's apparent interest in the citizens' assembly idea suggests she'll compromise on process in order to kick the can rather than compromising on content.
That's why it's an easier option for her, and for most politicians. It doesn't reflect anyone's preexisting position.
But I sense she and we are not quite ready for this denouement yet.
No, we are in for days of everyone putting forward their originally preferred solution as the only way out of the impasse. Just like on PB.
It would need an extension, however, to avoid coming up against the deadline.
Yes - but PB are on a higher level than our mps and broadcast journalists and even we have no ides
Speak for yourself. I think we will get to "Back against the wall" time and then go for the only solution that is near instant - revocation. One letter and it is done.
And who is going to write that letter and under which constitutional process required by the ECJ
The Maybot or her replacement. As for constitutional process... well, since we lack a constitution we can substitute a vote in the HoC instead. That will do.
Great report on C4 News about the government shutdown.
Federal employees (prison officers in this case) working full time and not getting paid.
The disgraceful act of a banana republic.
Do they have a choice as to whether they work or not?
Not in a banana republic! Work or join the inmates in prison. Errrr......
Surely they must get it all back once the government opens up again? That'd be the only thing that would keep me at work. If I wasn't going to get get paid, I'd just walk off the job.
House and Senate have agreed that they will receive backpay once shutdown is resolved.
Now youre simply showing your prejudices rather than any understanding of why people voted leave. As an observation let them eat cake tends not to end well.
The referendum was won in the Tory shires not the hard scrabble wastelands. It was the collective decision of affluent reactionaries to put prejudice ahead of pragmatism that won it.
Look around you: pb is full of them.
Now youre just off on one, Places like Stoke, Redcar, Nuneaton, the Welsh valleys are not natural golf club country. There was a surprising consensus across the social spectrum in my area on why they were voting.
There you go again, using the poor as human shields. Look at the Leave vote in the Tory shires. Their decision to put shrivelled hearts over heads was the key difference and provided what passes for the intellectual leadership of the whole campaign.
Provincial England and Wales, whether Tory Shire or Labour heartland, mostly voted Leave. Centres of government, academia, and finance voted Remain.
An intelligent poster would ask himself the more interesting question: why a majority of the electorate on a high turnout voted that it had no confidence in a political and economic union we’d been in for over 40 years, and what it might have done and how it might have acted to have led to such an astonishing result.
Actually a number of posters have indeed asked themselves this question and come up with good thread headers on the topic, Mr Meeks included.
What has perhaps been less evident are pro-Brexit commentators or politicians asking themselves why it is that, despite having had years to think about this and two and a half years to come up with a practical, workable plan which would get the agreement of the necessary parties they have failed to do so and the country is now facing leaving the EU without a deal, contrary to the promises of the Brexiteers and with opinion polls showing a majority for Remain.
FWIW (not a lot) I think May will announce on Monday that her revised proposals will include remaining in the Customs Union (which goes a long way to resolving much of the Northern Ireland problem). That just may attract a number of Labour waverers and if the DUP signifies at least acquiescence, then just possibly a majority might be in sight. But so many ifs.
I see Betfair's implied probability of leaving on schedule has moved back up from about 15% earlier to more than 20% now.
Has anything happened to justify that?
In case anyone is interested, it's dropped back to 17% now.
Buy £s
On the contrary, the learned discussion here has persuaded me that the chances of No Deal are at any rate higher than the 15% implied by Betfair (which actually includes a last-minute approval of the Deal as well as No Deal, if that's still feasible). So I think that represents good value as insurance if nothing else.
Now youre simply showing your prejudices rather than any understanding of why people voted leave. As an observation let them eat cake tends not to end well.
The referendum was won in the Tory shires not the hard scrabble wastelands. It was the collective decision of affluent reactionaries to put prejudice ahead of pragmatism that won it.
Look around you: pb is full of them.
Now youre just off on one, Places like Stoke, Redcar, Nuneaton, the Welsh valleys are not natural golf club country. There was a surprising consensus across the social spectrum in my area on why they were voting.
There you go again, using the poor as human shields. Look at the Leave vote in the Tory shires. Their decision to put shrivelled hearts over heads was the key difference and provided what passes for the intellectual leadership of the whole campaign.
Provincial England and Wales, whether Tory Shire or Labour heartland, mostly voted Leave. Centres of government, academia, and finance voted Remain.
An intelligent poster would ask himself the more interesting question: why a majority of the electorate on a high turnout voted that it had no confidence in a political and economic union we’d been in for over 40 years, and what it might have done and how it might have acted to have led to such an astonishing result.
Actually a number of posters have indeed asked themselves this question and come up with good thread headers on the topic, Mr Meeks included.
What has perhaps been less evident are pro-Brexit commentators or politicians asking themselves why it is that, despite having had years to think about this and two and a half years to come up with a practical, workable plan which would get the agreement of the necessary parties they have failed to do so and the country is now facing leaving the EU without a deal, contrary to the promises of the Brexiteers and with opinion polls showing a majority for Remain.
In view of everything, there is one really off-the-wall idea it might be worth considering. How about asking Her Majesty what we ought to do?
If only she would play ball .....
Good evening, everybody.
Good evening.
T May probably has. But I imagine we shall never know the response...
Funnily enough, in view of the Prince Philip car crash earlier today, the Rook household has just been having a discussion (in very poor taste - apologies) about what happens if a senior royal goes and dies in the middle of all this nonsense.
Pretty much everything else has gone wrong already, after all.
My (Italian) PT raised that with me about a month ago. I thought it was a very smart question. Would they necessarily announce it?
How could a senior royal die without anyone noticing it, let alone announcing it?
Chances of a GE before 29th March: 0%. Chances of another referendum before 29th March: 0%.
So it's either extend the negotiation period, revoke A50, or No Deal.
Or Deal.
What deal can she conceivably get done by 29 March that will satisfy the house?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that she goes to Brussels, Brussels blinks and the backstop is removed or made terminable unilaterally. That might ... might... just get the DUP on board with a bit of cadjoling, but will that satisfy the ERG? Concerns about the deal extend beyond the backstop. Meanwhile Soubry and Co will probably still be opposed and so too will the “this deal makes us worse off” crowd on the Tory and labour benches. Forget getting the other opposition parties on board.
Yes, some would have people believe the whole parliamentary party are behind a second ref. 71 MPs have come out for one so far.
The most notable quote in that piece actually isn't from the shadow cabinet members, but from Lucy Powell - who used to work for a pro-Euro pressure group. If even she's not in favour of a second referendum, there's no chance that the likes of Caroline Flint will go for it, regardless of what Corbyn's stance is.
An Article 50 extension is the only game in town for people who want to avoid No Deal.
In view of everything, there is one really off-the-wall idea it might be worth considering. How about asking Her Majesty what we ought to do?
If only she would play ball .....
Good evening, everybody.
Good evening.
T May probably has. But I imagine we shall never know the response...
Funnily enough, in view of the Prince Philip car crash earlier today, the Rook household has just been having a discussion (in very poor taste - apologies) about what happens if a senior royal goes and dies in the middle of all this nonsense.
Pretty much everything else has gone wrong already, after all.
My (Italian) PT raised that with me about a month ago. I thought it was a very smart question. Would they necessarily announce it?
How could a senior royal die without anyone noticing it, let alone announcing it?
The oldies don’t get out much. A “heavy cold” would ensure the numbers who knew what was going on would be in single digits.
And? Brexit being a bad idea is a reason to stop it. Brexit causing other nations to laugh at us is a shame. But the open weeping and shame people seem to feel because others laugh at us is an incredibly disproportionate reaction. We have seem deep shit to work out, and we need to do that without focusing on whether other nation's laugh at us or not. Once we sort things out, nation's will react to however we choose to move forward. Remaining may be the best option for us - though people would laugh at us for capitulating then - but the 'woe is us' whines are, sorry to say, absolutely pathetic. We're in deep trouble and embarrassing ourselves, that's true enough - is crying about it every time a taxi driver or late night talk show host does a piece on us really the right way to react?
A Citizen's Assembly, what sort of nonsense is Gordon Brown proposing. Sounds wonderful but cannot over ride primacy of Parliament.
Isn't the House of Commons a 'citizen's assembly'? Or is he really suggesting we need more (presumably) paid politicians?
Good question. Is it just another Parliament of Saints? Problem with giving a political question over to non politicians is it turns them into politicians, so what's the point?
No, because they don't have members, and party executives, and career prospects, and elections to worry about
And what it we citizens disagree with what a citizens assembly thinks it the best approach?
Most of the world is not interested in us. They have their own problems.
I think much of the world has a solid baseline level of affection and respect for the UK, together with some historic resentment too, and as much of that is based on cliched, outdated and anachronistic perceptions of what the UK is about and like as what Brexit’s detractors like to accuse its supporters of domestically.
It works both ways. Russia treats us in its foreign policy with far more attention than the raw numbers might suggest.
Is that really the case or just because there are a load of oligarchs in London?
Is there an argument the voters need to be asked again on basis the question politicians asked them was so woolly, its being interpreted in so-many non brexit ways?
Something like this would give a definitive answer we could get on with, and get Britain functioning again:
Remain, on current terms Leave to a Free Trade Arrangement (similar to Canada’s relationship to EU)
Is there not an argument this new vote is most fair to leave voters in particular, a clear-cut question to answer, no if no buts once answered because the first was deliberately woolly, deliberately obtuse, a slight of hand by the political establishment to give wriggle room in event of leave vote? Just hours after the dawn of a leave win, Farrage not even sobered up yet, Cameron was in Europe urging EU to give us as close a deal to what we currently have, was he not? This is precisely why May lost by as much as 230, because true brexiteers saw a remainer watering leave down as much as possible. Can leavers not see it was a scam? Yet in a situation where so much is unclear and argued over, any sort of win for “Leave to a Free Trade Arrangement (similar to Canada’s relationship to EU)” absolutely seals the deal.
What I am calling the honest question ref is not an insult to the 17.4 million leavers to vote again, the original scam question was the insult to them, always designed to water down what they voted for.
And Why shouldn’t the same 17.4 come to the ballot paper again to seal the deal once and for all? As OGH (wise old guy, who knows a thing or two we should listen to him) explains on earlier thread, why shouldn’t even more leavers actually come to the ballot paper, and for this question knowing it finally nails it? Even our Brenda only has to pop into her station for a couple of minutes sometime between 6am and 10pm to answer an important question to take this country forward, how much is this civic duty putting anyone out?
If the great Brexit dream does look like its slipping away from them, how hard can it be for true brexiteers to get behind The Honest Question campaign, hijack the remainers People’s Vote as perfect opportunity to knock the original scam on the head?
In view of everything, there is one really off-the-wall idea it might be worth considering. How about asking Her Majesty what we ought to do?
If only she would play ball .....
Good evening, everybody.
Good evening.
T May probably has. But I imagine we shall never know the response...
Funnily enough, in view of the Prince Philip car crash earlier today, the Rook household has just been having a discussion (in very poor taste - apologies) about what happens if a senior royal goes and dies in the middle of all this nonsense.
Pretty much everything else has gone wrong already, after all.
My (Italian) PT raised that with me about a month ago. I thought it was a very smart question. Would they necessarily announce it?
How could a senior royal die without anyone noticing it, let alone announcing it?
The oldies don’t get out much. A “heavy cold” would ensure the numbers who knew what was going on would be in single digits.
May be it's already happened? There's been a power cut at one of the country piles, the freezer has gone kaput, a senior royal has thawed out so the Illuminati fake a car crash to explain it all away.......
In view of everything, there is one really off-the-wall idea it might be worth considering. How about asking Her Majesty what we ought to do?
If only she would play ball .....
Good evening, everybody.
Good evening.
T May probably has. But I imagine we shall never know the response...
Funnily enough, in view of the Prince Philip car crash earlier today, the Rook household has just been having a discussion (in very poor taste - apologies) about what happens if a senior royal goes and dies in the middle of all this nonsense.
Pretty much everything else has gone wrong already, after all.
My (Italian) PT raised that with me about a month ago. I thought it was a very smart question. Would they necessarily announce it?
How could a senior royal die without anyone noticing it, let alone announcing it?
The oldies don’t get out much. A “heavy cold” would ensure the numbers who knew what was going on would be in single digits.
So I'm assuming you're not referring to HMQ or the DoE. But someone like, say, the Duchess of Kent or similar.
What are they going to do - have a funeral in secret? Or no funeral at all - until later? It sounds quite bizarre - and a bit grotesque, TBH.
Chances of a GE before 29th March: 0%. Chances of another referendum before 29th March: 0%.
So it's either extend the negotiation period, revoke A50, or No Deal.
Or Deal.
What deal can she conceivably get done by 29 March that will satisfy the house?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that she goes to Brussels, Brussels blinks and the backstop is removed or made terminable unilaterally. That might ... might... just get the DUP on board with a bit of cadjoling, but will that satisfy the ERG? Concerns about the deal extend beyond the backstop. Meanwhile Soubry and Co will probably still be opposed and so too will the “this deal makes us worse off” crowd on the Tory and labour benches. Forget getting the other opposition parties on board.
The Deal that's already there.
I don't think you can rule things out just because they seem unlikely. Because if an extension were refused, the only other alternatives would be No Deal or revocation without a referendum, both of which also seem unlikely.
FWIW (not a lot) I think May will announce on Monday that her revised proposals will include remaining in the Customs Union (which goes a long way to resolving much of the Northern Ireland problem). That just may attract a number of Labour waverers and if the DUP signifies at least acquiescence, then just possibly a majority might be in sight. But so many ifs.
How does that help getting 100 Tories to vote for it? Moving toward the CU alienates more Tories than anything...
After reading the lead article in last week’s LRB, I’m convinced the only way forward is to take Remain off the table.
That’s what running the clock down does. Sacking those advocating revocation would help too.
FWIW (not a lot) I think May will announce on Monday that her revised proposals will include remaining in the Customs Union (which goes a long way to resolving much of the Northern Ireland problem). That just may attract a number of Labour waverers and if the DUP signifies at least acquiescence, then just possibly a majority might be in sight. But so many ifs.
It's the worst possible outcome for implementing Brexit.
Chances of a GE before 29th March: 0%. Chances of another referendum before 29th March: 0%.
So it's either extend the negotiation period, revoke A50, or No Deal.
Or Deal.
What deal can she conceivably get done by 29 March that will satisfy the house?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that she goes to Brussels, Brussels blinks and the backstop is removed or made terminable unilaterally. That might ... might... just get the DUP on board with a bit of cadjoling, but will that satisfy the ERG?
No. ERG does not want to do any deal involving the EU and will make up reasons if necessary. See also Corbyn and Brexit
In view of everything, there is one really off-the-wall idea it might be worth considering. How about asking Her Majesty what we ought to do?
If only she would play ball .....
Good evening, everybody.
Good evening.
T May probably has. But I imagine we shall never know the response...
Funnily enough, in view of the Prince Philip car crash earlier today, the Rook household has just been having a discussion (in very poor taste - apologies) about what happens if a senior royal goes and dies in the middle of all this nonsense.
Pretty much everything else has gone wrong already, after all.
My (Italian) PT raised that with me about a month ago. I thought it was a very smart question. Would they necessarily announce it?
How could a senior royal die without anyone noticing it, let alone announcing it?
The oldies don’t get out much. A “heavy cold” would ensure the numbers who knew what was going on would be in single digits.
In view of everything, there is one really off-the-wall idea it might be worth considering. How about asking Her Majesty what we ought to do?
If only she would play ball .....
Good evening, everybody.
Good evening.
T May probably has. But I imagine we shall never know the response...
Funnily enough, in view of the Prince Philip car crash earlier today, the Rook household has just been having a discussion (in very poor taste - apologies) about what happens if a senior royal goes and dies in the middle of all this nonsense.
Pretty much everything else has gone wrong already, after all.
My (Italian) PT raised that with me about a month ago. I thought it was a very smart question. Would they necessarily announce it?
How could a senior royal die without anyone noticing it, let alone announcing it?
The oldies don’t get out much. A “heavy cold” would ensure the numbers who knew what was going on would be in single digits.
So I'm assuming you're not referring to HMQ or the DoE. But someone like, say, the Duchess of Kent or similar.
What are they going to do - have a funeral in secret? Or no funeral at all - until later? It sounds quite bizarre - and a bit grotesque, TBH.
It’s an entirely foolish idea. For those who matter constitutionally, there are established protocols involved. For others, why would it matter?
In view of everything, there is one really off-the-wall idea it might be worth considering. How about asking Her Majesty what we ought to do?
If only she would play ball .....
Good evening, everybody.
Good evening.
T May probably has. But I imagine we shall never know the response...
Funnily enough, in view of the Prince Philip car crash earlier today, the Rook household has just been having a discussion (in very poor taste - apologies) about what happens if a senior royal goes and dies in the middle of all this nonsense.
Pretty much everything else has gone wrong already, after all.
My (Italian) PT raised that with me about a month ago. I thought it was a very smart question. Would they necessarily announce it?
How could a senior royal die without anyone noticing it, let alone announcing it?
The oldies don’t get out much. A “heavy cold” would ensure the numbers who knew what was going on would be in single digits.
So I'm assuming you're not referring to HMQ or the DoE. But someone like, say, the Duchess of Kent or similar.
What are they going to do - have a funeral in secret? Or no funeral at all - until later? It sounds quite bizarre - and a bit grotesque, TBH.
George V was killed so that the news would hit the morning edition of the Times. I imagine they would just announce the death as having taken place at a later date.
FWIW (not a lot) I think May will announce on Monday that her revised proposals will include remaining in the Customs Union (which goes a long way to resolving much of the Northern Ireland problem). That just may attract a number of Labour waverers and if the DUP signifies at least acquiescence, then just possibly a majority might be in sight. But so many ifs.
How does that help getting 100 Tories to vote for it? Moving toward the CU alienates more Tories than anything...
After reading the lead article in last week’s LRB, I’m convinced the only way forward is to take Remain off the table.
That’s what running the clock down does. Sacking those advocating revocation would help too.
Great report on C4 News about the government shutdown.
Federal employees (prison officers in this case) working full time and not getting paid.
The disgraceful act of a banana republic.
Do they have a choice as to whether they work or not?
Not in a banana republic! Work or join the inmates in prison. Errrr......
Surely they must get it all back once the government opens up again? That'd be the only thing that would keep me at work. If I wasn't going to get get paid, I'd just walk off the job.
House and Senate have agreed that they will receive backpay once shutdown is resolved.
Yes, they get paid at some undefined point in the future.
Yes, some would have people believe the whole parliamentary party are behind a second ref. 71 MPs have come out for one so far.
The dishonestnamevote brigade have been very effective at pushing their message, if Corbyn were just a little bit quieter I could easily have believed Labour already backed the vote officially.
Also, where's Starmer? He was much more visible than Corbyn on this for the last quarter of last year, usually giving nods and winks to the remainers, but I feel like I've not seen or heard from him in ages.
In view of everything, there is one really off-the-wall idea it might be worth considering. How about asking Her Majesty what we ought to do?
If only she would play ball .....
Good evening, everybody.
Good evening.
T May probably has. But I imagine we shall never know the response...
Funnily enough, in view of the Prince Philip car crash earlier today, the Rook household has just been having a discussion (in very poor taste - apologies) about what happens if a senior royal goes and dies in the middle of all this nonsense.
Pretty much everything else has gone wrong already, after all.
My (Italian) PT raised that with me about a month ago. I thought it was a very smart question. Would they necessarily announce it?
How could a senior royal die without anyone noticing it, let alone announcing it?
The oldies don’t get out much. A “heavy cold” would ensure the numbers who knew what was going on would be in single digits.
They would announce it immediately.
Followed swiftly by delay of Brexit, since the country can't possibly prepare for exit during a period of national mourning.
No doubt we can expect a few wacky 'Prince Philip get a taste of his own medicine' posts on social media. Not here obviously.
I do expect him to face the full scrutiny of the law, just like anybody else would if they were involved in a similar road traffic collision (there is no such thing as a road traffic accident) whilst in charge of a motor vehicle.
In view of everything, there is one really off-the-wall idea it might be worth considering. How about asking Her Majesty what we ought to do?
If only she would play ball .....
Good evening, everybody.
Good evening.
T May probably has. But I imagine we shall never know the response...
Funnily enough, in view of the Prince Philip car crash earlier today, the Rook household has just been having a discussion (in very poor taste - apologies) about what happens if a senior royal goes and dies in the middle of all this nonsense.
Pretty much everything else has gone wrong already, after all.
My (Italian) PT raised that with me about a month ago. I thought it was a very smart question. Would they necessarily announce it?
How could a senior royal die without anyone noticing it, let alone announcing it?
The oldies don’t get out much. A “heavy cold” would ensure the numbers who knew what was going on would be in single digits.
So I'm assuming you're not referring to HMQ or the DoE. But someone like, say, the Duchess of Kent or similar.
What are they going to do - have a funeral in secret? Or no funeral at all - until later? It sounds quite bizarre - and a bit grotesque, TBH.
George V was killed so that the news would hit the morning edition of the Times. I imagine they would just announce the death as having taken place at a later date.
I think a commitment to seek single market membership (ie Norway) in the Political Declaration would get through the House.
So would, but perhaps more tightly, a People’s Vote.
I am less sure about a commitment to a permanent Customs Union because I think May would carry even less of her Party than her Deal did.
So: which will May cave on: the No FOM redline or the No More Vote redline?
You really think she's going to cave on any red line?
Yes.
May's apparent interest in the citizens' assembly idea suggests she'll compromise on process in order to kick the can rather than compromising on content.
That's why it's an easier option for her, and for most politicians. It doesn't reflect anyone's preexisting position.
But I sense she and we are not quite ready for this denouement yet.
No, we are in for days of everyone putting forward their originally preferred solution as the only way out of the impasse. Just like on PB.
It would need an extension, however, to avoid coming up against the deadline.
Yes - but PB are on a higher level than our mps and broadcast journalists and even we have no ides
Speak for yourself. I think we will get to "Back against the wall" time and then go for the only solution that is near instant - revocation. One letter and it is done.
And who is going to write that letter and under which constitutional process required by the ECJ
The Maybot or her replacement. As for constitutional process... well, since we lack a constitution we can substitute a vote in the HoC instead. That will do.
Needs must when the Devil drives
We do not lack a constitution. Some of our processes are unclear, which is not the same thing.
Not particularly rational tactics from uncle Vince. He keeps in office a government apparently willing to tolerate no deal to frustrate one which wants to rule that out. But hey, the media remembered the Lib Dems still exist and that must be a positive.
Not particularly rational tactics from uncle Vince. He keeps in office a government apparently willing to tolerate no deal to frustrate one which wants to rule that out. But hey, the media remembered the Lib Dems still exist and that must be a positive.
Similar to Corbz voting against a way to avoid no deal and then demanding no deal be taken off the table.
The possibility of no deal is by far the strongest hand we now hold as a country, and as a party.
And since we know that polls must be obeyed as the true democratic will (if they show remain ahead now), he should immediately reverse his position.
Just kidding, I think those earlier who said it was a needless move from him but not hugely wounding have it right. It would have been so easy to popped along, say you tried, but May was, well, May.
In view of everything, there is one really off-the-wall idea it might be worth considering. How about asking Her Majesty what we ought to do?
If only she would play ball .....
Good evening, everybody.
Good evening.
T May probably has. But I imagine we shall never know the response...
Funnily enough, in view of the Prince Philip car crash earlier today, the Rook household has just been having a discussion (in very poor taste - apologies) about what happens if a senior royal goes and dies in the middle of all this nonsense.
Pretty much everything else has gone wrong already, after all.
My (Italian) PT raised that with me about a month ago. I thought it was a very smart question. Would they necessarily announce it?
How could a senior royal die without anyone noticing it, let alone announcing it?
The oldies don’t get out much. A “heavy cold” would ensure the numbers who knew what was going on would be in single digits.
So I'm assuming you're not referring to HMQ or the DoE. But someone like, say, the Duchess of Kent or similar.
What are they going to do - have a funeral in secret? Or no funeral at all - until later? It sounds quite bizarre - and a bit grotesque, TBH.
George V was killed so that the news would hit the morning edition of the Times. I imagine they would just announce the death as having taken place at a later date.
That still requires delaying the funeral which I imagine the family would have some thoughts on. And aren't there laws about reporting a death. Plus if someone dies at home not having seen a doctor or been in hospital in the period immediately beforehand you need an autopsy to get a death certificate and so on etc.
I really don't see this happening.
If anything a solemn ceremony would (a) take our minds off this Brexit bollocks; and (b) would be at least one thing we can do in this country without fucking it up.
Not particularly rational tactics from uncle Vince. He keeps in office a government apparently willing to tolerate no deal to frustrate one which wants to rule that out. But hey, the media remembered the Lib Dems still exist and that must be a positive.
I thought the LibDems voted with Corbyn last night?
In view of everything, there is one really off-the-wall idea it might be worth considering. How about asking Her Majesty what we ought to do?
If only she would play ball .....
Good evening, everybody.
Good evening.
T May probably has. But I imagine we shall never know the response...
Funnily enough, in view of the Prince Philip car crash earlier today, the Rook household has just been having a discussion (in very poor taste - apologies) about what happens if a senior royal goes and dies in the middle of all this nonsense.
Pretty much everything else has gone wrong already, after all.
My (Italian) PT raised that with me about a month ago. I thought it was a very smart question. Would they necessarily announce it?
They'd have no choice. Word would out even if very few knew.
Chances of a GE before 29th March: 0%. Chances of another referendum before 29th March: 0%.
So it's either extend the negotiation period, revoke A50, or No Deal.
Or Deal.
What deal can she conceivably get done by 29 March that will satisfy the house?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that she goes to Brussels, Brussels blinks and the backstop is removed or made terminable unilaterally. That might ... might... just get the DUP on board with a bit of cadjoling, but will that satisfy the ERG? Concerns about the deal extend beyond the backstop. Meanwhile Soubry and Co will probably still be opposed and so too will the “this deal makes us worse off” crowd on the Tory and labour benches. Forget getting the other opposition parties on board.
The Deal that's already there.
I don't think you can rule things out just because they seem unlikely. Because if an extension were refused, the only other alternatives would be No Deal or revocation without a referendum, both of which also seem unlikely.
But doesn’t that then lead to the collapse of the government given that the DUP would withdraw CAS?
I don’t even want to think about the constitutional mess of having a deal in theory endorsed by the house but everyone going through the FTPA schenanigans on the eve of Brexit. I think we’ve seen from magic grandpa recently that he’s hardly going to work in the national interest in such a situation.
Actually a number of posters have indeed asked themselves this question and come up with good thread headers on the topic, Mr Meeks included.
What has perhaps been less evident are pro-Brexit commentators or politicians asking themselves why it is that, despite having had years to think about this and two and a half years to come up with a practical, workable plan which would get the agreement of the necessary parties they have failed to do so and the country is now facing leaving the EU without a deal, contrary to the promises of the Brexiteers and with opinion polls showing a majority for Remain.
Sorry Cyclefree but this is complete garbage. There were plenty of workable practical Brexit plans around but they were all sacrificed on the alter of Mays lunacy. All that is happening now is that the rest of the country is starting to experience what some of us have known for a long time. When you have an authoritarian loon in charge who doesn't have a clue what she is supposed to be doing all the plans in the world won't help.
In view of everything, there is one really off-the-wall idea it might be worth considering. How about asking Her Majesty what we ought to do?
If only she would play ball .....
Good evening, everybody.
Good evening.
T May probably has. But I imagine we shall never know the response...
Funnily enough, in view of the Prince Philip car crash earlier today, the Rook household has just been having a discussion (in very poor taste - apologies) about what happens if a senior royal goes and dies in the middle of all this nonsense.
Pretty much everything else has gone wrong already, after all.
My (Italian) PT raised that with me about a month ago. I thought it was a very smart question. Would they necessarily announce it?
How could a senior royal die without anyone noticing it, let alone announcing it?
The oldies don’t get out much. A “heavy cold” would ensure the numbers who knew what was going on would be in single digits.
So I'm assuming you're not referring to HMQ or the DoE. But someone like, say, the Duchess of Kent or similar.
What are they going to do - have a funeral in secret? Or no funeral at all - until later? It sounds quite bizarre - and a bit grotesque, TBH.
George V was killed so that the news would hit the morning edition of the Times. I imagine they would just announce the death as having taken place at a later date.
Have you been on the sauce?
Once you strip away the customary euphemistic hypocrisy, that's exactly what happened.
'Dawson, who supported the "gentle growth of euthanasia", admitted in the diary that he hastened the King's death by injecting him, after 11.00 p.m., with two consecutive lethal injections: 3/4 gr. morphine followed by 1 gr. cocaine shortly afterwards. Dawson wrote that he acted to preserve the King's dignity, to prevent further strain on the family, and so that the King's death at 11:55 p.m. could be announced in the morning edition of The Times newspaper rather than "less appropriate ... evening journals".'
I think a commitment to seek single market membership (ie Norway) in the Political Declaration would get through the House.
So would, but perhaps more tightly, a People’s Vote.
I am less sure about a commitment to a permanent Customs Union because I think May would carry even less of her Party than her Deal did.
So: which will May cave on: the No FOM redline or the No More Vote redline?
You really think she's going to cave on any red line?
Yes.
May's apparent interest in the citizens' assembly idea suggests she'll compromise on process in order to kick the can rather than compromising on content.
That's why it's an easier option for her, and for most politicians. It doesn't reflect anyone's preexisting position.
But I sense she and we are not quite ready for this denouement yet.
No, we are in for days of everyone putting forward their originally preferred solution as the only way out of the impasse. Just like on PB.
It would need an extension, however, to avoid coming up against the deadline.
Yes - but PB are on a higher level than our mps and broadcast journalists and even we have no ides
Speak for yourself. I think we will get to "Back against the wall" time and then go for the only solution that is near instant - revocation. One letter and it is done.
And who is going to write that letter and under which constitutional process required by the ECJ
The Maybot or her replacement. As for constitutional process... well, since we lack a constitution we can substitute a vote in the HoC instead. That will do.
Needs must when the Devil drives
We do not lack a constitution. Some of our processes are unclear, which is not the same thing.
My apologies - we lack a clear, consistent and written constitution!
Actually a number of posters have indeed asked themselves this question and come up with good thread headers on the topic, Mr Meeks included.
What has perhaps been less evident are pro-Brexit commentators or politicians asking themselves why it is that, despite having had years to think about this and two and a half years to come up with a practical, workable plan which would get the agreement of the necessary parties they have failed to do so and the country is now facing leaving the EU without a deal, contrary to the promises of the Brexiteers and with opinion polls showing a majority for Remain.
Sorry Cyclefree but this is complete garbage. There were plenty of workable practical Brexit plans around but they were all sacrificed on the alter of Mays lunacy. All that is happening now is that the rest of the country is starting to experience what some of us have known for a long time. When you have an authoritarian loon in charge who doesn't have a clue what she is supposed to be doing all the plans in the world won't help.
I know you came up with one immediately after the vote in a thread header. You have no objections to FoM so however coherent your plan was, it was not (and I mean no disrespect to you) really consistent with the Leave campaign, was it?
What other ones were there?
Agree with you that May is a disaster. But what plans did DD and BoJo come up with - that the EU would actually have agreed to and which would not have fallen foul of exactly the same objections as we have now, in relation to the backstop?
Yes, some would have people believe the whole parliamentary party are behind a second ref. 71 MPs have come out for one so far.
The dishonestnamevote brigade have been very effective at pushing their message, if Corbyn were just a little bit quieter I could easily have believed Labour already backed the vote officially.
Also, where's Starmer? He was much more visible than Corbyn on this for the last quarter of last year, usually giving nods and winks to the remainers, but I feel like I've not seen or heard from him in ages.
Tbh, Starmer has also never said anything particularly sympathetic about a second referendum either. It's just that, as a person, he is more to the average FBPEer's middle-class "refined" tastes than Corbyn is, so they assume he agrees with them on Brexit.
Tom Watson is the only shadow cabinet member who's been (publicly) supportive of a second referendum.
In view of everything, there is one really off-the-wall idea it might be worth considering. How about asking Her Majesty what we ought to do?
If only she would play ball .....
Good evening, everybody.
Good evening.
T May probably has. But I imagine we shall never know the response...
Funnily enough, in view of the Prince Philip car crash earlier today, the Rook household has just been having a discussion (in very poor taste - apologies) about what happens if a senior royal goes and dies in the middle of all this nonsense.
Pretty much everything else has gone wrong already, after all.
My (Italian) PT raised that with me about a month ago. I thought it was a very smart question. Would they necessarily announce it?
How could a senior royal die without anyone noticing it, let alone announcing it?
The oldies don’t get out much. A “heavy cold” would ensure the numbers who knew what was going on would be in single digits.
So I'm assuming you're not referring to HMQ or the DoE. But someone like, say, the Duchess of Kent or similar.
What are they going to do - have a funeral in secret? Or no funeral at all - until later? It sounds quite bizarre - and a bit grotesque, TBH.
George V was killed so that the news would hit the morning edition of the Times. I imagine they would just announce the death as having taken place at a later date.
Have you been on the sauce?
Once you strip away the customary euphemistic hypocrisy, that's exactly what happened.
'Dawson, who supported the "gentle growth of euthanasia", admitted in the diary that he hastened the King's death by injecting him, after 11.00 p.m., with two consecutive lethal injections: 3/4 gr. morphine followed by 1 gr. cocaine shortly afterwards. Dawson wrote that he acted to preserve the King's dignity, to prevent further strain on the family, and so that the King's death at 11:55 p.m. could be announced in the morning edition of The Times newspaper rather than "less appropriate ... evening journals".'
All perfectly true. And probably done by lots of doctors to their patients in those times.
But not quite the same as hiding a death which has occurred.
Edited: Anyway in the UK you have to register a death within 5 days unless the coroner is involved.
Chances of a GE before 29th March: 0%. Chances of another referendum before 29th March: 0%.
So it's either extend the negotiation period, revoke A50, or No Deal.
Or Deal.
What deal can she conceivably get done by 29 March that will satisfy the house?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that she goes to Brussels, Brussels blinks and the backstop is removed or made terminable unilaterally. That might ... might... just get the DUP on board with a bit of cadjoling, but will that satisfy the ERG? Concerns about the deal extend beyond the backstop. Meanwhile Soubry and Co will probably still be opposed and so too will the “this deal makes us worse off” crowd on the Tory and labour benches. Forget getting the other opposition parties on board.
The Deal that's already there.
I don't think you can rule things out just because they seem unlikely. Because if an extension were refused, the only other alternatives would be No Deal or revocation without a referendum, both of which also seem unlikely.
But doesn’t that then lead to the collapse of the government given that the DUP would withdraw CAS?
No more so than revocation without a referendum, which was another alternative mentioned in the comment I was replying to. And as for No Deal ... ?
It only needs one European government to think like Guy Verhofstadt, and the longest extension that could be hoped for would be 8 weeks.
Chances of a GE before 29th March: 0%. Chances of another referendum before 29th March: 0%.
So it's either extend the negotiation period, revoke A50, or No Deal.
Or Deal.
What deal can she conceivably get done by 29 March that will satisfy the house?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that she goes to Brussels, Brussels blinks and the backstop is removed or made terminable unilaterally. That might ... might... just get the DUP on board with a bit of cadjoling, but will that satisfy the ERG? Concerns about the deal extend beyond the backstop. Meanwhile Soubry and Co will probably still be opposed and so too will the “this deal makes us worse off” crowd on the Tory and labour benches. Forget getting the other opposition parties on board.
The only deal that can pass the House is an official government policy, endorsed by Labour. It's as simple as that.
Getting a nod and a wink, a "we don't mind if some of our MPs vote the other way" isn't enough, given the scale of the defeat.
Chances of a GE before 29th March: 0%. Chances of another referendum before 29th March: 0%.
So it's either extend the negotiation period, revoke A50, or No Deal.
Or Deal.
What deal can she conceivably get done by 29 March that will satisfy the house?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that she goes to Brussels, Brussels blinks and the backstop is removed or made terminable unilaterally. That might ... might... just get the DUP on board with a bit of cadjoling, but will that satisfy the ERG? Concerns about the deal extend beyond the backstop. Meanwhile Soubry and Co will probably still be opposed and so too will the “this deal makes us worse off” crowd on the Tory and labour benches. Forget getting the other opposition parties on board.
The only deal that can pass the House is an official government policy, endorsed by Labour. It's as simple as that.
Getting a nod and a wink, a "we don't mind if some of our MPs vote the other way" isn't enough, given the scale of the defeat.
Disagree.
A deal which secures Tories and DUP can pass.
There are very few anti democrats who want to overturn Brexit in the Tory party. And even fewer who are not scared of no deal.
Chances of a GE before 29th March: 0%. Chances of another referendum before 29th March: 0%.
So it's either extend the negotiation period, revoke A50, or No Deal.
Or Deal.
What deal can she conceivably get done by 29 March that will satisfy the house?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that she goes to Brussels, Brussels blinks and the backstop is removed or made terminable unilaterally. That might ... might... just get the DUP on board with a bit of cadjoling, but will that satisfy the ERG? Concerns about the deal extend beyond the backstop. Meanwhile Soubry and Co will probably still be opposed and so too will the “this deal makes us worse off” crowd on the Tory and labour benches. Forget getting the other opposition parties on board.
I said earlier this morning that the way forward for the Tories would be to accept a CU, which would remove the need for the backstop and would likely receive enough backing to allow a withdrawal agreement on that basis to pass and therefore we leave, satisfying the will of the people
I was told that removal of the CU was something the majority of Tories held dear to their hearts. I opined that if removal of a CU was so important to the Tories, then why not accept it for now and pledge to remove it in future manifesto's, so when they next gained a majority they could end the CU arrangement without having to have another referendum.
By treating it as a two step exercise, they will get a withdrawal agreement passed and eventually be able to claim a mandate for removal of the CU. Job done!
However, cold water was poured on the idea because I was told that having removal of the CU in their manifesto may prove unpopular and cost them the chance of winning future elections.
Chances of a GE before 29th March: 0%. Chances of another referendum before 29th March: 0%.
So it's either extend the negotiation period, revoke A50, or No Deal.
Or Deal.
What deal can she conceivably get done by 29 March that will satisfy the house?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that she goes to Brussels, Brussels blinks and the backstop is removed or made terminable unilaterally. That might ... might... just get the DUP on board with a bit of cadjoling, but will that satisfy the ERG? Concerns about the deal extend beyond the backstop. Meanwhile Soubry and Co will probably still be opposed and so too will the “this deal makes us worse off” crowd on the Tory and labour benches. Forget getting the other opposition parties on board.
I said earlier this morning that the way forward for the Tories would be to accept a CU, which would remove the need for the backstop and would likely receive enough backing to allow a withdrawal agreement on that basis to pass and therefore we leave, satisfying the will of the people
I was told that removal of the CU was something the majority of Tories held dear to their hearts. I opined that if removal of a CU was so important to the Tories, then why not accept it for now and pledge to remove it in future manifesto's, so when they next gained a majority they could end the CU arrangement without having to have another referendum.
By treating it as a two step exercise, they will get a withdrawal agreement passed and eventually be able to claim a mandate for removal of the CU. Job done!
However, cold water was poured on the idea because I was told that having removal of the CU in their manifesto may prove unpopular and cost them the chance of winning future elections.
Your first sentence is wrong. A customs union doesn’t remove the need for a backstop.
Chances of a GE before 29th March: 0%. Chances of another referendum before 29th March: 0%.
So it's either extend the negotiation period, revoke A50, or No Deal.
Or Deal.
What deal can she conceivably get done by 29 March that will satisfy the house?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that she goes to Brussels, Brussels blinks and the backstop is removed or made terminable unilaterally. That might ... might... just get the DUP on board with a bit of cadjoling, but will that satisfy the ERG? Concerns about the deal extend beyond the backstop. Meanwhile Soubry and Co will probably still be opposed and so too will the “this deal makes us worse off” crowd on the Tory and labour benches. Forget getting the other opposition parties on board.
The only deal that can pass the House is an official government policy, endorsed by Labour. It's as simple as that.
Getting a nod and a wink, a "we don't mind if some of our MPs vote the other way" isn't enough, given the scale of the defeat.
Disagree.
A deal which secures Tories and DUP can pass.
There are very few anti democrats who want to overturn Brexit in the Tory party. And even fewer who are not scared of no deal.
Chances of a GE before 29th March: 0%. Chances of another referendum before 29th March: 0%.
So it's either extend the negotiation period, revoke A50, or No Deal.
Or Deal.
What deal can she conceivably get done by 29 March that will satisfy the house?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that she goes to Brussels, Brussels blinks and the backstop is removed or made terminable unilaterally. That might ... might... just get the DUP on board with a bit of cadjoling, but will that satisfy the ERG? Concerns about the deal extend beyond the backstop. Meanwhile Soubry and Co will probably still be opposed and so too will the “this deal makes us worse off” crowd on the Tory and labour benches. Forget getting the other opposition parties on board.
The only deal that can pass the House is an official government policy, endorsed by Labour. It's as simple as that.
Getting a nod and a wink, a "we don't mind if some of our MPs vote the other way" isn't enough, given the scale of the defeat.
Disagree.
A deal which secures Tories and DUP can pass.
There are very few anti democrats who want to overturn Brexit in the Tory party. And even fewer who are not scared of no deal.
But, there are still enough Muppets to stop it.
It’s interesting to see that, for all the BRINO and Remainer triumphalism, it is the Remainers who are still frantic. Leavers are increasingly laid back. However the battles play out, the long term looks like it’s going the Leavers way. If all Remain have left is shenanigans, it doesn’t look very likely that we’ll remain in the long term.
A Citizen's Assembly, what sort of nonsense is Gordon Brown proposing. Sounds wonderful but cannot over ride primacy of Parliament.
A Citizen's Assembly is even more bonkers than any of the other muted ways forward. What makes anybody think that some randoms of the street with have any more of an idea than MPs?
And of course the cynical side of me says it is just a way of stuffing the process with people who agree with your side of the argument.
We now have the spectacle of both front benches clearly opposing a second referendum, which is apparently desired by a significant majority of the electorate - an overwhelming majority in the case of Labour voters...
Exactly the same proportion of voters said they wanted a second EU referendum – three points higher than recorded in a similar poll before Christmas. Backing for a so-called people’s vote among Labour supporters stood at 78%.
The remain lead was extended further when respondents were asked to compare it to May’s withdrawal agreement or the option of leaving the EU without a deal.
Against the prime minister’s deal, remain led by 65% to 35%, while against no-deal was 59% to 41% in favour of staying in the EU....
Chances of a GE before 29th March: 0%. Chances of another referendum before 29th March: 0%.
So it's either extend the negotiation period, revoke A50, or No Deal.
Or Deal.
What deal can she conceivably get done by 29 March that will satisfy the house?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that she goes to Brussels, Brussels blinks and the backstop is removed or made terminable unilaterally. That might ... might... just get the DUP on board with a bit of cadjoling, but will that satisfy the ERG? Concerns about the deal extend beyond the backstop. Meanwhile Soubry and Co will probably still be opposed and so too will the “this deal makes us worse off” crowd on the Tory and labour benches. Forget getting the other opposition parties on board.
I said earlier this morning that the way forward for the Tories would be to accept a CU, which would remove the need for the backstop and would likely receive enough backing to allow a withdrawal agreement on that basis to pass and therefore we leave, satisfying the will of the people
I was told that removal of the CU was something the majority of Tories held dear to their hearts. I opined that if removal of a CU was so important to the Tories, then why not accept it for now and pledge to remove it in future manifesto's, so when they next gained a majority they could end the CU arrangement without having to have another referendum.
By treating it as a two step exercise, they will get a withdrawal agreement passed and eventually be able to claim a mandate for removal of the CU. Job done!
However, cold water was poured on the idea because I was told that having removal of the CU in their manifesto may prove unpopular and cost them the chance of winning future elections.
Your first sentence is wrong. A customs union doesn’t remove the need for a backstop.
Damn, over two years of trying to understand the Brexit debate and I obviously still have not quite understood it!
However, I suspect that I am not alone in my ignorance and may even have several MP's for company.
In view of everything, there is one really off-the-wall idea it might be worth considering. How about asking Her Majesty what we ought to do?
If only she would play ball .....
Good evening, everybody.
Good evening.
T May probably has. But I imagine we shall never know the response...
Funnily enough, in view of the Prince Philip car crash earlier today, the Rook household has just been having a discussion (in very poor taste - apologies) about what happens if a senior royal goes and dies in the middle of all this nonsense.
Pretty much everything else has gone wrong already, after all.
My (Italian) PT raised that with me about a month ago. I thought it was a very smart question. Would they necessarily announce it?
How could a senior royal die without anyone noticing it, let alone announcing it?
The oldies don’t get out much. A “heavy cold” would ensure the numbers who knew what was going on would be in single digits.
So I'm assuming you're not referring to HMQ or the DoE. But someone like, say, the Duchess of Kent or similar.
What are they going to do - have a funeral in secret? Or no funeral at all - until later? It sounds quite bizarre - and a bit grotesque, TBH.
George V was killed so that the news would hit the morning edition of the Times. I imagine they would just announce the death as having taken place at a later date.
"George V was killed "
There would seem to be a gap in the investigative record of the Police then. Monarchs or anyone else are not just 'killed', or at least they shouldn't be.
Chances of a GE before 29th March: 0%. Chances of another referendum before 29th March: 0%.
So it's either extend the negotiation period, revoke A50, or No Deal.
Or Deal.
What deal can she conceivably get done by 29 March that will satisfy the house?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that she goes to Brussels, Brussels blinks and the backstop is removed or made terminable unilaterally. That might ... might... just get the DUP on board with a bit of cadjoling, but will that satisfy the ERG? Concerns about the deal extend beyond the backstop. Meanwhile Soubry and Co will probably still be opposed and so too will the “this deal makes us worse off” crowd on the Tory and labour benches. Forget getting the other opposition parties on board.
I said earlier this morning that the way forward for the Tories would be to accept a CU, which would remove the need for the backstop and would likely receive enough backing to allow a withdrawal agreement on that basis to pass and therefore we leave, satisfying the will of the people
I was told that removal of the CU was something the majority of Tories held dear to their hearts. I opined that if removal of a CU was so important to the Tories, then why not accept it for now and pledge to remove it in future manifesto's, so when they next gained a majority they could end the CU arrangement without having to have another referendum.
By treating it as a two step exercise, they will get a withdrawal agreement passed and eventually be able to claim a mandate for removal of the CU. Job done!
However, cold water was poured on the idea because I was told that having removal of the CU in their manifesto may prove unpopular and cost them the chance of winning future elections.
Your first sentence is wrong. A customs union doesn’t remove the need for a backstop.
Damn, over two years of trying to understand the Brexit debate and I obviously still have not quite understood it!
However, I suspect that I am not alone in my ignorance and may even have several MP's for company.
Your second sentence is entirely correct, here.
The Labour front bench think similarly, announcements suggest.
They also think that they can get a customs union where they influence EU trade deals. Lol.
And? Brexit being a bad idea is a reason to stop it. Brexit causing other nations to laugh at us is a shame. But the open weeping and shame people seem to feel because others laugh at us is an incredibly disproportionate reaction. We have seem deep shit to work out, and we need to do that without focusing on whether other nation's laugh at us or not. Once we sort things out, nation's will react to however we choose to move forward. Remaining may be the best option for us - though people would laugh at us for capitulating then - but the 'woe is us' whines are, sorry to say, absolutely pathetic. We're in deep trouble and embarrassing ourselves, that's true enough - is crying about it every time a taxi driver or late night talk show host does a piece on us really the right way to react?
Isn't the House of Commons a 'citizen's assembly'? Or is he really suggesting we need more (presumably) paid politicians?
Good question. Is it just another Parliament of Saints? Problem with giving a political question over to non politicians is it turns them into politicians, so what's the point?
No, because they don't have members, and party executives, and career prospects, and elections to worry about
And what it we citizens disagree with what a citizens assembly thinks it the best approach?
Most of the world is not interested in us. They have their own problems.
I think much of the world has a solid baseline level of affection and respect for the UK, together with some historic resentment too, and as much of that is based on cliched, outdated and anachronistic perceptions of what the UK is about and like as what Brexit’s detractors like to accuse its supporters of domestically.
It works both ways. Russia treats us in its foreign policy with far more attention than the raw numbers might suggest.
Is that really the case or just because there are a load of oligarchs in London?
It gets better. I have it on good authority - and I'm being serious here - that the spooks in Mi6 are routinely amused at how the Russians think the SIS is much more powerful and competent than it really is, due to the cultural penetration of James Bond into the paranoid Russian psych.
We now have the spectacle of both front benches clearly opposing a second referendum, which is apparently desired by a significant majority of the electorate - an overwhelming majority in the case of Labour voters...
Exactly the same proportion of voters said they wanted a second EU referendum – three points higher than recorded in a similar poll before Christmas. Backing for a so-called people’s vote among Labour supporters stood at 78%.
The remain lead was extended further when respondents were asked to compare it to May’s withdrawal agreement or the option of leaving the EU without a deal.
Against the prime minister’s deal, remain led by 65% to 35%, while against no-deal was 59% to 41% in favour of staying in the EU....
In view of everything, there is one really off-the-wall idea it might be worth considering. How about asking Her Majesty what we ought to do?
If only she would play ball .....
Good evening, everybody.
Good evening.
T May probably has. But I imagine we shall never know the response...
Funnily enough, in view of the Prince Philip car crash earlier today, the Rook household has just been having a discussion (in very poor taste - apologies) about what happens if a senior royal goes and dies in the middle of all this nonsense.
Pretty much everything else has gone wrong already, after all.
My (Italian) PT raised that with me about a month ago. I thought it was a very smart question. Would they necessarily announce it?
How could a senior royal die without anyone noticing it, let alone announcing it?
The oldies don’t get out much. A “heavy cold” would ensure the numbers who knew what was going on would be in single digits.
So I'm assuming you're not referring to HMQ or the DoE. But someone like, say, the Duchess of Kent or similar.
What are they going to do - have a funeral in secret? Or no funeral at all - until later? It sounds quite bizarre - and a bit grotesque, TBH.
George V was killed so that the news would hit the morning edition of the Times. I imagine they would just announce the death as having taken place at a later date.
"George V was killed "
There would seem to be a gap in the investigative record of the Police then. Monarchs or anyone else are not just 'killed', or at least they shouldn't be.
His death was hastened in its final hours.
If the Times headline was a consideration it was very much a secondary one.
Chances of a GE before 29th March: 0%. Chances of another referendum before 29th March: 0%.
So it's either extend the negotiation period, revoke A50, or No Deal.
Or Deal.
What deal can she conceivably get done by 29 March that will satisfy the house?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that she goes to Brussels, Brussels blinks and the backstop is removed or made terminable unilaterally. That might ... might... just get the DUP on board with a bit of cadjoling, but will that satisfy the ERG? Concerns about the deal extend beyond the backstop. Meanwhile Soubry and Co will probably still be opposed and so too will the “this deal makes us worse off” crowd on the Tory and labour benches. Forget getting the other opposition parties on board.
The only deal that can pass the House is an official government policy, endorsed by Labour. It's as simple as that.
Getting a nod and a wink, a "we don't mind if some of our MPs vote the other way" isn't enough, given the scale of the defeat.
Thus if both May and Corbyn continue to dig their heels in, then we need to know if procedural avenues will be opened that allow backbenchers to timetable legislation without Government support. If so, then the Remain/Soft Brexit majority might possibly be able thrash out a settlement between them.
Failing that, I can only see three ways left to avoid No Deal
(1) Opposition MPs cave en masse and back the Deal, for want of any alternative (2) Tory Hard Remainers cross the floor and put a Labour PM (almost certainly Corbyn) into bat, who could then plausibly ask for an extension to negotiate Andrex Soft Brexit and/or hold a second referendum (3) Broad political realignment: centre-left and centre-right breakaway parties form GNU then request extension as per option 2, or possibly revoke
Theresa was willing to let Brexiteer after Brexiteer walk from her government. If Remainers are flouncing out she can always fill those jobs with Brexiteers...
Maybe we'll finally get the government we should have had all the way along?
Will this Citizens Assembly have a broader participation than the 33m+ who participated in the last citizens democratic exercise?
The purpose is for a representative sample of the 33m+ to have a deeper, more deliberative engagement with the tradeoffs and compromises required. It worked for Ireland for the contentious issue of abortion so it's not absurd to think it might help us.
In Ireland the process took several months, so it's not something we can get done by Match 29th unfortunately.
Actually a number of posters have indeed asked themselves this question and come up with good thread headers on the topic, Mr Meeks included.
What has perhaps been less evident are pro-Brexit commentators or politicians asking themselves why it is that, despite having had years to think about this and two and a half years to come up with a practical, workable plan which would get the agreement of the necessary parties they have failed to do so and the country is now facing leaving the EU without a deal, contrary to the promises of the Brexiteers and with opinion polls showing a majority for Remain.
Sorry Cyclefree but this is complete garbage. There were plenty of workable practical Brexit plans around but they were all sacrificed on the alter of Mays lunacy. All that is happening now is that the rest of the country is starting to experience what some of us have known for a long time. When you have an authoritarian loon in charge who doesn't have a clue what she is supposed to be doing all the plans in the world won't help.
I know you came up with one immediately after the vote in a thread header. You have no objections to FoM so however coherent your plan was, it was not (and I mean no disrespect to you) really consistent with the Leave campaign, was it?
What other ones were there?
Agree with you that May is a disaster. But what plans did DD and BoJo come up with - that the EU would actually have agreed to and which would not have fallen foul of exactly the same objections as we have now, in relation to the backstop?
The problem is the same one that I've mentioned multiple times - the way to fix immigration is for us to fix our benefits system so that it access is earned rather than granted immediately on request.
The fact we don't do that is at least half the reason we are in the mess we are in.
Theresa was willing to let Brexiteer after Brexiteer walk from her government. If Remainers are flouncing out she can always fill those jobs with Brexiteers...
Maybe we'll finally get a government we should have had all the way along?
Agreed. I can think of several pro Brexit MPs who could be persuaded to vote for the Govt if promoted a cabinet persuing the manifesto Brexit.
The purpose is for a representative sample of the 33m+ to have a deeper, more deliberative engagement with the tradeoffs and compromises required. It worked for Ireland for the contentious issue of abortion so it's not absurd to think it might help us.
In Ireland the process took several months, so it's not something we can get done by Match 29th unfortunately.
Except abortion was a simple yes/no question.
They can't answer Brexit yes/no, so they have to look at flavours of Brexit, and they might all come up with different answers.
Chances of a GE before 29th March: 0%. Chances of another referendum before 29th March: 0%.
So it's either extend the negotiation period, revoke A50, or No Deal.
Or Deal.
What deal can she conceivably get done by 29 March that will satisfy the house?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that she goes to Brussels, Brussels blinks and the backstop is removed or made terminable unilaterally. That might ... might... just get the DUP on board with a bit of cadjoling, but will that satisfy the ERG? Concerns about the deal extend beyond the backstop. Meanwhile Soubry and Co will probably still be opposed and so too will the “this deal makes us worse off” crowd on the Tory and labour benches. Forget getting the other opposition parties on board.
The only deal that can pass the House is an official government policy, endorsed by Labour. It's as simple as that.
Getting a nod and a wink, a "we don't mind if some of our MPs vote the other way" isn't enough, given the scale of the defeat.
Disagree.
A deal which secures Tories and DUP can pass.
There are very few anti democrats who want to overturn Brexit in the Tory party. And even fewer who are not scared of no deal.
But, there are still enough Muppets to stop it.
It’s interesting to see that, for all the BRINO and Remainer triumphalism, it is the Remainers who are still frantic. Leavers are increasingly laid back. However the battles play out, the long term looks like it’s going the Leavers way. If all Remain have left is shenanigans, it doesn’t look very likely that we’ll remain in the long term.
Remain haven't won any arguments other than Leaving is hard and most leading Leavers are wankers.
To be fair, at the moment, there's enough truth in that to gain some traction but it's not compelling in the long term.
Actually a number of posters have indeed asked themselves this question and come up with good thread headers on the topic, Mr Meeks included.
What has perhaps been less evident are pro-Brexit commentators or politicians asking themselves why it is that, despite having had years to think about this and two and a half years to come up with a practical, workable plan which would get the agreement of the necessary parties they have failed to do so and the country is now facing leaving the EU without a deal, contrary to the promises of the Brexiteers and with opinion polls showing a majority for Remain.
Sorry Cyclefree but this is complete garbage. There were plenty of workable practical Brexit plans around but they were all sacrificed on the alter of Mays lunacy. All that is happening now is that the rest of the country is starting to experience what some of us have known for a long time. When you have an authoritarian loon in charge who doesn't have a clue what she is supposed to be doing all the plans in the world won't help.
I know you came up with one immediately after the vote in a thread header. You have no objections to FoM so however coherent your plan was, it was not (and I mean no disrespect to you) really consistent with the Leave campaign, was it?
What other ones were there?
Agree with you that May is a disaster. But what plans did DD and BoJo come up with - that the EU would actually have agreed to and which would not have fallen foul of exactly the same objections as we have now, in relation to the backstop?
The problem is the same one that I've mentioned multiple times - the way to fix immigration is for us to fix our benefits system so that it access is earned rather than granted immediately on request.
The fact we don't do that is at least half the reason we are in the mess we are in.
Why should Britons be disadvantaged compared to the status quo because of economic migration from EU nations?
Chances of a GE before 29th March: 0%. Chances of another referendum before 29th March: 0%.
So it's either extend the negotiation period, revoke A50, or No Deal.
Or Deal.
What deal can she conceivably get done by 29 March that will satisfy the house?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that she goes to Brussels, Brussels blinks and the backstop is removed or made terminable unilaterally. That might ... might... just get the DUP on board with a bit of cadjoling, but will that satisfy the ERG? Concerns about the deal extend beyond the backstop. Meanwhile Soubry and Co will probably still be opposed and so too will the “this deal makes us worse off” crowd on the Tory and labour benches. Forget getting the other opposition parties on board.
I said earlier this morning that the way forward for the Tories would be to accept a CU, which would remove the need for the backstop and would likely receive enough backing to allow a withdrawal agreement on that basis to pass and therefore we leave, satisfying the will of the people
I was told that removal of the CU was something the majority of Tories held dear to their hearts. I opined that if removal of a CU was so important to the Tories, then why not accept it for now and pledge to remove it in future manifesto's, so when they next gained a majority they could end the CU arrangement without having to have another referendum.
By treating it as a two step exercise, they will get a withdrawal agreement passed and eventually be able to claim a mandate for removal of the CU. Job done!
However, cold water was poured on the idea because I was told that having removal of the CU in their manifesto may prove unpopular and cost them the chance of winning future elections.
I'm struggling to see the net gains in Parliamentary votes that commiting to a permanent customs union would unlock for Theresa May.
Chances of a GE before 29th March: 0%. Chances of another referendum before 29th March: 0%.
So it's either extend the negotiation period, revoke A50, or No Deal.
Or Deal.
What deal can she conceivably get done by 29 March that will satisfy the house?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that she goes to Brussels, Brussels blinks and the backstop is removed or made terminable unilaterally. That might ... might... just get the DUP on board with a bit of cadjoling, but will that satisfy the ERG? Concerns about the deal extend beyond the backstop. Meanwhile Soubry and Co will probably still be opposed and so too will the “this deal makes us worse off” crowd on the Tory and labour benches. Forget getting the other opposition parties on board.
I said earlier this morning that the way forward for the Tories would be to accept a CU, which would remove the need for the backstop and would likely receive enough backing to allow a withdrawal agreement on that basis to pass and therefore we leave, satisfying the will of the people
I was told that removal of the CU was something the majority of Tories held dear to their hearts. I opined that if removal of a CU was so important to the Tories, then why not accept it for now and pledge to remove it in future manifesto's, so when they next gained a majority they could end the CU arrangement without having to have another referendum.
By treating it as a two step exercise, they will get a withdrawal agreement passed and eventually be able to claim a mandate for removal of the CU. Job done!
However, cold water was poured on the idea because I was told that having removal of the CU in their manifesto may prove unpopular and cost them the chance of winning future elections.
I'm struggling to see the net gains in Parliamentary votes that commiting to a permanent customs union would unlock for Theresa May.
They’re only realised in the dreams of NeverBrexiters.
The purpose is for a representative sample of the 33m+ to have a deeper, more deliberative engagement with the tradeoffs and compromises required. It worked for Ireland for the contentious issue of abortion so it's not absurd to think it might help us.
In Ireland the process took several months, so it's not something we can get done by Match 29th unfortunately.
Except abortion was a simple yes/no question.
They can't answer Brexit yes/no, so they have to look at flavours of Brexit, and they might all come up with different answers.
No, if you take a moment to look at the details of what happened in Ireland instead of spouting knee-jerk nonsense then you would know that the citizen assembly in Ireland considered all the different "flavours" of allowing abortion (if at all) - what would be the time limit? Would it be on demand, or would it need two doctors to certify a medical imperative as in Britain and so on.
The proposal that they brought forward was said to have surprised people and it was their compromise that won support in the subsequent referendum.
Chances of a GE before 29th March: 0%. Chances of another referendum before 29th March: 0%.
So it's either extend the negotiation period, revoke A50, or No Deal.
Or Deal.
What deal can she conceivably get done by 29 March that will satisfy the house?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that she goes to Brussels, Brussels blinks and the backstop is removed or made terminable unilaterally. That might ... might... just get the DUP on board with a bit of cadjoling, but will that satisfy the ERG? Concerns about the deal extend beyond the backstop. Meanwhile Soubry and Co will probably still be opposed and so too will the “this deal makes us worse off” crowd on the Tory and labour benches. Forget getting the other opposition parties on board.
I said earlier this morning that the way forward for the Tories would be to accept a CU, which would remove the need for the backstop and would likely receive enough backing to allow a withdrawal agreement on that basis to pass and therefore we leave, satisfying the will of the people
I was told that removal of the CU was something the majority of Tories held dear to their hearts. I opined that if removal of a CU was so important to the Tories, then why not accept it for now and pledge to remove it in future manifesto's, so when they next gained a majority they could end the CU arrangement without having to have another referendum.
By treating it as a two step exercise, they will get a withdrawal agreement passed and eventually be able to claim a mandate for removal of the CU. Job done!
However, cold water was poured on the idea because I was told that having removal of the CU in their manifesto may prove unpopular and cost them the chance of winning future elections.
I'm struggling to see the net gains in Parliamentary votes that commiting to a permanent customs union would unlock for Theresa May.
Having lost by 230 votes no variation of that deal is going to win a majority in Parliament..
Comments
T May probably has. But I imagine we shall never know the response...
Funnily enough, in view of the Prince Philip car crash earlier today, the Rook household has just been having a discussion (in very poor taste - apologies) about what happens if a senior royal goes and dies in the middle of all this nonsense.
Pretty much everything else has gone wrong already, after all.
Needs must when the Devil drives
51% think Corbyn wrong not to attend, 25% right
Let’s say for the sake of argument that she goes to Brussels, Brussels blinks and the backstop is removed or made terminable unilaterally. That might ... might... just get the DUP on board with a bit of cadjoling, but will that satisfy the ERG? Concerns about the deal extend beyond the backstop. Meanwhile Soubry and Co will probably still be opposed and so too will the “this deal makes us worse off” crowd on the Tory and labour benches. Forget getting the other opposition parties on board.
An Article 50 extension is the only game in town for people who want to avoid No Deal.
Something like this would give a definitive answer we could get on with, and get Britain functioning again:
Remain, on current terms
Leave to a Free Trade Arrangement (similar to Canada’s relationship to EU)
Is there not an argument this new vote is most fair to leave voters in particular, a clear-cut question to answer, no if no buts once answered because the first was deliberately woolly, deliberately obtuse, a slight of hand by the political establishment to give wriggle room in event of leave vote? Just hours after the dawn of a leave win, Farrage not even sobered up yet, Cameron was in Europe urging EU to give us as close a deal to what we currently have, was he not? This is precisely why May lost by as much as 230, because true brexiteers saw a remainer watering leave down as much as possible.
Can leavers not see it was a scam? Yet in a situation where so much is unclear and argued over, any sort of win for “Leave to a Free Trade Arrangement (similar to Canada’s relationship to EU)” absolutely seals the deal.
What I am calling the honest question ref is not an insult to the 17.4 million leavers to vote again, the original scam question was the insult to them, always designed to water down what they voted for.
And Why shouldn’t the same 17.4 come to the ballot paper again to seal the deal once and for all? As OGH (wise old guy, who knows a thing or two we should listen to him) explains on earlier thread, why shouldn’t even more leavers actually come to the ballot paper, and for this question knowing it finally nails it? Even our Brenda only has to pop into her station for a couple of minutes sometime between 6am and 10pm to answer an important question to take this country forward, how much is this civic duty putting anyone out?
If the great Brexit dream does look like its slipping away from them, how hard can it be for true brexiteers to get behind The Honest Question campaign, hijack the remainers People’s Vote as perfect opportunity to knock the original scam on the head?
What are they going to do - have a funeral in secret? Or no funeral at all - until later? It sounds quite bizarre - and a bit grotesque, TBH.
I don't think you can rule things out just because they seem unlikely. Because if an extension were refused, the only other alternatives would be No Deal or revocation without a referendum, both of which also seem unlikely.
After reading the lead article in last week’s LRB, I’m convinced the only way forward is to take Remain off the table.
That’s what running the clock down does. Sacking those advocating revocation would help too.
So yes, it's probably what she'll do.
Standards really are slipping.
Meantime, the bank wants the mortgage.
As I say, banana republic stuff.
Also, where's Starmer? He was much more visible than Corbyn on this for the last quarter of last year, usually giving nods and winks to the remainers, but I feel like I've not seen or heard from him in ages.
The possibility of no deal is by far the strongest hand we now hold as a country, and as a party.
Just kidding, I think those earlier who said it was a needless move from him but not hugely wounding have it right. It would have been so easy to popped along, say you tried, but May was, well, May.
I really don't see this happening.
If anything a solemn ceremony would (a) take our minds off this Brexit bollocks; and (b) would be at least one thing we can do in this country without fucking it up.
I don’t even want to think about the constitutional mess of having a deal in theory endorsed by the house but everyone going through the FTPA schenanigans on the eve of Brexit. I think we’ve seen from magic grandpa recently that he’s hardly going to work in the national interest in such a situation.
'Dawson, who supported the "gentle growth of euthanasia", admitted in the diary that he hastened the King's death by injecting him, after 11.00 p.m., with two consecutive lethal injections: 3/4 gr. morphine followed by 1 gr. cocaine shortly afterwards. Dawson wrote that he acted to preserve the King's dignity, to prevent further strain on the family, and so that the King's death at 11:55 p.m. could be announced in the morning edition of The Times newspaper rather than "less appropriate ... evening journals".'
What other ones were there?
Agree with you that May is a disaster. But what plans did DD and BoJo come up with - that the EU would actually have agreed to and which would not have fallen foul of exactly the same objections as we have now, in relation to the backstop?
Tom Watson is the only shadow cabinet member who's been (publicly) supportive of a second referendum.
But not quite the same as hiding a death which has occurred.
Edited: Anyway in the UK you have to register a death within 5 days unless the coroner is involved.
It only needs one European government to think like Guy Verhofstadt, and the longest extension that could be hoped for would be 8 weeks.
Getting a nod and a wink, a "we don't mind if some of our MPs vote the other way" isn't enough, given the scale of the defeat.
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1086018647611658240
A deal which secures Tories and DUP can pass.
There are very few anti democrats who want to overturn Brexit in the Tory party. And even fewer who are not scared of no deal.
I was told that removal of the CU was something the majority of Tories held dear to their hearts. I opined that if removal of a CU was so important to the Tories, then why not accept it for now and pledge to remove it in future manifesto's, so when they next gained a majority they could end the CU arrangement without having to have another referendum.
By treating it as a two step exercise, they will get a withdrawal agreement passed and eventually be able to claim a mandate for removal of the CU. Job done!
However, cold water was poured on the idea because I was told that having removal of the CU in their manifesto may prove unpopular and cost them the chance of winning future elections.
I think you mean mooted?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/17/corbyn-could-face-string-of-resignations-if-he-backs-peoples-vote
In a further development, a poll conducted by YouGov of more than 1,000 voters on Wednesday found 56% would now vote to stay in the EU, against 44% who want to leave.
Exactly the same proportion of voters said they wanted a second EU referendum – three points higher than recorded in a similar poll before Christmas. Backing for a so-called people’s vote among Labour supporters stood at 78%.
The remain lead was extended further when respondents were asked to compare it to May’s withdrawal agreement or the option of leaving the EU without a deal.
Against the prime minister’s deal, remain led by 65% to 35%, while against no-deal was 59% to 41% in favour of staying in the EU....
However, I suspect that I am not alone in my ignorance and may even have several MP's for company.
There would seem to be a gap in the investigative record of the Police then. Monarchs or anyone else are not just 'killed', or at least they shouldn't be.
The Labour front bench think similarly, announcements suggest.
They also think that they can get a customs union where they influence EU trade deals. Lol.
Really.
https://order-order.com/2019/01/17/clear-majority-support-respecting-referendum-result/
If the Times headline was a consideration it was very much a secondary one.
Failing that, I can only see three ways left to avoid No Deal
(1) Opposition MPs cave en masse and back the Deal, for want of any alternative
(2) Tory Hard Remainers cross the floor and put a Labour PM (almost certainly Corbyn) into bat, who could then plausibly ask for an extension to negotiate Andrex Soft Brexit and/or hold a second referendum
(3) Broad political realignment: centre-left and centre-right breakaway parties form GNU then request extension as per option 2, or possibly revoke
Maybe we'll finally get the government we should have had all the way along?
In Ireland the process took several months, so it's not something we can get done by Match 29th unfortunately.
The fact we don't do that is at least half the reason we are in the mess we are in.
They can't answer Brexit yes/no, so they have to look at flavours of Brexit, and they might all come up with different answers.
To be fair, at the moment, there's enough truth in that to gain some traction but it's not compelling in the long term.
https://news.sky.com/story/johnson-now-is-the-time-to-use-brexit-to-unite-the-country-11610285
The proposal that they brought forward was said to have surprised people and it was their compromise that won support in the subsequent referendum.