"by those who have advocated that the vote should be removed from the over 75s"
Reminds me of something that came to mind yesterday, when I went to Choral Evensong at New College, Oxford.
There were nine-year olds singing Howells' fiendishly difficult Westminster Service. Flawlessly. Just after they'd sung the Matthew Martin responses and just before they sang an intricate bit of 15th century French polyphony. Today they'll sing an entirely different set of music, no doubt just as flawlessly. And so on every day of term.
I'll remember that next time some mouth-breather of a backbench Tory MP, perhaps one of the intellect of Andrew Bridgen or Nadine Dorries, argues fervently that 16-year olds don't have the smarts to be allowed a vote in the second referendum.
"The overwhelming majority of the House of Commons is unwilling to countenance no deal"
Well clearly they are - or they wouldn't have fucked up by voting for 29th March to be exactly that - countenancing no deal as the default. And if they did realise afterwards that they had dropped a bollock, they could have remedied that by voting for May's Deal and pulling No Deal's life support.
As they have done neither, they are clearly willing to countenance No Deal. Just not have the balls to admit they are doing it and why - for party political advantage.
No you are categorically wrong. When was the last time the Queen got involved in a conflict between the PM and Parliament?
If there is a dispute then Parliament has a way to resolve it without the Queen getting involved.
No I am absolutely right.
There has never been a conflict in recent times between the PM and Parliament such that Parliament has consistently voted down what the PM intends as most PMs have had a majority in Parliament and have never refused to bow to the will of Parliament.
If Parliament voted one way and the PM refused to implement it and in the unlikely event of the PM not then losing a VONC or resigning then the Queen would replace her chief minister with another one who could command the confidence of Parliament, as often happened in the 18th and early 19th centuries
This is nonsense! If Parliament votes it has Confidence in the PM then the Monach is simply not going to force out a PM that Parliament has voted it has Confidence in. What you are suggesting is not that the Queen backs Parliament but instead that she contradicts and overrides Parliament despite Parliament voting it has Confidence in the PM.
In the 18th and early 19th centuries the constitution was less formalised than it is now and confidence motions were completely different than they are now.
"I'm going to start really worrying about the Brexit can kicking when Philip Hammond announces during the Budget about the three new months being slotted in between January and March for "tax reasons".
Oh, and this railway line that heads over the edge of a cliff - is it one that me and Sunil have yellow-penned or not?
Railway aficionados will know that our railways still work on a 13 period calendar. Unfortunately it comes to an end on 31 March, so it’s not much help.
just following on from what Casino Royal said at the end of the last thread. You have been unfailingly reasonable and decent throughout the debates of the last few weeks. You certainly have nothing to apologise for.
Could we not unilaterally move the clocks forward two days early on 29 March - to give us an extra hour to sort things out? We would then leave at the same time as Brussels?
Could we not unilaterally move the clocks forward two days early on 29 March - to give us an extra hour to sort things out? We would then leave at the same time as Brussels?
Is it 11pm GMT or 11pm UK time?
Every hour helps surely?
The Treaties cease to apply at midnight, Brussels time.
People voted Brexit so MPs should have a free vote on the form of Brexit as follows. Each MP gets a 1st and 2nd preference with the 2nd preference counting in full force if the 1st has been eliminated. The options are simply:
This seems a good starting point. Then there could be a second vote using the same format to select from up to 4 versions of the preferred option. Democratic and effective.
And I like the idea of re-engineering time itself very much. Difficult? Sure, but easier to do than Brexit.
One massive benefit that I can see immediately. Next time Michel Barnier tries to bully us with that sadistic 'the clock is ticking ... tick tock ... tick tock ..." routine of his, we just smirk and thumb our nose and go, "Oh no it isn't, pal, cos we Brits have just invented a new one that hardly moves. So frog off."
People voted Brexit so MPs should have a free vote on the form of Brexit as follows. Each MP gets a 1st and 2nd preference with the 2nd preference counting in full force if the 1st has been eliminated. The options are simply:
This seems a good starting point. Then there could be a second vote using the same format to select from up to 4 versions of the preferred option. Democratic and effective.
If we adopt the Meeks calendar this will mean that we have to recalculate the tax year.
Currently the tax year ends on the 5 April. By taking 6 days away from January and March this would move the end of the tax year to 11 April (Thursday).
But a better idea would be to fix Easter Sunday on 14 April, and start the tax year on the same day.
Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day You fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town Waiting for someone or something to show you the way
Tired of lying in the sunshine Staying home to watch the rain You are young and life is long And there is time to kill today And then one day you find Ten Two years have got behind you No one told you when to run You missed the starting gun
And you run and you run to catch up with the sun, but it's sinking Racing around to come up behind you again The sun is the same in a relative way but you're older Shorter of breath
People voted Brexit so MPs should have a free vote on the form of Brexit as follows. Each MP gets a 1st and 2nd preference with the 2nd preference counting in full force if the 1st has been eliminated. The options are simply:
This seems a good starting point. Then there could be a second vote using the same format to select from up to 4 versions of the preferred option. Democratic and effective.
The options of negotiating both a harder and a softer Brexit are both open once the WA is approved.
Anyway after that slightly manic burst I am rejoining the surprisingly snowless A9 and going on to Inverness. Laters.
I remember going south on the A9 in a blizzard. Huge flakes, and it was for all the world like driving in the Millenium Falcon when it jumps to hyper-space....
What this country needs is to remove the house of commons in it's entirety and replace it with people that actually have the competency to do the job. These MP's and parties called a referendum on a false prospectus. There was never any intention of delivering on a leave outcome before, during or after the vote. Every Con & Lab MP elected in 2017 was elected on the lie of respecting the referendum vote. They had no intention of doing so. These lies have now totally caught up with the political class. Ironically the only people to have to0ld the truth were the EU. Their stated aim was to ensure that there was no route to leaving the EU. That meant there could never under any circumstances be any deal. The so called professional politicians have proved themselves anything but. With their constant lies they have lost our confidence, they have lost our trust and they have lost all moral authority to continue in office. They collectively are the problem and their removal is the start of the solution. Life bans form office for all current MP's, Bans from the next election for all current Westminster parties and their members and new elections without them are the start of the answer.
Anyway after that slightly manic burst I am rejoining the surprisingly snowless A9 and going on to Inverness. Laters.
I remember going south on the A9 in a blizzard. Huge flakes, and it was for all the world like driving in the Millenium Falcon when it jumps to hyper-space....
A very interesting suggestion, Alastair, but is there not the small difficulty that the EU would probably not adopt our innovative calendar quickly enough? We would end up believing we are still In whilst the EU believes we are Out.
Actually I am a bit concerned about this header. Abolishing 29th March sounds just like the sort of thing Grieve might try next.
Can't we all agree to abolish Grieve instead?
Why would you want to abolish one of the few sensible people in the Conservative Party?
OK, so we're looking at impossible solutions to an impossible problem. Right, it's easy then. All Labour, SNP, LibDem, PC and Green MPs with the exception of Corbyn and a few acolytes defect to the Tory Party and force May to do something sensible then resign. The following Tory leadership election should be fun.
Actually I am a bit concerned about this header. Abolishing 29th March sounds just like the sort of thing Grieve might try next.
Can't we all agree to abolish Grieve instead?
Why would you want to abolish one of the few sensible people in the Conservative Party?
That is because you want to remain and unlike many, he has the position and knowledge, in collusion with the speaker, to help you on the way you want to go
He certainly has more intellect than the whole of ERG put together
Actually I am a bit concerned about this header. Abolishing 29th March sounds just like the sort of thing Grieve might try next.
Can't we all agree to abolish Grieve instead?
Why would you want to abolish one of the few sensible people in the Conservative Party?
That is because you want to remain and unlike many, he has the position and knowledge, in collusion with the speaker, to help you on the way you want to go
He certainly has more intellect than the whole of ERG put together
That's not too hard though, is it Big_G? It would be like saying somebody has more integrity than the whole of the Shadow Cabinet added together.
Actually I am a bit concerned about this header. Abolishing 29th March sounds just like the sort of thing Grieve might try next.
Can't we all agree to abolish Grieve instead?
Why would you want to abolish one of the few sensible people in the Conservative Party?
That is because you want to remain and unlike many, he has the position and knowledge, in collusion with the speaker, to help you on the way you want to go
He certainly has more intellect than the whole of ERG put together
That's not too hard though, is it Big_G? It would be like saying somebody has more integrity than the whole of the Shadow Cabinet added together.
The overwhelming majority of the House of Commons is unwilling to countenance no deal, but there is nothing approaching a majority on what they would in practice countenance
Nor do they show much sign of urgency in determining what they would in practice countenance.
This bit was cutting though
Now it might be argued, perhaps by those who have advocated that Britain should go into union with Australia Canada and New Zealand or by those who have advocated that the vote should be removed from the over 75s, that this idea is far too eccentric to be worthy of further attention
Actually I am a bit concerned about this header. Abolishing 29th March sounds just like the sort of thing Grieve might try next.
Can't we all agree to abolish Grieve instead?
Why would you want to abolish one of the few sensible people in the Conservative Party?
He's not sensible. Remaining might well be sensible after all this mess, but he is indulging in arcane trick after procedural wrangling - very clever wrangling too - to pursue his fanatical agenda with absolutely no thought as to wider consequences. If remaining is the sensible course now there are very simple ways to do it, in the first instance he could have tried to bring down the government, but instead he is indulging in procedural theatrics with potentially far reaching consequences, and the very fact he might insist they are only for now only emphasises that he is not thinking about anything other than his short term goals.
Grieve is intelligent and effective in pursuit of what many would regard as a noble goal. But that is not the same as him being sensible, and fanatical pursuit at all costs even of a noble goal is not sensible. He should not be able to get away with pretending that because he is erudite that he is any better than his ultra opposites on the other side, willing to risk everything if he does not get exactly what he wants, unwilling to accept anything less than perfection. He's no better than a no leave ultra (but he is more effective). He has a closed mind on anything except his ideals.
The leave ultras also believe it is essential for this country that they get exactly what they want and to hell with anyone who thinks otherwise. That childish attitude is displayed by Grieve as well. Ah, but because he's right that makes his acting like a child ok.
The overwhelming majority of the House of Commons is unwilling to countenance no deal, but there is nothing approaching a majority on what they would in practice countenance
Nor do they show much sign of urgency in determining what they would in practice countenance.
This bit was cutting though
Now it might be argued, perhaps by those who have advocated that Britain should go into union with Australia Canada and New Zealand or by those who have advocated that the vote should be removed from the over 75s, that this idea is far too eccentric to be worthy of further attention
Actually I am a bit concerned about this header. Abolishing 29th March sounds just like the sort of thing Grieve might try next.
Can't we all agree to abolish Grieve instead?
Why would you want to abolish one of the few sensible people in the Conservative Party?
He's not sensible. Remaining might well be sensible after all this mess, but he is indulging in arcane trick after procedural wrangling - very clever wrangling too - to pursue his fanatical agenda with absolutely no thought as to wider consequences. If remaining is the sensible course now there are very simple ways to do it, in the first instance he could have tried to bring down the government, but instead he is indulging in procedural theatrics with potentially far reaching consequences, and the very fact he might insist they are only for now only emphasises that he is not thinking about anything other than his short term goals.
Grieve is intelligent and effective in pursuit of what many would regard as a noble goal. But that is not the same as him being sensible, and fanatical pursuit at all costs even of a noble goal is not sensible. He should not be able to get away with pretending that because he is erudite that he is any better than his ultra opposites on the other side, willing to risk everything if he does not get exactly what he wants, unwilling to accept anything less than perfection. He's no better than a no leave ultra.
The leave ultras also believe it is essential for this country that they get exactly what they want and to hell with anyone who thinks otherwise. That childish attitude is displayed by Grieve as well. Ah, but because he's right that makes his acting like a child ok.
People voted Brexit so MPs should have a free vote on the form of Brexit as follows. Each MP gets a 1st and 2nd preference with the 2nd preference counting in full force if the 1st has been eliminated. The options are simply:
This seems a good starting point. Then there could be a second vote using the same format to select from up to 4 versions of the preferred option. Democratic and effective.
The options of negotiating both a harder and a softer Brexit are both open once the WA is approved.
Agree. Given the degree of crisis we are in this simple truth is being woefully underestimated. We need some big time courageous Labour abstentions next time around.
People voted Brexit so MPs should have a free vote on the form of Brexit as follows. Each MP gets a 1st and 2nd preference with the 2nd preference counting in full force if the 1st has been eliminated. The options are simply:
This seems a good starting point. Then there could be a second vote using the same format to select from up to 4 versions of the preferred option. Democratic and effective.
The options of negotiating both a harder and a softer Brexit are both open once the WA is approved.
But at present only by the current government, hence my suggestion to extend the transition period.
Richard, what is your view of what Edmund Burke left us with: Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
I have commented on what Burke said often before. He was of course right but his was only half of the equation. The other half was that when he followed his maxim, he was then unceremoniously dumped by his constituents in Bristol at the next opportunity. If an MP is to decide they known better than their constituents then they have to be prepared to suffer the consequences.
Moreover what we have far too much today is MPs acting as the representatives of their parties or of their own interests rather than of their electorate.
In fact this whole episode has been quite refreshing for the number of MPs (on both sides of the debate) who have stood by their consciences rather than by their party.
In a sense yes, although frankly I think too many are still thinking primarily about party. And in fact plenty more could stand by their consciences and honestly argue for remain rather than 'revocations' and delays. More no dealers are on record about what they want, although I'd put both May and Corbyn as at this point aiming for it but not being honest about it.
Actually I am a bit concerned about this header. Abolishing 29th March sounds just like the sort of thing Grieve might try next.
Can't we all agree to abolish Grieve instead?
Why would you want to abolish one of the few sensible people in the Conservative Party?
That is because you want to remain and unlike many, he has the position and knowledge, in collusion with the speaker, to help you on the way you want to go
He certainly has more intellect than the whole of ERG put together
Sometimes you can be too clever for your own good and Grieve is in danger of falling into that category.
The Ethiopian calendar has 13 months. I do wonder whether Mr Meeks just looks up an obscure word, then sets himself a task to fit it into a thread header.
Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.
The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.
By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
What this country needs is to remove the house of commons in it's entirety and replace it with people that actually have the competency to do the job. These MP's and parties called a referendum on a false prospectus. There was never any intention of delivering on a leave outcome before, during or after the vote. Every Con & Lab MP elected in 2017 was elected on the lie of respecting the referendum vote. They had no intention of doing so. These lies have now totally caught up with the political class. Ironically the only people to have to0ld the truth were the EU. Their stated aim was to ensure that there was no route to leaving the EU. That meant there could never under any circumstances be any deal. The so called professional politicians have proved themselves anything but. With their constant lies they have lost our confidence, they have lost our trust and they have lost all moral authority to continue in office. They collectively are the problem and their removal is the start of the solution. Life bans form office for all current MP's, Bans from the next election for all current Westminster parties and their members and new elections without them are the start of the answer.
Parliament survived MP expenses - It will survive not implementing Brexit. People don't generally like politicians anyway, the ones they vote for are normally deemed to be less bad than the other option. The referendum was only advisory and Boris Johnson before the referendum claimed a vote to Leave could still mean remaining in the EU if a better deal than the status quo could not be obtained:
The overwhelming majority of the House of Commons is unwilling to countenance no deal, but there is nothing approaching a majority on what they would in practice countenance
Nor do they show much sign of urgency in determining what they would in practice countenance.
This bit was cutting though
Now it might be argued, perhaps by those who have advocated that Britain should go into union with Australia Canada and New Zealand or by those who have advocated that the vote should be removed from the over 75s, that this idea is far too eccentric to be worthy of further attention
Actually I am a bit concerned about this header. Abolishing 29th March sounds just like the sort of thing Grieve might try next.
Can't we all agree to abolish Grieve instead?
Why would you want to abolish one of the few sensible people in the Conservative Party?
He's not sensible. Remaining might well be sensible after all this mess, but he is indulging in arcane trick after procedural wrangling - very clever wrangling too - to pursue his fanatical agenda with absolutely no thought as to wider consequences. If remaining is the sensible course now there are very simple ways to do it, in the first instance he could have tried to bring down the government, but instead he is indulging in procedural theatrics with potentially far reaching consequences, and the very fact he might insist they are only for now only emphasises that he is not thinking about anything other than his short term goals.
Grieve is intelligent and effective in pursuit of what many would regard as a noble goal. But that is not the same as him being sensible, and fanatical pursuit at all costs even of a noble goal is not sensible. He should not be able to get away with pretending that because he is erudite that he is any better than his ultra opposites on the other side, willing to risk everything if he does not get exactly what he wants, unwilling to accept anything less than perfection. He's no better than a no leave ultra (but he is more effective). He has a closed mind on anything except his ideals.
The leave ultras also believe it is essential for this country that they get exactly what they want and to hell with anyone who thinks otherwise. That childish attitude is displayed by Grieve as well. Ah, but because he's right that makes his acting like a child ok.
If you are going to push the envelope, it is certainly preferable to be right rather than wrong.
Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.
The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.
By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
It just seems so pointless. If it doesn't want to no deal it can just vote for what it wants and then seek an extension in order to allow time for whatever legislative processes are needed. How long do you seek an extension for if you haven't picked an option yet? Sure as shit more debate is not going to lead to a breakthrough, the ticking clock is the thing that might.
No you are categorically wrong. When was the last time the Queen got involved in a conflict between the PM and Parliament?
If there is a dispute then Parliament has a way to resolve it without the Queen getting involved.
No I am absolutely right.
There has never been a conflict in recent times between the PM and Parliament such that Parliament has consistently voted down what the PM intends as most PMs have had a majority in Parliament and have never refused to bow to the will of Parliament.
If Parliament voted one way and the PM refused to implement it and in the unlikely event of the PM not then losing a VONC or resigning then the Queen would replace her chief minister with another one who could command the confidence of Parliament, as often happened in the 18th and early 19th centuries
This is nonsense! If Parliament votes it has Confidence in the PM then the Monach is simply not going to force out a PM that Parliament has voted it has Confidence in. What you are suggesting is not that the Queen backs Parliament but instead that she contradicts and overrides Parliament despite Parliament voting it has Confidence in the PM.
In the 18th and early 19th centuries the constitution was less formalised than it is now and confidence motions were completely different than they are now.
Firstly it was technically a vote of confidence in the Government not May, secondly May last week effectively handed over Brexit to Parliament anyway asking them to set the way forward and I expect would accept Deal v Remain referendum if Parliament voted for it even if she did not propose it herself. In the event the Commons and the Lords voted for EUref2 and the PM refused to implement it the monarch would likely simply replace the PM with another PM from the Government who would e.g. Hammond or Rudd.
We still have an unwritten constitution as now and political power in this country still lies in the Crown in Parliament ie the Crown implementing the will of Parliament, the PM is neither the Crown nor Parliament, merely a servant of the Crown
Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.
The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.
By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
It has to be remembered that MPs also have the most recent mandate from the electorate in 2017. Everything in international relations has moved since Trump was elected in November 2016. No easy trade deals or alternative pre-packed trade deals to replace the one we have within the EU at the moment. It puzzles me why Brexiteer politicians claim things are set in stone when they most patently are not.
The Ethiopian calendar has 13 months. I do wonder whether Mr Meeks just looks up an obscure word, then sets himself a task to fit it into a thread header.
I use obscure words or specific phrases as a means to find threads later speedily by googling.
The overwhelming majority of the House of Commons is unwilling to countenance no deal, but there is nothing approaching a majority on what they would in practice countenance
Nor do they show much sign of urgency in determining what they would in practice countenance.
This bit was cutting though
Now it might be argued, perhaps by those who have advocated that Britain should go into union with Australia Canada and New Zealand or by those who have advocated that the vote should be removed from the over 75s, that this idea is far too eccentric to be worthy of further attention
Actually I am a bit concerned about this header. Abolishing 29th March sounds just like the sort of thing Grieve might try next.
Can't we all agree to abolish Grieve instead?
Why would you want to abolish one of the few sensible people in the Conservative Party?
He's not sensible. Remaining might well be sensible after all this mess, but he is indulging in arcane trick after procedural wrangling - very clever wrangling too - to pursue his fanatical agenda with absolutely no thought as to wider consequences. If remaining is the sensible course now there are very simple ways to do it, in the first instance he could have tried to bring down the government, but instead he is indulging in procedural theatrics with potentially far reaching consequences, and the very fact he might insist they are only for now only emphasises that he is not thinking about anything other than his short term goals.
Grieve is intelligent and effective in pursuit of what many would regard as a noble goal. But that is not the same as him being sensible, and fanatical pursuit at all costs even of a noble goal is not sensible. He should not be able to get away with pretending that because he is erudite that he is any better than his ultra opposites on the other side, willing to risk everything if he does not get exactly what he wants, unwilling to accept anything less than perfection. He's no better than a no leave ultra (but he is more effective). He has a closed mind on anything except his ideals.
The leave ultras also believe it is essential for this country that they get exactly what they want and to hell with anyone who thinks otherwise. That childish attitude is displayed by Grieve as well. Ah, but because he's right that makes his acting like a child ok.
If you are going to push the envelope, it is certainly preferable to be right rather than wrong.
Both sides think they are right, so that gets us nowhere.
Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.
The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.
By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
It just seems so pointless. If it doesn't want to no deal it can just vote for what it wants and then seek an extension in order to allow time for whatever legislative processes are needed. How long do you seek an extension for if you haven't picked an option yet? Sure as shit more debate is not going to lead to a breakthrough, the ticking clock is the thing that might.
The breakthrough looks increasingly likely to ultimately be EUref2, hence the extension to enable it
What this country needs is to remove the house of commons in it's entirety and replace it with people that actually have the competency to do the job. These MP's and parties called a referendum on a false prospectus. There was never any intention of delivering on a leave outcome before, during or after the vote. Every Con & Lab MP elected in 2017 was elected on the lie of respecting the referendum vote. They had no intention of doing so. These lies have now totally caught up with the political class. Ironically the only people to have to0ld the truth were the EU. Their stated aim was to ensure that there was no route to leaving the EU. That meant there could never under any circumstances be any deal. The so called professional politicians have proved themselves anything but. With their constant lies they have lost our confidence, they have lost our trust and they have lost all moral authority to continue in office. They collectively are the problem and their removal is the start of the solution. Life bans form office for all current MP's, Bans from the next election for all current Westminster parties and their members and new elections without them are the start of the answer.
I appreciate it is not a serious suggestion, but fact is that politics makes politicians. Replace every MP and political party and the likelihood is whoever replaced them would be the same because they face the same issues. And chances are very few MPs will face consequences for what they do on Brexit.
Remainer MPs have outplayed the leavers (who have split into self destruction) and the public is now so desperate for an outcome that while many will be furious at the cancellation of Brexit, opinion is now firmer behind Remain that was the case previously.
Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.
The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.
By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
It just seems so pointless. If it doesn't want to no deal it can just vote for what it wants and then seek an extension in order to allow time for whatever legislative processes are needed. How long do you seek an extension for if you haven't picked an option yet? Sure as shit more debate is not going to lead to a breakthrough, the ticking clock is the thing that might.
The breakthrough looks increasingly likely to ultimately be EUref2, hence the extension to enable it
I think it has been suggested several times on here, even today, that you keep repeating the same outcome when in truth no one knows
Yesterday's news that Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy lead a substantial number of labour mps who will not accept a referendum, indeed it is possible that as many labour mps oppose a referendum as support one. In those circumstances a second referendum is not possible
Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.
The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.
By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
It just seems so pointless. If it doesn't want to no deal it can just vote for what it wants and then seek an extension in order to allow time for whatever legislative processes are needed. How long do you seek an extension for if you haven't picked an option yet? Sure as shit more debate is not going to lead to a breakthrough, the ticking clock is the thing that might.
The breakthrough looks increasingly likely to ultimately be EUref2, hence the extension to enable it
But when will the breakthrough be? An extension is needed once agreement is reached, so when does it become the plan? I severely doubt May will announce that tomorrow, someone would have leaked that talks with other parties on that topic had been successful if that was the case, so we're going to get a repeat of her speech when pulling the MV.
Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.
The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.
By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
It just seems so pointless. If it doesn't want to no deal it can just vote for what it wants and then seek an extension in order to allow time for whatever legislative processes are needed. How long do you seek an extension for if you haven't picked an option yet? Sure as shit more debate is not going to lead to a breakthrough, the ticking clock is the thing that might.
The breakthrough looks increasingly likely to ultimately be EUref2, hence the extension to enable it
I think it has been suggested several times on here, even today, that you keep repeating the same outcome when in truth no one knows
Yesterday's news that Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy lead a substantial number of labour mps who will not accept a referendum, indeed it is possible that as many labour mps oppose a referendum as support one. In those circumstances a second referendum is not possible
Basically this is why we need free indicative votes of all options to happen so we can understand what does have the most support, even if not a majority of support.
Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.
The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.
By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
It just seems so pointless. If it doesn't want to no deal it can just vote for what it wants and then seek an extension in order to allow time for whatever legislative processes are needed. How long do you seek an extension for if you haven't picked an option yet? Sure as shit more debate is not going to lead to a breakthrough, the ticking clock is the thing that might.
The breakthrough looks increasingly likely to ultimately be EUref2, hence the extension to enable it
I think it has been suggested several times on here, even today, that you keep repeating the same outcome when in truth no one knows
Yesterday's news that Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy lead a substantial number of labour mps who will not accept a referendum, indeed it is possible that as many labour mps oppose a referendum as support one. In those circumstances a second referendum is not possible
Basically this is why we need free indicative votes of all options to happen so we can understand what does have the most support, even if not a majority of support.
That does seem to be sensible and would draw out positions but as David Lammy said today it could also lead to a labour split
Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.
The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.
By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
It just seems so pointless. If it doesn't want to no deal it can just vote for what it wants and then seek an extension in order to allow time for whatever legislative processes are needed. How long do you seek an extension for if you haven't picked an option yet? Sure as shit more debate is not going to lead to a breakthrough, the ticking clock is the thing that might.
The breakthrough looks increasingly likely to ultimately be EUref2, hence the extension to enable it
I think it has been suggested several times on here, even today, that you keep repeating the same outcome when in truth no one knows
Yesterday's news that Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy lead a substantial number of labour mps who will not accept a referendum, indeed it is possible that as many labour mps oppose a referendum as support one. In those circumstances a second referendum is not possible
Basically this is why we need free indicative votes of all options to happen so we can understand what does have the most support, even if not a majority of support.
That does seem to be sensible and would draw out positions but as David Lammy said today it could also lead to a labour split
Oh Labour rebels always claim anything will lead to a split. I don't think either party can keep pretending forever, dividing to some degree on the final option is inevitable.
Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.
The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.
By the end of this week it is possible indeed likely Parliament will already have voted for Grieve's amendment to extend Article 50 beyond March 29th and for Boles and Cooper's amendments to prevent No Deal
It just seems so pointless. If it doesn't want to no deal it can just vote for what it wants and then seek an extension in order to allow time for whatever legislative processes are needed. How long do you seek an extension for if you haven't picked an option yet? Sure as shit more debate is not going to lead to a breakthrough, the ticking clock is the thing that might.
The breakthrough looks increasingly likely to ultimately be EUref2, hence the extension to enable it
I think it has been suggested several times on here, even today, that you keep repeating the same outcome when in truth no one knows
Yesterday's news that Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy lead a substantial number of labour mps who will not accept a referendum, indeed it is possible that as many labour mps oppose a referendum as support one. In those circumstances a second referendum is not possible
Basically this is why we need free indicative votes of all options to happen so we can understand what does have the most support, even if not a majority of support.
That does seem to be sensible and would draw out positions but as David Lammy said today it could also lead to a labour split
Oh Labour rebels always claim anything will lead to a split. I don't think either party can keep pretending forever, dividing to some degree on the final option is inevitable.
I suspect Lammy's thinking, if he is capable of that, is to try to frighten labour leave mps to come to his position
Comments
Alastair points out Julius Caesar has a month named after him, that loser Hannibal doesn't.
Further proof that Caesar is magic, Hannibal is tragic.
Reminds me of something that came to mind yesterday, when I went to Choral Evensong at New College, Oxford.
There were nine-year olds singing Howells' fiendishly difficult Westminster Service. Flawlessly. Just after they'd sung the Matthew Martin responses and just before they sang an intricate bit of 15th century French polyphony. Today they'll sing an entirely different set of music, no doubt just as flawlessly. And so on every day of term.
I'll remember that next time some mouth-breather of a backbench Tory MP, perhaps one of the intellect of Andrew Bridgen or Nadine Dorries, argues fervently that 16-year olds don't have the smarts to be allowed a vote in the second referendum.
A simple solution for a better Britain.
(Back to filling the bath with Jam)
"Remember, remember the nineteenth of Facebook ..."
September was brought to you by Coca Cola.
Well clearly they are - or they wouldn't have fucked up by voting for 29th March to be exactly that - countenancing no deal as the default. And if they did realise afterwards that they had dropped a bollock, they could have remedied that by voting for May's Deal and pulling No Deal's life support.
As they have done neither, they are clearly willing to countenance No Deal. Just not have the balls to admit they are doing it and why - for party political advantage.
Extend the transition period until end-2022.
In the 18th and early 19th centuries the constitution was less formalised than it is now and confidence motions were completely different than they are now.
"I'm going to start really worrying about the Brexit can kicking when Philip Hammond announces during the Budget about the three new months being slotted in between January and March for "tax reasons".
I thought I’d clicked on the wrong site 😧
"It's the fifth of Mature Dating Online."
Great thread Alastair, a little levity for a Sunday evening.
just following on from what Casino Royal said at the end of the last thread. You have been unfailingly reasonable and decent throughout the debates of the last few weeks. You certainly have nothing to apologise for.
If I remember correctly, Andrea Leadsom has a Ph.D. in Quantum Physics and Temporal Engineering, so perhaps it could be done in-house.
Is it 11pm GMT or 11pm UK time?
Every hour helps surely?
Mr. Eagles, Barcelona is named after Hannibal's family, which conquered Spain for Carthage. Is there a comparable city for Caesar?
Edited extra bit: I'm aware, of course,of Caesarea Philippi[sp] from the Bible, but I'm thinking of large, successful, modern cities.
Hmm. I wonder how Alexandria's doing.
Thessalonica was named after Cassander's wife, and might be the most successful Macedonian-named city, after Alexandria.
1) May's Deal
2) No Deal
3) Renegotiate softer Brexit
4) Renegotiate harder Brexit
This seems a good starting point. Then there could be a second vote using the same format to select from up to 4 versions of the preferred option. Democratic and effective.
And I like the idea of re-engineering time itself very much. Difficult? Sure, but easier to do than Brexit.
One massive benefit that I can see immediately. Next time Michel Barnier tries to bully us with that sadistic 'the clock is ticking ... tick tock ... tick tock ..." routine of his, we just smirk and thumb our nose and go, "Oh no it isn't, pal, cos we Brits have just invented a new one that hardly moves. So frog off."
Progress? Not so much...
Currently the tax year ends on the 5 April. By taking 6 days away from January and March this would move the end of the tax year to 11 April (Thursday).
But a better idea would be to fix Easter Sunday on 14 April, and start the tax year on the same day.
Thanks for the laugh though, Alastair.
Blasphemy!
Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day
You fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way
Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town
Waiting for someone or something to show you the way
Tired of lying in the sunshine
Staying home to watch the rain
You are young and life is long
And there is time to kill today
And then one day you find
TenTwo years have got behind youNo one told you when to run
You missed the starting gun
And you run and you run to catch up with the sun, but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again
The sun is the same in a relative way but you're older
Shorter of breath
and one day closer to death
Good evening, everyone.
So this Government will do the square root of damn all about Brexit until about Spring Bank Holiday 2022!
Right, it's easy then. All Labour, SNP, LibDem, PC and Green MPs with the exception of Corbyn and a few acolytes defect to the Tory Party and force May to do something sensible then resign.
The following Tory leadership election should be fun.
He certainly has more intellect than the whole of ERG put together
Nor do they show much sign of urgency in determining what they would in practice countenance.
This bit was cutting though
Now it might be argued, perhaps by those who have advocated that Britain should go into union with Australia Canada and New Zealand or by those who have advocated that the vote should be removed from the over 75s, that this idea is far too eccentric to be worthy of further attention He's not sensible. Remaining might well be sensible after all this mess, but he is indulging in arcane trick after procedural wrangling - very clever wrangling too - to pursue his fanatical agenda with absolutely no thought as to wider consequences. If remaining is the sensible course now there are very simple ways to do it, in the first instance he could have tried to bring down the government, but instead he is indulging in procedural theatrics with potentially far reaching consequences, and the very fact he might insist they are only for now only emphasises that he is not thinking about anything other than his short term goals.
Grieve is intelligent and effective in pursuit of what many would regard as a noble goal. But that is not the same as him being sensible, and fanatical pursuit at all costs even of a noble goal is not sensible. He should not be able to get away with pretending that because he is erudite that he is any better than his ultra opposites on the other side, willing to risk everything if he does not get exactly what he wants, unwilling to accept anything less than perfection. He's no better than a no leave ultra (but he is more effective). He has a closed mind on anything except his ideals.
The leave ultras also believe it is essential for this country that they get exactly what they want and to hell with anyone who thinks otherwise. That childish attitude is displayed by Grieve as well. Ah, but because he's right that makes his acting like a child ok.
Agree. Given the degree of crisis we are in this simple truth is being woefully underestimated.
We need some big time courageous Labour abstentions next time around.
Parliament has voted to leave on March 29th.
Parliament having rejected May's deal, has voted for WTO deal by default.
The Government should now focus on negotiating side deals around a WTO deal.
When despair is at its peak, then the enormo-haddock will strike!
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/social-affairs/politics/news/68437/boris-johnson-vote-leave-get-better-eu-deal-britain
https://twitter.com/rolandmcs/status/1086899951735574528?s=21
We still have an unwritten constitution as now and political power in this country still lies in the Crown in Parliament ie the Crown implementing the will of Parliament, the PM is neither the Crown nor Parliament, merely a servant of the Crown
Remainer MPs have outplayed the leavers (who have split into self destruction) and the public is now so desperate for an outcome that while many will be furious at the cancellation of Brexit, opinion is now firmer behind Remain that was the case previously.
Yesterday's news that Caroline Flint and Lisa Nandy lead a substantial number of labour mps who will not accept a referendum, indeed it is possible that as many labour mps oppose a referendum as support one. In those circumstances a second referendum is not possible
https://twitter.com/electionmapsuk/status/1086674588535324673?s=21
Interesting to note that on the position descriptor wheel 'soft brexit' is further along the scale than the Labour position.