Don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were I'd have voted for the deal, which respects the referendum result but doesn't cause too much damage. The ERG chose to trash it. Their choice, of course, but they can hardly complain if that scuppers Brexit entirely.
Either way, one has to be realistic about the numbers. There's absolutely no point moaning at Theresa May, if all options are blocked to her by parliament.
If the ERG has voted in favour of it (and I do support the Deal) then it would still have lost. There are simply too many MPs who do not want us to leave under any circumstances.
Don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were I'd have voted for the deal, which respects the referendum result but doesn't cause too much damage. The ERG chose to trash it. Their choice, of course, but they can hardly complain if that scuppers Brexit entirely.
Either way, one has to be realistic about the numbers. There's absolutely no point moaning at Theresa May, if all options are blocked to her by parliament.
If the ERG has voted in favour of it (and I do support the Deal) then it would still have lost. There are simply too many MPs who do not want us to leave under any circumstances.
I don't think so, actually. I think the highly efficient Steve Baker trashing operation poisoned the well early on, causing more moderate MPs to decide they didn't like it either. Meanwhile, those who supported Remain but wanted to respect the referendum result found themselves in a position where the Brexiteers were acting in bad faith and trying to crash us out in chaos. Of course in that scenario, where we can't have an orderly exit, it's better to revoke Article 50 altogether, and the ERG (and Boris and Farage) gave them a perfect argument to justify it by saying the deal was worse than remaining in the EU. Well, OK......
It's only "ok" if you accept their judgment. And who would do that?
Well, if those who pushed for Leave don't like Leave, then why on earth should those who wanted to Remain continue to go along with it?
It's a legitimate question which shows what arseholes the ERG are but the answer in my view is that 17.4m people voted for it, not just them.
The trouble with being a leaver politician is that as soon as you try and engage with the real world and embrace some of the compromises necessary to deliver your project in reality, there is always another more extreme leaver ready to accuse you of betraying the true faith. Hence none of them will vote for anything that is realistically achievable.
Don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were I'd have voted for the deal, which respects the referendum result but doesn't cause too much damage. The ERG chose to trash it. Their choice, of course, but they can hardly complain if that scuppers Brexit entirely.
Either way, one has to be realistic about the numbers. There's absolutely no point moaning at Theresa May, if all options are blocked to her by parliament.
If the ERG has voted in favour of it (and I do support the Deal) then it would still have lost. There are simply too many MPs who do not want us to leave under any circumstances.
I don't think so, actually. I think the highly efficient Steve Baker trashing operation poisoned the well early on, causing more moderate MPs to decide they didn't like it either. Meanwhile, those who supported Remain but wanted to respect the referendum result found themselves in a position where the Brexiteers were acting in bad faith and trying to crash us out in chaos. Of course in that scenario, where we can't have an orderly exit, it's better to revoke Article 50 altogether, and the ERG (and Boris and Farage) gave them a perfect argument to justify it by saying the deal was worse than remaining in the EU. Well, OK......
It's only "ok" if you accept their judgment. And who would do that?
Well, if those who pushed for Leave don't like Leave, then why on earth should those who wanted to Remain continue to go along with it?
It's a legitimate question which shows what arseholes the ERG are but the answer in my view is that 17.4m people voted for it, not just them.
More than 17.4m people voted against a hard Brexit in 2017.
Don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were I'd have voted for the deal, which respects the referendum result but doesn't cause too much damage. The ERG chose to trash it. Their choice, of course, but they can hardly complain if that scuppers Brexit entirely.
Either way, one has to be realistic about the numbers. There's absolutely no point moaning at Theresa May, if all options are blocked to her by parliament.
If the ERG has voted in favour of it (and I do support the Deal) then it would still have lost. There are simply too many MPs who do not want us to leave under any circumstances.
I don't think so, actually. I think the highly efficient Steve Baker trashing operation poisoned the well early on, causing more moderate MPs to decide they didn't like it either. Meanwhile, those who supported Remain but wanted to respect the referendum result found themselves in a position where the Brexiteers were acting in bad faith and trying to crash us out in chaos. Of course in that scenario, where we can't have an orderly exit, it's better to revoke Article 50 altogether, and the ERG (and Boris and Farage) gave them a perfect argument to justify it by saying the deal was worse than remaining in the EU. Well, OK......
It's only "ok" if you accept their judgment. And who would do that?
Well, if those who pushed for Leave don't like Leave, then why on earth should those who wanted to Remain continue to go along with it?
Except almost every formerly-Remain Tory is still going along with it. Because its a very soft Brexit.
The opposition is coming from hardcore extreme Remain Tories who number less than a dozen and aren't shifted by the ERG, and the opposition benches who are playing party politics or have their own priorities.
Remain Tories are remaining remarkably loyal by and large.
There were a couple of dozen Labour MPs who opposed Cooper-Boles I who might be persuadable to break ranks to support the Deal had it been supported by the ERG and only required a small push to take it over the line.
Also, if the vote were likely to be close there would be immense pressure on Tory soft Remainers to support the Deal. By opposing the deal the ERG made it easy for everyone else to do so too.
Don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were I'd have voted for the deal, which respects the referendum result but doesn't cause too much damage. The ERG chose to trash it. Their choice, of course, but they can hardly complain if that scuppers Brexit entirely.
Either way, one has to be realistic about the numbers. There's absolutely no point moaning at Theresa May, if all options are blocked to her by parliament.
If the ERG has voted in favour of it (and I do support the Deal) then it would still have lost. There are simply too many MPs who do not want us to leave under any circumstances.
No, the reality could have been quite different, had the leavers thrown themselves behind the deal as an acceptable compromise - the position Boris was prepared to take, until he saw Davis heading for the door. It would be been hugely more difficult for remainers to stand in the way of an approach that had the overwhelming backing of those wanting to leave - and it would have been sensible for the ERG to build up some political credit ready for the battles that would inevitably resume during transition.
Instead, the ERG trashed the agreement and with it their own brand. Soubry is right that very many inside the Tory party are thoroughly fed up with them.
Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
As it gets close the deadline, the more tangible binary choice is between no deal and revocation, given that a deal would most likely need an extension to allow time to pass the legislation.
Not quite. Revocation requires a number of things: willingness for Tories to risk political suicide, legislation passed through all stages to stop the 29th March clock, enough other MPs to take some risk too. None of these are nailed on. Whereas common sense says that if an extension is needed for the explicit purpose of enacting what is necessary for the WA - already agreed by both parties - to be implemented the European Council will agree.
Therefore, I suggest, the binary choice is TM's deal or no deal.
Labour, Lib Dems and assorted others were opposing because they put party over country. SNP are opposing because they don't want to be part of this country and chaos suits them. DUP oppose because it goes against their very core. Hardcore [former] Tory extremists like Soubry, Grieve et al oppose any deal.
So where are the votes to come from to see the WA over the line even if it was backed by Baker etc?
Maybe nowhere. Like I said, there's no point moaning at Mrs May: if the numbers don't add up, they don't add up. Even so, a hundred or so more Tory MPs voting in favour rather than against would have made it a hell of lot more attainable.
No, it wouldn't.
The EU listening to the UK [and May standing up for the UK] and replacing the backstop as Parliament voted for on 29th March would make it a hell of a lot more attainable. All bar one ERG MP voted for the deal in principle if the EU does that, plus the DUP. That way lies a majority.
ERG simply buckling under and swallowing what they hate doesn't.
Don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were I'd have voted for the deal, which respects the referendum result but doesn't cause too much damage. The ERG chose to trash it. Their choice, of course, but they can hardly complain if that scuppers Brexit entirely.
Either way, one has to be realistic about the numbers. There's absolutely no point moaning at Theresa May, if all options are blocked to her by parliament.
If the ERG has voted in favour of it (and I do support the Deal) then it would still have lost. There are simply too many MPs who do not want us to leave under any circumstances.
I don't think so, actually. I think the highly efficient Steve Baker trashing operation poisoned the well early on, causing more moderate MPs to decide they didn't like it either. Meanwhile, those who supported Remain but wanted to respect the referendum result found themselves in a position where the Brexiteers were acting in bad faith and trying to crash us out in chaos. Of course in that scenario, where we can't have an orderly exit, it's better to revoke Article 50 altogether, and the ERG (and Boris and Farage) gave them a perfect argument to justify it by saying the deal was worse than remaining in the EU. Well, OK......
It's only "ok" if you accept their judgment. And who would do that?
Well, if those who pushed for Leave don't like Leave, then why on earth should those who wanted to Remain continue to go along with it?
It's a legitimate question which shows what arseholes the ERG are but the answer in my view is that 17.4m people voted for it, not just them.
The trouble with being a leaver politician is that as soon as you try and engage with the real world and embrace some of the compromises necessary to deliver your project in reality, there is always another more extreme leaver ready to accuse you of betraying the true faith. Hence none of them will vote for anything that is realistically achievable.
That's true. Of course the same applies to the fanatics on the other side too. So it always is with fanatics. They're mad.
Labour, Lib Dems and assorted others were opposing because they put party over country. SNP are opposing because they don't want to be part of this country and chaos suits them. DUP oppose because it goes against their very core. Hardcore [former] Tory extremists like Soubry, Grieve et al oppose any deal.
So where are the votes to come from to see the WA over the line even if it was backed by Baker etc?
Maybe nowhere. Like I said, there's no point moaning at Mrs May: if the numbers don't add up, they don't add up. Even so, a hundred or so more Tory MPs voting in favour rather than against would have made it a hell of lot more attainable.
The first batch of amendments that came up, the government won - because the small number of determined Tory remainers were balanced off by determined Labour leavers. Things only started to slip once the leavers began fighting amongst themselves.
If TM capitulates on a second referendum , as a lifelong Tory voter , she will have lost my vote for life and I suspect many other leave voters who trusted the government to deliver on the referendum . It would destroy all faith in democracy in this country . The independent group are the referendum losers group They have no respect for the decision taken by 17.4 million voters to leave the EU. The betrayal of brexit is well under way.
Fine, do you have any better ideas given the parliamentary arithmetic?
She said that no deal was better than a bad deal.
Give Parliament an ultimatum: My deal or no deal, your choice.
The fact she is still messing around saying "its either my deal, or no deal, or no Brexit" is why she's in this conundrum. She's saying it hoping leavers hear "my deal or no Brexit" and remainers hear "my deal or no deal". But instead of course everyone can hear exactly what she's saying so remainers think "if I want no Brexit I need to reject this deal" and leavers think "if I think no deal is better than a bad deal I need to reject this deal".
Make it a binary choice - and Article 50 provides the options. We have a deal, if you want to take no deal off the table you have to accept it otherwise we will switch to solely preparing for no deal and that will be your choice.
That is not going to happen after next week when the HOC will take no deal off the table
They won't take no deal off the table, they can't. No amendment has yet been even proposed that will take no deal off the table.
Article 50 of the Treaties of the European Union is crystal clear. We leave automatically on 29 March [or whatever extension date is agreed] with no deal. Unless we agree a deal, or we revoke.
Unless or until Parliament is prepared to revoke, no deal remains firmly on the table. Only the date varies.
No deal will not happen
Are we going to ratify a deal or revoke?
Those are the only ways to take no deal off the table.
Don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were I'd have voted for the deal, which respects the referendum result but doesn't cause too much damage. The ERG chose to trash it. Their choice, of course, but they can hardly complain if that scuppers Brexit entirely.
Either way, one has to be realistic about the numbers. There's absolutely no point moaning at Theresa May, if all options are blocked to her by parliament.
If the ERG has voted in favour of it (and I do support the Deal) then it would still have lost. There are simply too many MPs who do not want us to leave under any circumstances.
I don't think so, actually. I think the highly efficient Steve Baker trashing operation poisoned the well early on, causing more moderate MPs to decide they didn't like it either. Meanwhile, those who supported Remain but wanted to respect the referendum result found themselves in a position where the Brexiteers were acting in bad faith and trying to crash us out in chaos. Of course in that scenario, where we can't have an orderly exit, it's better to revoke Article 50 altogether, and the ERG (and Boris and Farage) gave them a perfect argument to justify it by saying the deal was worse than remaining in the EU. Well, OK......
It's only "ok" if you accept their judgment. And who would do that?
Well, if those who pushed for Leave don't like Leave, then why on earth should those who wanted to Remain continue to go along with it?
Except almost every formerly-Remain Tory is still going along with it. Because its a very soft Brexit.
The opposition is coming from hardcore extreme Remain Tories who number less than a dozen and aren't shifted by the ERG, and the opposition benches who are playing party politics or have their own priorities.
Remain Tories are remaining remarkably loyal by and large.
There were a couple of dozen Labour MPs who opposed Cooper-Boles I who might be persuadable to break ranks to support the Deal had it been supported by the ERG and only required a small push to take it over the line.
Also, if the vote were likely to be close there would be immense pressure on Tory soft Remainers to support the Deal. By opposing the deal the ERG made it easy for everyone else to do so too.
This is what people don't understand. The ERG voting against the deal gave licesnse for Labour to vote against the deal, despite accusations of putting party before country. If May couldn't even persuade her own party, why on earth, is a legitimate line of thinking, should the opposition support her.
Don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were I'd have voted for the deal, which respects the referendum result but doesn't cause too much damage. The ERG chose to trash it. Their choice, of course, but they can hardly complain if that scuppers Brexit entirely.
Either way, one has to be realistic about the numbers. There's absolutely no point moaning at Theresa May, if all options are blocked to her by parliament.
If the ERG has voted in favour of it (and I do support the Deal) then it would still have lost. There are simply too many MPs who do not want us to leave under any circumstances.
I don't think so, actually. I think the highly efficient Steve Baker trashing operation poisoned the well early on, causing more moderate MPs to decide they didn't like it either. Meanwhile, those who supported Remain but wanted to respect the referendum result found themselves in a position where the Brexiteers were acting in bad faith and trying to crash us out in chaos. Of course in that scenario, where we can't have an orderly exit, it's better to revoke Article 50 altogether, and the ERG (and Boris and Farage) gave them a perfect argument to justify it by saying the deal was worse than remaining in the EU. Well, OK......
It's only "ok" if you accept their judgment. And who would do that?
Well, if those who pushed for Leave don't like Leave, then why on earth should those who wanted to Remain continue to go along with it?
It's a legitimate question which shows what arseholes the ERG are but the answer in my view is that 17.4m people voted for it, not just them.
More than 17.4m people voted against a hard Brexit in 2017.
More than 26m voted for the implementation of Brexit in 2017. About 3.5m didn't. Not sure who you think was offering hard Brexit as an option.
Labour, Lib Dems and assorted others were opposing because they put party over country. SNP are opposing because they don't want to be part of this country and chaos suits them. DUP oppose because it goes against their very core. Hardcore [former] Tory extremists like Soubry, Grieve et al oppose any deal.
So where are the votes to come from to see the WA over the line even if it was backed by Baker etc?
Maybe nowhere. Like I said, there's no point moaning at Mrs May: if the numbers don't add up, they don't add up. Even so, a hundred or so more Tory MPs voting in favour rather than against would have made it a hell of lot more attainable.
The first batch of amendments that came up, the government won - because the small number of determined Tory remainers were balanced off by determined Labour leavers. Things only started to slip once the leavers began fighting amongst themselves.
Categorically not true.
The first vote that the government lost was the Grieve amendment that created the Meaningful Vote in the first place.
The ERG opposed giving themselves a Meaningful Vote. Its thanks to Grieve, Soubry, Wollason etc that this impasse is happening!
Don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were I'd have voted for the deal, which respects the referendum result but doesn't cause too much damage. The ERG chose to trash it. Their choice, of course, but they can hardly complain if that scuppers Brexit entirely.
Either way, one has to be realistic about the numbers. There's absolutely no point moaning at Theresa May, if all options are blocked to her by parliament.
If the ERG has voted in favour of it (and I do support the Deal) then it would still have lost. There are simply too many MPs who do not want us to leave under any circumstances.
I don't think so, actually. I think the highly efficient Steve Baker trashing operation poisoned the well early on, causing more moderate MPs to decide they didn't like it either. Meanwhile, those who supported Remain but wanted to respect the referendum result found themselves in a position where the Brexiteers were acting in bad faith and trying to crash us out in chaos. Of course in that scenario, where we can't have an orderly exit, it's better to revoke Article 50 altogether, and the ERG (and Boris and Farage) gave them a perfect argument to justify it by saying the deal was worse than remaining in the EU. Well, OK......
It's only "ok" if you accept their judgment. And who would do that?
Well, if those who pushed for Leave don't like Leave, then why on earth should those who wanted to Remain continue to go along with it?
It's a legitimate question which shows what arseholes the ERG are but the answer in my view is that 17.4m people voted for it, not just them.
The trouble with being a leaver politician is that as soon as you try and engage with the real world and embrace some of the compromises necessary to deliver your project in reality, there is always another more extreme leaver ready to accuse you of betraying the true faith. Hence none of them will vote for anything that is realistically achievable.
That's true. Of course the same applies to the fanatics on the other side too. So it always is with fanatics. They're mad.
Except that it doesn't, because the status quo is the status quo, and no-one significant has gone any further than suggesting we keep things as they are, and in most cases only if people are prepared to vote for it. And the people accusing those with such views of betrayal aren't even-more-extreme remainers, but leavers. Once again.
If TM capitulates on a second referendum , as a lifelong Tory voter , she will have lost my vote for life and I suspect many other leave voters who trusted the government to deliver on the referendum . It would destroy all faith in democracy in this country . The independent group are the referendum losers group They have no respect for the decision taken by 17.4 million voters to leave the EU. The betrayal of brexit is well under way.
Fine, do you have any better ideas given the parliamentary arithmetic?
She said that no deal was better than a bad deal.
Give Parliament an ultimatum: My deal or no deal, your choice.
The fact she is still messing around saying "its either my deal, or no deal, or no Brexit" is why she's in this conundrum. She's saying it hoping leavers hear "my deal or no Brexit" and remainers hear "my deal or no deal". But instead of course everyone can hear exactly what she's saying so remainers think "if I want no Brexit I need to reject this deal" and leavers think "if I think no deal is better than a bad deal I need to reject this deal".
Make it a binary choice - and Article 50 provides the options. We have a deal, if you want to take no deal off the table you have to accept it otherwise we will switch to solely preparing for no deal and that will be your choice.
That is not going to happen after next week when the HOC will take no deal off the table
They won't take no deal off the table, they can't. No amendment has yet been even proposed that will take no deal off the table.
Article 50 of the Treaties of the European Union is crystal clear. We leave automatically on 29 March [or whatever extension date is agreed] with no deal. Unless we agree a deal, or we revoke.
Unless or until Parliament is prepared to revoke, no deal remains firmly on the table. Only the date varies.
No deal will not happen
Are we going to ratify a deal or revoke?
Those are the only ways to take no deal off the table.
Labour, Lib Dems and assorted others were opposing because they put party over country. SNP are opposing because they don't want to be part of this country and chaos suits them. DUP oppose because it goes against their very core. Hardcore [former] Tory extremists like Soubry, Grieve et al oppose any deal.
So where are the votes to come from to see the WA over the line even if it was backed by Baker etc?
Maybe nowhere. Like I said, there's no point moaning at Mrs May: if the numbers don't add up, they don't add up. Even so, a hundred or so more Tory MPs voting in favour rather than against would have made it a hell of lot more attainable.
The first batch of amendments that came up, the government won - because the small number of determined Tory remainers were balanced off by determined Labour leavers. Things only started to slip once the leavers began fighting amongst themselves.
Categorically not true.
The first vote that the government lost was the Grieve amendment that created the Meaningful Vote in the first place.
The ERG opposed giving themselves a Meaningful Vote. Its thanks to Grieve, Soubry, Wollason etc that this impasse is happening!
I think we can take it as reasonable that MPs were never going to exclude themselves from the process.
Don't blame me, I'm not an MP. If I were I'd have voted for the deal, which respects the referendum result but doesn't cause too much damage. The ERG chose to trash it. Their choice, of course, but they can hardly complain if that scuppers Brexit entirely.
Either way, one has to be realistic about the numbers. There's absolutely no point moaning at Theresa May, if all options are blocked to her by parliament.
If the ERG has voted in favour of it (and I do support the Deal) then it would still have lost. There are simply too many MPs who do not want us to leave under any circumstances.
I don't think so, actually. I think the highly efficient Steve Baker trashing operation poisoned the well early on, causing more moderate MPs to decide they didn't like it either. Meanwhile, those who supported Remain but wanted to respect the referendum result found themselves in a position where the Brexiteers were acting in bad faith and trying to crash us out in chaos. Of course in that scenario, where we can't have an orderly exit, it's better to revoke Article 50 altogether, and the ERG (and Boris and Farage) gave them a perfect argument to justify it by saying the deal was worse than remaining in the EU. Well, OK......
It's only "ok" if you accept their judgment. And who would do that?
Well, if those who pushed for Leave don't like Leave, then why on earth should those who wanted to Remain continue to go along with it?
It's a legitimate question which shows what arseholes the ERG are but the answer in my view is that 17.4m people voted for it, not just them.
More than 17.4m people voted against a hard Brexit in 2017.
More than 26m voted for the implementation of Brexit in 2017. About 3.5m didn't. Not sure who you think was offering hard Brexit as an option.
It will be interesting to see how brave they want to be.
Evidence based policy might result in the legalisation of drugs as per Portugal rather fighting on forlornly in a war we can't win.
Evidence based policy might conclude that free TV licences for the older population are pretty ridiculous when they are the only ones left watching the BBC.
Evidence based policy might suggest that a tax system which taxes dividend income at a lower rate than NMW earnings is in need of reform.
I could go on but how many groups are they willing to upset?
A good point. Some decent evidence might also be marshaled in support of slashing taxes to the bone or of nationalizing the utilities. Or scrapping trident maybe. Or even privatizing the NHS. Seek and ye shall find.
But what I strongly suspect is that 'evidence based' is just bullshit jargon for 'we won't do anything to frighten the horses'.
Which is absolutely fair enough. Many people do not want lots of change and many more say that they do but don't really. Defence of the status quo is a very respectable position to take and it ought to be represented. The IG will serve a useful purpose by doing so, and who knows how far they might go with it. Only 10/1 to win the next election.
But let us not pretend that this is something new and exciting, something more than it is. We can safely leave that to Chuka.
It's only "ok" if you accept their judgment. And who would do that?
Well, if those who pushed for Leave don't like Leave, then why on earth should those who wanted to Remain continue to go along with it?
It's a legitimate question which shows what arseholes the ERG are but the answer in my view is that 17.4m people voted for it, not just them.
The trouble with being a leaver politician is that as soon as you try and engage with the real world and embrace some of the compromises necessary to deliver your project in reality, there is always another more extreme leaver ready to accuse you of betraying the true faith. Hence none of them will vote for anything that is realistically achievable.
That's true. Of course the same applies to the fanatics on the other side too. So it always is with fanatics. They're mad.
Except that it doesn't, because the status quo is the status quo, and no-one significant has gone any further than suggesting we keep things as they are, and in most cases only if people are prepared to vote for it. And the people accusing those with such views of betrayal aren't even-more-extreme remainers, but leavers. Once again.
I think on that we have to disagree. Those demanding a second go when the first decision has not been implemented are extremists and clearly undemocratic. There was no best of 3 clause. Those who argue the result should be reflected in a soft Brexit are clearly entirely rational because they include me!
Mr. L, if we end up remaining, that'll put rocket boosters under I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-UKIP. Between that and the Tiggers, politics might look quite different to a few years ago.
Well, if those who pushed for Leave don't like Leave, then why on earth should those who wanted to Remain continue to go along with it?
Except almost every formerly-Remain Tory is still going along with it. Because its a very soft Brexit.
The opposition is coming from hardcore extreme Remain Tories who number less than a dozen and aren't shifted by the ERG, and the opposition benches who are playing party politics or have their own priorities.
Remain Tories are remaining remarkably loyal by and large.
There were a couple of dozen Labour MPs who opposed Cooper-Boles I who might be persuadable to break ranks to support the Deal had it been supported by the ERG and only required a small push to take it over the line.
Also, if the vote were likely to be close there would be immense pressure on Tory soft Remainers to support the Deal. By opposing the deal the ERG made it easy for everyone else to do so too.
This is what people don't understand. The ERG voting against the deal gave licesnse for Labour to vote against the deal, despite accusations of putting party before country. If May couldn't even persuade her own party, why on earth, is a legitimate line of thinking, should the opposition support her.
Labour, Lib Dems and assorted others were opposing because they put party over country. SNP are opposing because they don't want to be part of this country and chaos suits them. DUP oppose because it goes against their very core. Hardcore [former] Tory extremists like Soubry, Grieve et al oppose any deal.
So where are the votes to come from to see the WA over the line even if it was backed by Baker etc?
Maybe nowhere. Like I said, there's no point moaning at Mrs May: if the numbers don't add up, they don't add up. Even so, a hundred or so more Tory MPs voting in favour rather than against would have made it a hell of lot more attainable.
The first batch of amendments that came up, the government won - because the small number of determined Tory remainers were balanced off by determined Labour leavers. Things only started to slip once the leavers began fighting amongst themselves.
Categorically not true.
The first vote that the government lost was the Grieve amendment that created the Meaningful Vote in the first place.
The ERG opposed giving themselves a Meaningful Vote. Its thanks to Grieve, Soubry, Wollason etc that this impasse is happening!
I think we can take it as reasonable that MPs were never going to exclude themselves from the process.
Doesn't change that what you said wasn't true.
If it wasn't for 12 hardcore Tory Remainers, led by Grieve, the Meaningful Vote wouldn't be law. I think this deal would have been ratified and no deal wouldn't be happening by now.
It is thanks to Grieve, not Baker or Rees Mogg, that we're this close to Brexit Day still facing No Deal.
It will be interesting to see how brave they want to be.
Evidence based policy might result in the legalisation of drugs as per Portugal rather fighting on forlornly in a war we can't win.
Evidence based policy might conclude that free TV licences for the older population are pretty ridiculous when they are the only ones left watching the BBC.
Evidence based policy might suggest that a tax system which taxes dividend income at a lower rate than NMW earnings is in need of reform.
I could go on but how many groups are they willing to upset?
A good point. Some decent evidence might also be marshaled in support of slashing taxes to the bone or of nationalizing the utilities. Or scrapping trident maybe. Or even privatizing the NHS. Seek and ye shall find.
But what I strongly suspect is that 'evidence based' is just bullshit jargon for 'we won't do anything to frighten the horses'.
Which is absolutely fair enough. Many people do not want lots of change and many more say that they do but don't really. Defence of the status quo is a very respectable position to take and it ought to be represented. The IG will serve a useful purpose by doing so, and who knows how far they might go with it. Only 10/1 to win the next election.
But let us not pretend that this is something new and exciting, something more than it is. We can safely leave that to Chuka.
Is the defence of the status quo not supposed to be the job of the Conservative party? Perhaps they should go back to that idea.
Labour, Lib Dems and assorted others were opposing because they put party over country. SNP are opposing because they don't want to be part of this country and chaos suits them. DUP oppose because it goes against their very core. Hardcore [former] Tory extremists like Soubry, Grieve et al oppose any deal.
So where are the votes to come from to see the WA over the line even if it was backed by Baker etc?
Maybe nowhere. Like I said, there's no point moaning at Mrs May: if the numbers don't add up, they don't add up. Even so, a hundred or so more Tory MPs voting in favour rather than against would have made it a hell of lot more attainable.
The first batch of amendments that came up, the government won - because the small number of determined Tory remainers were balanced off by determined Labour leavers. Things only started to slip once the leavers began fighting amongst themselves.
Categorically not true.
The first vote that the government lost was the Grieve amendment that created the Meaningful Vote in the first place.
The ERG opposed giving themselves a Meaningful Vote. Its thanks to Grieve, Soubry, Wollason etc that this impasse is happening!
I think we can take it as reasonable that MPs were never going to exclude themselves from the process.
Doesn't change that what you said wasn't true.
If it wasn't for 12 hardcore Tory Remainers, led by Grieve, the Meaningful Vote wouldn't be law. I think this deal would have been ratified and no deal wouldn't be happening by now.
It is thanks to Grieve, not Baker or Rees Mogg, that we're this close to Brexit Day still facing No Deal.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the meaningful vote achieved. All it's done is facilitate this phase where May can go back and ask for changes. If the meaningful vote wasn't in statute, parliament would still need to ratify the legislation, and with no majority for the backstop, we'd still be facing no deal.
If TM capitulates on a second referendum , as a lifelong Tory voter , she will have lost my vote for life and I suspect many other leave voters who trusted the government to deliver on the referendum . It would destroy all faith in democracy in this country . The independent group are the referendum losers group They have no respect for the decision taken by 17.4 million voters to leave the EU. The betrayal of brexit is well under way.
Fine, do you have any better ideas given the parliamentary arithmetic?
She said that no deal was better than a bad deal.
Give Parliament an ultimatum: My deal or no deal, your choice.
The fact she is still messing around saying "its either my deal, or no deal, or no Brexit" is why she's in this conundrum. She's saying it hoping leavers hear "my deal or no Brexit" and remainers hear "my deal or no deal". But instead of course everyone can hear exactly what she's saying so remainers think "if I want no Brexit I need to reject this deal" and leavers think "if I think no deal is better than a bad deal I need to reject this deal".
Make it a binary choice - and Article 50 provides the options. We have a deal, if you want to take no deal off the table you have to accept it otherwise we will switch to solely preparing for no deal and that will be your choice.
That is not going to happen after next week when the HOC will take no deal off the table
They won't take no deal off the table, they can't. No amendment has yet been even proposed that will take no deal off the table.
Article 50 of the Treaties of the European Union is crystal clear. We leave automatically on 29 March [or whatever extension date is agreed] with no deal. Unless we agree a deal, or we revoke.
Unless or until Parliament is prepared to revoke, no deal remains firmly on the table. Only the date varies.
No deal will not happen
Are we going to ratify a deal or revoke?
Those are the only ways to take no deal off the table.
Extension for a deal referendum
Deal versus ... ?
A referendum needs two choices. Are you proposing deal yes or no? In which case no leads us back to here?
Mr. L, if we end up remaining, that'll put rocket boosters under I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-UKIP. Between that and the Tiggers, politics might look quite different to a few years ago.
TBH Corbyn will probably be onto a loser when the Daily Mail aren't attacking him.
The Daily Mail has just quoted him in that snippet.
There's no attack, the fact you think quoting Corbyn's own words is an attack speaks volumes.
Actually, I think you'll find they made up that quotation.
They certainly made up the headline.
The headline says: "Jeremy Corbyn says Shamima Begum SHOULD be let back into Britain and 'given our support' after ISIS bride was stripped of UK citizenship"
But the article quotes Corbyn as saying: "She was born in Britain, she has that right to remain in Britain and obviously a lot of questions she has to answer but also some support that she needs."
The only word that's a direct quote is "support".
I know that headlines are a precis and you can take occasional liberties (heaven knows I wrote enough headlines in my magazine editor days), but the Mail is playing fast and loose here. I can understand the "given", which is implicit in the sentence, but the "our" is particularly egregious given that Corbyn expressly qualifies "support" with "some".
Bloody hell, I'm defending Corbyn. I may need to go and lie down.
The penalty for stealing a first is to watch 37 repeats of Solo while eating pineapple pizza.
I prefer to think of it as a reward for editing PB this afternoon.
Watching Solo and eating pineapple pizza is a reward?
I thought you preferred the old dominatrices fro your, umm, more extreme rewards.
Six months worth of gardening leave sounds fun, the reality of it is somewhat different.
Go on the 6 week holiday you’ve always wanted to do. Hike the Andes. Be a cowboy in Montana. Sled with the huskies in Finland. Walk from Casablanca to Cairo.
You’ve got a job you are going to. Money shouldn’t be an issue. Kick back and have fun.
Labour, Lib Dems and assorted others were opposing because they put party over country. SNP are opposing because they don't want to be part of this country and chaos suits them. DUP oppose because it goes against their very core. Hardcore [former] Tory extremists like Soubry, Grieve et al oppose any deal.
So where are the votes to come from to see the WA over the line even if it was backed by Baker etc?
Maybe nowhere. Like I said, there's no point moaning at Mrs May: if the numbers don't add up, they don't add up. Even so, a hundred or so more Tory MPs voting in favour rather than against would have made it a hell of lot more attainable.
The first batch of amendments that came up, the government won - because the small number of determined Tory remainers were balanced off by determined Labour leavers. Things only started to slip once the leavers began fighting amongst themselves.
Categorically not true.
The first vote that the government lost was the Grieve amendment that created the Meaningful Vote in the first place.
The ERG opposed giving themselves a Meaningful Vote. Its thanks to Grieve, Soubry, Wollason etc that this impasse is happening!
I think we can take it as reasonable that MPs were never going to exclude themselves from the process.
Doesn't change that what you said wasn't true.
If it wasn't for 12 hardcore Tory Remainers, led by Grieve, the Meaningful Vote wouldn't be law. I think this deal would have been ratified and no deal wouldn't be happening by now.
It is thanks to Grieve, not Baker or Rees Mogg, that we're this close to Brexit Day still facing No Deal.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the meaningful vote achieved. All it's done is facilitate this phase where May can go back and ask for changes. If the meaningful vote wasn't in statute, parliament would still need to ratify the legislation, and with no majority for the backstop, we'd still be facing no deal.
Yes but without the Meaningful Vote, Parliament wouldn't be able to amend it to insert stuff like Cooper-Boles, so we could have a real deal or no deal choice. And Parliament could reject the ERGs no deal by backing the deal.
It is by keeping every fantasy option alive that we are so perilously close to no deal. And the ERG voted against that.
Hmm.... It appears that the response quoted was not aware of the utility of the response in Arkell-v-Pressdram. I blame the current state of education.
Labour, Lib Dems and assorted others were opposing because they put party over country. SNP are opposing because they don't want to be part of this country and chaos suits them. DUP oppose because it goes against their very core. Hardcore [former] Tory extremists like Soubry, Grieve et al oppose any deal.
So where are the votes to come from to see the WA over the line even if it was backed by Baker etc?
Maybe nowhere. Like I said, there's no point moaning at Mrs May: if the numbers don't add up, they don't add up. Even so, a hundred or so more Tory MPs voting in favour rather than against would have made it a hell of lot more attainable.
The first batch of amendments that came up, the government won - because the small number of determined Tory remainers were balanced off by determined Labour leavers. Things only started to slip once the leavers began fighting amongst themselves.
Categorically not true.
The first vote that the government lost was the Grieve amendment that created the Meaningful Vote in the first place.
The ERG opposed giving themselves a Meaningful Vote. Its thanks to Grieve, Soubry, Wollason etc that this impasse is happening!
I think we can take it as reasonable that MPs were never going to exclude themselves from the process.
Doesn't change that what you said wasn't true.
If it wasn't for 12 hardcore Tory Remainers, led by Grieve, the Meaningful Vote wouldn't be law. I think this deal would have been ratified and no deal wouldn't be happening by now.
It is thanks to Grieve, not Baker or Rees Mogg, that we're this close to Brexit Day still facing No Deal.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the meaningful vote achieved. All it's done is facilitate this phase where May can go back and ask for changes. If the meaningful vote wasn't in statute, parliament would still need to ratify the legislation, and with no majority for the backstop, we'd still be facing no deal.
Yes but without the Meaningful Vote, Parliament wouldn't be able to amend it to insert stuff like Cooper-Boles, so we could have a real deal or no deal choice. And Parliament could reject the ERGs no deal by backing the deal.
It is by keeping every fantasy option alive that we are so perilously close to no deal. And the ERG voted against that.
They simply voted to try and prevent our elected representatives having any say over how Brexit turned out. There is no honour in that, whatsoever.
Mr. L, if we end up remaining, that'll put rocket boosters under I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-UKIP. Between that and the Tiggers, politics might look quite different to a few years ago.
If TM capitulates on a second referendum , as a lifelong Tory voter , she will have lost my vote for life and I suspect many other leave voters who trusted the government to deliver on the referendum . It would destroy all faith in democracy in this country . The independent group are the referendum losers group They have no respect for the decision taken by 17.4 million voters to leave the EU. The betrayal of brexit is well under way.
Fine, do you have any better ideas given the parliamentary arithmetic?
The fact she is still messing around saying "its either my deal, or no deal, or no Brexit" is why she's in this conundrum. She's saying it hoping leavers hear "my deal or no Brexit" and remainers hear "my deal or no deal". But instead of course everyone can hear exactly what she's saying so remainers think "if I want no Brexit I need to reject this deal" and leavers think "if I think no deal is better than a bad deal I need to reject this deal".
Make it a binary choice - and Article 50 provides the options. We have a deal, if you want to take no deal off the table you have to accept it otherwise we will switch to solely preparing for no deal and that will be your choice.
That is not going to happen after next week when the HOC will take no deal off the table
They won't take no deal off the table, they can't. No amendment has yet been even proposed that will take no deal off the table.
Article 50 of the Treaties of the European Union is crystal clear. We leave automatically on 29 March [or whatever extension date is agreed] with no deal. Unless we agree a deal, or we revoke.
Unless or until Parliament is prepared to revoke, no deal remains firmly on the table. Only the date varies.
No deal will not happen
Are we going to ratify a deal or revoke?
Those are the only ways to take no deal off the table.
Extension for a deal referendum
Deal versus ... ?
A referendum needs two choices. Are you proposing deal yes or no? In which case no leads us back to here?
Give Parliament an ultimatum: My deal or no deal, your choice.
The fact she is still messing around saying "its either my deal, or no deal, or no Brexit" is why she's in this conundrum. She's saying it hoping leavers hear "my deal or no Brexit" and remainers hear "my deal or no deal". But instead of course everyone can hear exactly what she's saying so remainers think "if I want no Brexit I need to reject this deal" and leavers think "if I think no deal is better than a bad deal I need to reject this deal".
Make it a binary choice - and Article 50 provides the options. We have a deal, if you want to take no deal off the table you have to accept it otherwise we will switch to solely preparing for no deal and that will be your choice.
She's tried that, and she now has even fewer MPs to try to get it through.
No she hasn't. Even at the last vote she said it was "my deal or you risk no deal, or risk no Brexit".
That is like saying to a child "do you homework, or you risk having to go outside and play sport, or having to stay in your room and play computer games".
The reality is the deal is not what most MPs [outside payroll votes] want. They want to either go outside, or play inside. Those who want to go outside are hearing that's an option, those happy to stay inside are hearing that's an option.
The deal needs to be put as a binary choice and then Parliament needs to make a binary choice. Deal or no deal. Until that happens people will continue to reject the deal while still saying they oppose no deal.
Sorry to bring some reality into this, but she hasn't got the power to force MPs to vote between two options, as events since November have proven. I expect the Cooper amendment will pass next week.
And Parliament can’t instruct the executive on how to exercise the Royal Prerogative
Give Parliament an ultimatum: My deal or no deal, your choice.
The fact she is still messing around saying "its either my deal, or no deal, or no Brexit" is why she's in this conundrum. She's saying it hoping leavers hear "my deal or no Brexit" and remainers hear "my deal or no deal". But instead of course everyone can hear exactly what she's saying so remainers think "if I want no Brexit I need to reject this deal" and leavers think "if I think no deal is better than a bad deal I need to reject this deal".
Make it a binary choice - and Article 50 provides the options. We have a deal, if you want to take no deal off the table you have to accept it otherwise we will switch to solely preparing for no deal and that will be your choice.
She's tried that, and she now has even fewer MPs to try to get it through.
No she hasn't. Even at the last vote she said it was "my deal or you risk no deal, or risk no Brexit".
That is like saying to a child "do you homework, or you risk having to go outside and play sport, or having to stay in your room and play computer games".
The reality is the deal is not what most MPs [outside payroll votes] want. They want to either go outside, or play inside. Those who want to go outside are hearing that's an option, those happy to stay inside are hearing that's an option.
The deal needs to be put as a binary choice and then Parliament needs to make a binary choice. Deal or no deal. Until that happens people will continue to reject the deal while still saying they oppose no deal.
Sorry to bring some reality into this, but she hasn't got the power to force MPs to vote between two options, as events since November have proven. I expect the Cooper amendment will pass next week.
And Parliament can’t instruct the executive on how to exercise the Royal Prerogative
Give Parliament an ultimatum: My deal or no deal, your choice.
The fact she is still messing around saying "its either my deal, or no deal, or no Brexit" is why she's in this conundrum. She's saying it hoping leavers hear "my deal or no Brexit" and remainers hear "my deal or no deal". But instead of course everyone can hear exactly what she's saying so remainers think "if I want no Brexit I need to reject this deal" and leavers think "if I think no deal is better than a bad deal I need to reject this deal".
Make it a binary choice - and Article 50 provides the options. We have a deal, if you want to take no deal off the table you have to accept it otherwise we will switch to solely preparing for no deal and that will be your choice.
She's tried that, and she now has even fewer MPs to try to get it through.
No she hasn't. Even at the last vote she said it was "my deal or you risk no deal, or risk no Brexit".
That is like saying to a child "do you homework, or you risk having to go outside and play sport, or having to stay in your room and play computer games".
The reality is the deal is not what most MPs [outside payroll votes] want. They want to either go outside, or play inside. Those who want to go outside are hearing that's an option, those happy to stay inside are hearing that's an option.
The deal needs to be put as a binary choice and then Parliament needs to make a binary choice. Deal or no deal. Until that happens people will continue to reject the deal while still saying they oppose no deal.
Sorry to bring some reality into this, but she hasn't got the power to force MPs to vote between two options, as events since November have proven. I expect the Cooper amendment will pass next week.
And Parliament can’t instruct the executive on how to exercise the Royal Prerogative
Indeed. May can and should ignore the Cooper amendment if it passes.
Give Parliament an ultimatum: My deal or no deal, your choice.
The fact she is still messing around saying "its either my deal, or no deal, or no Brexit" is why she's in this conundrum. She's saying it hoping leavers hear "my deal or no Brexit" and remainers hear "my deal or no deal". But instead of course everyone can hear exactly what she's saying so remainers think "if I want no Brexit I need to reject this deal" and leavers think "if I think no deal is better than a bad deal I need to reject this deal".
Make it a binary choice - and Article 50 provides the options. We have a deal, if you want to take no deal off the table you have to accept it otherwise we will switch to solely preparing for no deal and that will be your choice.
She's tried that, and she now has even fewer MPs to try to get it through.
No she hasn't. Even at the last vote she said it was "my deal or you risk no deal, or risk no Brexit".
That is like saying to a child "do you homework, or you risk having to go outside and play sport, or having to stay in your room and play computer games".
The reality is the deal is not what most MPs [outside payroll votes] want. They want to either go outside, or play inside. Those who want to go outside are hearing that's an option, those happy to stay inside are hearing that's an option.
The deal needs to be put as a binary choice and then Parliament needs to make a binary choice. Deal or no deal. Until that happens people will continue to reject the deal while still saying they oppose no deal.
Sorry to bring some reality into this, but she hasn't got the power to force MPs to vote between two options, as events since November have proven. I expect the Cooper amendment will pass next week.
And Parliament can’t instruct the executive on how to exercise the Royal Prerogative
Parliament has frequently legislated to remove the royal prerogative (eg the Fixed Term Parliaments Act). Obviously it could do so again here if it thought fit.
Give Parliament an ultimatum: My deal or no deal, your choice.
The fact she is still messing around saying "its either my deal, or no deal, or no Brexit" is why she's in this conundrum. She's saying it hoping leavers hear "my deal or no Brexit" and remainers hear "my deal or no deal". But instead of course everyone can hear exactly what she's saying so remainers think "if I want no Brexit I need to reject this deal" and leavers think "if I think no deal is better than a bad deal I need to reject this deal".
Make it a binary choice - and Article 50 provides the options. We have a deal, if you want to take no deal off the table you have to accept it otherwise we will switch to solely preparing for no deal and that will be your choice.
She's tried that, and she now has even fewer MPs to try to get it through.
No she hasn't. Even at the last vote she said it was "my deal or you risk no deal, or risk no Brexit".
That is like saying to a child "do you homework, or you risk having to go outside and play sport, or having to stay in your room and play computer games".
The reality is the deal is not what most MPs [outside payroll votes] want. They want to either go outside, or play inside. Those who want to go outside are hearing that's an option, those happy to stay inside are hearing that's an option.
The deal needs to be put as a binary choice and then Parliament needs to make a binary choice. Deal or no deal. Until that happens people will continue to reject the deal while still saying they oppose no deal.
Sorry to bring some reality into this, but she hasn't got the power to force MPs to vote between two options, as events since November have proven. I expect the Cooper amendment will pass next week.
And Parliament can’t instruct the executive on how to exercise the Royal Prerogative
Parliament can construct an alternative executive if it refuses to listen.
Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
The point about not holding a passport is addressed in the SAIC decision I quoted before.
Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:- “If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."
TBH Corbyn will probably be onto a loser when the Daily Mail aren't attacking him.
So how popular do you think his stance is in the Labour heartlands, let alone marginals and Tory seats? I hope Jezza trumpets this particular policy from the rooftops, especially at election time.
My impression is that the initial "ISIS supporter, yuck, keep her out" reaction in the public has been softening as a result of the newborn baby and less inflammatory comments by Ms Begum, as well as genuine doubts about the wisdom of treating the nationality you're born with as being at the whim of the Home Office. Anyway, most of us Corbyn fans voted for him partly because he doesn't try to chase the Mail but simply says what he believes in. Sometimes it's annoying, or stubborn, or vote-losing, or simply mistaken, but it remains refreshing, and sometimes he's merely a bit ahead of where most of us end up. Cf. Iraq and PFI.
The penalty for stealing a first is to watch 37 repeats of Solo while eating pineapple pizza.
I prefer to think of it as a reward for editing PB this afternoon.
Watching Solo and eating pineapple pizza is a reward?
I thought you preferred the old dominatrices fro your, umm, more extreme rewards.
Six months worth of gardening leave sounds fun, the reality of it is somewhat different.
Go on the 6 week holiday you’ve always wanted to do. Hike the Andes. Be a cowboy in Montana. Sled with the huskies in Finland. Walk from Casablanca to Cairo.
You’ve got a job you are going to. Money shouldn’t be an issue. Kick back and have fun.
I've done that before.
Sadly family commitments prevent me from going anywhere.
Am mostly spending time in Cineworld and watching every boxset on Sky, Netflix, and Amazon Prime.
The penalty for stealing a first is to watch 37 repeats of Solo while eating pineapple pizza.
I prefer to think of it as a reward for editing PB this afternoon.
Watching Solo and eating pineapple pizza is a reward?
I thought you preferred the old dominatrices fro your, umm, more extreme rewards.
Six months worth of gardening leave sounds fun, the reality of it is somewhat different.
Go on the 6 week holiday you’ve always wanted to do. Hike the Andes. Be a cowboy in Montana. Sled with the huskies in Finland. Walk from Casablanca to Cairo.
You’ve got a job you are going to. Money shouldn’t be an issue. Kick back and have fun.
I've done that before.
Sadly family commitments prevent me from going anywhere.
Am mostly spending time in Cineworld and watching every boxset on Sky, Netflix, and Amazon Prime.
Oh and shopping.
Learn the piano. A new language. Remodel your garden. There must be tons of things you can do.
The penalty for stealing a first is to watch 37 repeats of Solo while eating pineapple pizza.
I prefer to think of it as a reward for editing PB this afternoon.
Watching Solo and eating pineapple pizza is a reward?
I thought you preferred the old dominatrices fro your, umm, more extreme rewards.
Six months worth of gardening leave sounds fun, the reality of it is somewhat different.
Go on the 6 week holiday you’ve always wanted to do. Hike the Andes. Be a cowboy in Montana. Sled with the huskies in Finland. Walk from Casablanca to Cairo.
You’ve got a job you are going to. Money shouldn’t be an issue. Kick back and have fun.
I've done that before.
Sadly family commitments prevent me from going anywhere.
Am mostly spending time in Cineworld and watching every boxset on Sky, Netflix, and Amazon Prime.
If TM capitulates on a second referendum , as a lifelong Tory voter , she will have lost my vote for life and I suspect many other leave voters who trusted the government to deliver on the referendum . It would destroy all faith in democracy in this country . The independent group are the referendum losers group They have no respect for the decision taken by 17.4 million voters to leave the EU. The betrayal of brexit is well under way.
Fine, do you have any better ideas given the parliamentary arithmetic?
She said that no deal was better than a bad deal.
Give Parliament an ultimatum: My deal or no deal, your choice.
The fact she is still messing around saying "its either my deal, or no deal, or no Brexit" is why she's in this conundrum. She's saying it hoping leavers hear "my deal or no Brexit" and remainers hear "my deal or no deal". But instead of course everyone can hear exactly what she's saying so remainers think "if I want no Brexit I need to reject this deal" and leavers think "if I think no deal is better than a bad deal I need to reject this deal".
Make it a binary choice - and Article 50 provides the options. We have a deal, if you want to take no deal off the table you have to accept it otherwise we will switch to solely preparing for no deal and that will be your choice.
That is not going to happen after next week when the HOC will take no deal off the table
They won't take no deal off the table, they can't. No amendment has yet been even proposed that will take no deal off the table.
Article 50 of the Treaties of the European Union is crystal clear. We leave automatically on 29 March [or whatever extension date is agreed] with no deal. Unless we agree a deal, or we revoke.
Unless or until Parliament is prepared to revoke, no deal remains firmly on the table. Only the date varies.
No deal will not happen
Are we going to ratify a deal or revoke?
Those are the only ways to take no deal off the table.
Extension for a deal referendum
You really do hate this country don't you. Either that or you are utterly deluded about what a second referendum will do to us.
Mr. L, if we end up remaining, that'll put rocket boosters under I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-UKIP. Between that and the Tiggers, politics might look quite different to a few years ago.
We might get PR as well? Better and better.
I think PR is going to become irresistible if end up with so many fragmented parties. The irony of our politics going all continental on us.
The penalty for stealing a first is to watch 37 repeats of Solo while eating pineapple pizza.
I prefer to think of it as a reward for editing PB this afternoon.
Watching Solo and eating pineapple pizza is a reward?
I thought you preferred the old dominatrices fro your, umm, more extreme rewards.
Six months worth of gardening leave sounds fun, the reality of it is somewhat different.
Go on the 6 week holiday you’ve always wanted to do. Hike the Andes. Be a cowboy in Montana. Sled with the huskies in Finland. Walk from Casablanca to Cairo.
You’ve got a job you are going to. Money shouldn’t be an issue. Kick back and have fun.
I've done that before.
Sadly family commitments prevent me from going anywhere.
Am mostly spending time in Cineworld and watching every boxset on Sky, Netflix, and Amazon Prime.
Oh and shopping.
Learn the piano. A new language. Remodel your garden. There must be tons of things you can do.
I already speak enough languages, the garden was remodelled in 2013.
The thing is all my friends are working.
I cannot believe people aren't prepared to use their holiday allowance/take unpaid leave for my benefit.
Her changing her tune is just a reaction to the righteous contempt her words and deeds have provoked. She's just trying to get back in to sponge off the system, a system she held in such low esteem she flew a thousand miles to escape, preferring the prisoner-burning, child-crucifying, Yazidi-slaughtering lunatics of ISIS.
A baby isn't a get out of jail free card.
Edited extra bit: first line sounded a bit passive aggressive, sorry. I meant only that maybe that's the case where you are, but I haven't seen any sign of opinion softening towards Little Miss ISIS.
Give Parliament an ultimatum: My deal or no deal, your choice.
The fact she is still messing around saying "its either my deal, or no deal, or no Brexit" is why she's in this conundrum. She's saying it hoping leavers hear "my deal or no Brexit" and remainers hear "my deal or no deal". But instead of course everyone can hear exactly what she's saying so remainers think "if I want no Brexit I need to reject this deal" and leavers think "if I think no deal is better than a bad deal I need to reject this deal".
Make it a binary choice - and Article 50 provides the options. We have a deal, if you want to take no deal off the table you have to accept it otherwise we will switch to solely preparing for no deal and that will be your choice.
She's tried that, and she now has even fewer MPs to try to get it through.
No she hasn't. Even at the last vote she said it was "my deal or you risk no deal, or risk no Brexit".
That is like saying to a child "do you homework, or you risk having to go outside and play sport, or having to stay in your room and play computer games".
The reality is the deal is not what most MPs [outside payroll votes] want. They want to either go outside, or play inside. Those who want to go outside are hearing that's an option, those happy to stay inside are hearing that's an option.
The deal needs to be put as a binary choice and then Parliament needs to make a binary choice. Deal or no deal. Until that happens people will continue to reject the deal while still saying they oppose no deal.
Sorry to bring some reality into this, but she hasn't got the power to force MPs to vote between two options, as events since November have proven. I expect the Cooper amendment will pass next week.
And Parliament can’t instruct the executive on how to exercise the Royal Prerogative
Parliament has frequently legislated to remove the royal prerogative (eg the Fixed Term Parliaments Act). Obviously it could do so again here if it thought fit.
It may but it would need a separate piece of primary legislation.
Well, if those who pushed for Leave don't like Leave, then why on earth should those who wanted to Remain continue to go along with it?
Except almost every formerly-Remain Tory is still going along with it. Because its a very soft Brexit.
The opposition is coming from hardcore extreme Remain Tories who number less than a dozen and aren't shifted by the ERG, and the opposition benches who are playing party politics or have their own priorities.
Remain Tories are remaining remarkably loyal by and large.
There were a couple of dozen Labour MPs who opposed Cooper-Boles I who might be persuadable to break ranks to support the Deal had it been supported by the ERG and only required a small push to take it over the line.
Also, if the vote were likely to be close there would be immense pressure on Tory soft Remainers to support the Deal. By opposing the deal the ERG made it easy for everyone else to do so too.
This is what people don't understand. The ERG voting against the deal gave licesnse for Labour to vote against the deal, despite accusations of putting party before country. If May couldn't even persuade her own party, why on earth, is a legitimate line of thinking, should the opposition support her.
Yep. Idiots.
It goes further than that. Imagine, if you will, that Labour had decided to support the deal (or abstain). The deal would have been passed on the votes of Remain-voting MPs, with those MPs that had voted Leave having voted against it by something like 4:1. The deal would immediately have had no legitimacy with the Leave fraternity, who would to a man have labelled it a Remainers' Brexit.
With that in mind, why should Remain-voting MPs have set themselves up to be labelled quislings to implement a deal that they already thought was a pile of dog poo?
If TM capitulates on a second referendum , as a lifelong Tory voter , she will have lost my vote for life and I suspect many other leave voters who trusted the government to deliver on the referendum . It would destroy all faith in democracy in this country . The independent group are the referendum losers group They have no respect for the decision taken by 17.4 million voters to leave the EU. The betrayal of brexit is well under way.
Fine, do you have any better ideas given the parliamentary arithmetic?
She said that no deal was better than a bad deal.
Give Parliament an ultimatum: My deal or no deal, your choice.
The fact she is still messing around saying "its either my deal, or no deal, or no Brexit" is why she's in this conundrum. She's saying it hoping leavers hear "my deal or no Brexit" and remainers hear "my deal or no deal". But instead of course everyone can hear exactly what she's saying so remainers think "if I want no Brexit I need to reject this deal" and leavers think "if I think no deal is better than a bad deal I need to reject this deal".
Make it a binary choice - and Article 50 provides the options. We have a deal, if you want to take no deal off the table you have to accept it otherwise we will switch to solely preparing for no deal and that will be your choice.
That is not going to happen after next week when the HOC will take no deal off the table
They won't take no deal off the table, they can't. No amendment has yet been even proposed that will take no deal off the table.
Article 50 of the Treaties of the European Union is crystal clear. We leave automatically on 29 March [or whatever extension date is agreed] with no deal. Unless we agree a deal, or we revoke.
Unless or until Parliament is prepared to revoke, no deal remains firmly on the table. Only the date varies.
No deal will not happen
Are we going to ratify a deal or revoke?
Those are the only ways to take no deal off the table.
Extension for a deal referendum
You really do hate this country don't you. Either that or you are utterly deluded about what a second referendum will do to us.
Well, if those who pushed for Leave don't like Leave, then why on earth should those who wanted to Remain continue to go along with it?
Except almost every formerly-Remain Tory is still going along with it. Because its a very soft Brexit.
The opposition is coming from hardcore extreme Remain Tories who number less than a dozen and aren't shifted by the ERG, and the opposition benches who are playing party politics or have their own priorities.
Remain Tories are remaining remarkably loyal by and large.
There were a couple of dozen Labour MPs who opposed Cooper-Boles I who might be persuadable to break ranks to support the Deal had it been supported by the ERG and only required a small push to take it over the line.
Also, if the vote were likely to be close there would be immense pressure on Tory soft Remainers to support the Deal. By opposing the deal the ERG made it easy for everyone else to do so too.
This is what people don't understand. The ERG voting against the deal gave licesnse for Labour to vote against the deal, despite accusations of putting party before country. If May couldn't even persuade her own party, why on earth, is a legitimate line of thinking, should the opposition support her.
Yep. Idiots.
It goes further than that. Imagine, if you will, that Labour had decided to support the deal (or abstain). The deal would have been passed on the votes of Remain-voting MPs, with those MPs that had voted Leave having voted against it by something like 4:1. The deal would immediately have had no legitimacy with the Leave fraternity, who would to a man have labelled it a Remainers' Brexit.
With that in mind, why should Remain-voting MPs have set themselves up to be labelled quislings to implement a deal that they already thought was a pile of dog poo?
The position of the ERG was completely irrational and I refuse to defend it. But those elected on an undertaking to implement Brexit (the vast majority of the House) had obligations too.
Well, if those who pushed for Leave don't like Leave, then why on earth should those who wanted to Remain continue to go along with it?
Except almost every formerly-Remain Tory is still going along with it. Because its a very soft Brexit.
The opposition is coming from hardcore extreme Remain Tories who number less than a dozen and aren't shifted by the ERG, and the opposition benches who are playing party politics or have their own priorities.
Remain Tories are remaining remarkably loyal by and large.
There were a couple of dozen Labour MPs who opposed Cooper-Boles I who might be persuadable to break ranks to support the Deal had it been supported by the ERG and only required a small push to take it over the line.
Also, if the vote were likely to be close there would be immense pressure on Tory soft Remainers to support the Deal. By opposing the deal the ERG made it easy for everyone else to do so too.
This is what people don't understand. The ERG voting against the deal gave licesnse for Labour to vote against the deal, despite accusations of putting party before country. If May couldn't even persuade her own party, why on earth, is a legitimate line of thinking, should the opposition support her.
Yep. Idiots.
It goes further than that. Imagine, if you will, that Labour had decided to support the deal (or abstain). The deal would have been passed on the votes of Remain-voting MPs, with those MPs that had voted Leave having voted against it by something like 4:1. The deal would immediately have had no legitimacy with the Leave fraternity, who would to a man have labelled it a Remainers' Brexit.
With that in mind, why should Remain-voting MPs have set themselves up to be labelled quislings to implement a deal that they already thought was a pile of dog poo?
The position of the ERG was completely irrational and I refuse to defend it. But those elected on an undertaking to implement Brexit (the vast majority of the House) had obligations too.
Nicely avoiding the point. A deal that is going to stick needs substantial support among Leavers. This one doesn't have it.
If TM capitulates on a second referendum , as a lifelong Tory voter , she will have lost my vote for life and I suspect many other leave voters who trusted the government to deliver on the referendum . It would destroy all faith in democracy in this country . The independent group are the referendum losers group They have no respect for the decision taken by 17.4 million voters to leave the EU. The betrayal of brexit is well under way.
Fine, do you have any better ideas given the parliamentary arithmetic?
She said that no deal was better than a bad deal.
Give Parliament an ultimatum: My deal or no deal, your choice.
The fact she is still messing around saying "its either my deal, or no deal, or no Brexit" is why she's in this conundrum. She's saying it hoping leavers hear "my deal or no Brexit" and remainers hear "my deal or no deal". But instead of course everyone can hear exactly what she's saying so remainers think "if I want no Brexit I need to reject this deal" and leavers think "if I think no deal is better than a bad deal I need to reject this deal".
Make it a binary choice - and Article 50 provides the options. We have a deal, if you want to take no deal off the table you have to accept it otherwise we will switch to solely preparing for no deal and that will be your choice.
That is not going to happen after next week when the HOC will take no deal off the table
They won't take no deal off the table, they can't. No amendment has yet been even proposed that will take no deal off the table.
Article 50 of the Treaties of the European Union is crystal clear. We leave automatically on 29 March [or whatever extension date is agreed] with no deal. Unless we agree a deal, or we revoke.
Unless or until Parliament is prepared to revoke, no deal remains firmly on the table. Only the date varies.
No deal will not happen
Are we going to ratify a deal or revoke?
Those are the only ways to take no deal off the table.
Extension for a deal referendum
You really do hate this country don't you. Either that or you are utterly deluded about what a second referendum will do to us.
I agree Richard the last thing we want is the electorate voting again.
Leavers? No Socialist Remainers? No Students? No Partisan party haters? No
It’s like Blair trying to get elected without the Labour brand. Would never have happened. Lefties who hate Tories would worry they’re letting in the enemy by splitting the vote and vice versa. What they have to offer is a menu that whets the appetite of a very narrow band of wealthy metropolitans who are put out by the great unwashed having voted against the status quo a couple of times.
Her changing her tune is just a reaction to the righteous contempt her words and deeds have provoked. She's just trying to get back in to sponge off the system, a system she held in such low esteem she flew a thousand miles to escape, preferring the prisoner-burning, child-crucifying, Yazidi-slaughtering lunatics of ISIS.
A baby isn't a get out of jail free card.
Edited extra bit: first line sounded a bit passive aggressive, sorry. I meant only that maybe that's the case where you are, but I haven't seen any sign of opinion softening towards Little Miss ISIS.
Yes, I read it like that, no aggression inferred! You may be right - I'd guess that most people are still agin, but not quite the overwhelming initial majority.
Well, if those who pushed for Leave don't like Leave, then why on earth should those who wanted to Remain continue to go along with it?
Except almost every formerly-Remain Tory is still going along with it. Because its a very soft Brexit.
The opposition is coming from hardcore extreme Remain Tories who number less than a dozen and aren't shifted by the ERG, and the opposition benches who are playing party politics or have their own priorities.
Remain Tories are remaining remarkably loyal by and large.
There were a couple of dozen Labour MPs who opposed Cooper-Boles I who might be persuadable to break ranks to support the Deal had it been supported by the ERG and only required a small push to take it over the line.
Also, if the vote were likely to be close there would be immense pressure on Tory soft Remainers to support the Deal. By opposing the deal the ERG made it easy for everyone else to do so too.
This is what people don't understand. The ERG voting against the deal gave licesnse for Labour to vote against the deal, despite accusations of putting party before country. If May couldn't even persuade her own party, why on earth, is a legitimate line of thinking, should the opposition support her.
Yep. Idiots.
It goes further than that. Imagine, if you will, that Labour had decided to support the deal (or abstain). The deal would have been passed on the votes of Remain-voting MPs, with those MPs that had voted Leave having voted against it by something like 4:1. The deal would immediately have had no legitimacy with the Leave fraternity, who would to a man have labelled it a Remainers' Brexit.
With that in mind, why should Remain-voting MPs have set themselves up to be labelled quislings to implement a deal that they already thought was a pile of dog poo?
Because this is a Remainers Brexit, negotiated by our Remain backing Civil Service and our Remainer PM.
Its not as if it came as a shock that Leavers opposed this, multiple Leave-backing Brexit Secretaries resigned in protest before the WA was closed.
If TM capitulates on a second referendum , as a lifelong Tory voter , she will have lost my vote for life and I suspect many other leave voters who trusted the government to deliver on the referendum . It would destroy all faith in democracy in this country . The independent group are the referendum losers group They have no respect for the decision taken by 17.4 million voters to leave the EU. The betrayal of brexit is well under way.
Fine, do you have any better ideas given the parliamentary arithmetic?
She said that no deal was better than a bad deal.
Give Parliament an ultimatum: My deal or no deal, your choice.
The fact she is still messing around saying "its either my deal, or no deal, or no Brexit" is why she's in this conundrum. She's saying it hoping leavers hear "my deal or no Brexit" and remainers hear "my deal or no deal". But instead of course everyone can hear exactly what she's saying so remainers think "if I want no Brexit I need to reject this deal" and leavers think "if I think no deal is better than a bad deal I need to reject this deal".
Make it a binary choice - and Article 50 provides the options. We have a deal, if you want to take no deal off the table you have to accept it otherwise we will switch to solely preparing for no deal and that will be your choice.
That is not going to happen after next week when the HOC will take no deal off the table
They won't take no deal off the table, they can't. No amendment has yet been even proposed that will take no deal off the table.
Article 50 of the Treaties of the European Union is crystal clear. We leave automatically on 29 March [or whatever extension date is agreed] with no deal. Unless we agree a deal, or we revoke.
Unless or until Parliament is prepared to revoke, no deal remains firmly on the table. Only the date varies.
No deal will not happen
Are we going to ratify a deal or revoke?
Those are the only ways to take no deal off the table.
Extension for a deal referendum
You really do hate this country don't you. Either that or you are utterly deluded about what a second referendum will do to us.
You really do have a low opinion of your fellow travellers don't you.
Its a pretty good letter to be fair. Not that I am a great fan of writing letters for publication. It reminds me of the depressingly aggressive and pointless letters I used to get from certain agents which were clearly written to be copied to the client.
Give Parliament an ultimatum: My deal or no deal, your choice.
The fact she is still messing around saying "its either my deal, or no deal, or no Brexit" is why she's in this conundrum. She's saying it hoping leavers hear "my deal or no Brexit" and remainers hear "my deal or no deal". But instead of course everyone can hear exactly what she's saying so remainers think "if I want no Brexit I need to reject this deal" and leavers think "if I think no deal is better than a bad deal I need to reject this deal".
Make it a binary choice - and Article 50 provides the options. We have a deal, if you want to take no deal off the table you have to accept it otherwise we will switch to solely preparing for no deal and that will be your choice.
She's tried that, and she now has even fewer MPs to try to get it through.
No she hasn't. Even at the last vote she said it was "my deal or you risk no deal, or risk no Brexit".
That is like saying to a child "do you homework, or you risk having to go outside and play sport, or having to stay in your room and play computer games".
The reality is the deal is not what most MPs [outside payroll votes] want. They want to either go outside, or play inside. Those who want to go outside are hearing that's an option, those happy to stay inside are hearing that's an option.
The deal needs to be put as a binary choice and then Parliament needs to make a binary choice. Deal or no deal. Until that happens people will continue to reject the deal while still saying they oppose no deal.
Sorry to bring some reality into this, but she hasn't got the power to force MPs to vote between two options, as events since November have proven. I expect the Cooper amendment will pass next week.
And Parliament can’t instruct the executive on how to exercise the Royal Prerogative
But we're taking back control.
Yes.
The government governs The legislature legislated
The clue is in the names
The problems we have is because parliament has decided not to sack the government but wants to usurp their powers instead
I agree Richard the last thing we want is the electorate voting again.
I would be very happy for them to vote again once we have enacted the result of the first vote. Indeed I would see it as a positive idea to have a confirmatory referendum 5 years after we have left to test whether people are satisfied or wish to reapply for membership. The important point is that we enact the result of one referendum before we vote again.
Give Parliament an ultimatum: My deal or no deal, your choice.
The fact she is still messing around saying "its either my deal, or no deal, or no Brexit" is why she's in this conundrum. She's saying it hoping leavers hear "my deal or no Brexit" and remainers hear "my deal or no deal". But instead of course everyone can hear exactly what she's saying so remainers think "if I want no Brexit I need to reject this deal" and leavers think "if I think no deal is better than a bad deal I need to reject this deal".
Make it a binary choice - and Article 50 provides the options. We have a deal, if you want to take no deal off the table you have to accept it otherwise we will switch to solely preparing for no deal and that will be your choice.
She's tried that, and she now has even fewer MPs to try to get it through.
No she hasn't. Even at the last vote she said it was "my deal or you risk no deal, or risk no Brexit".
That is like saying to a child "do you homework, or you risk having to go outside and play sport, or having to stay in your room and play computer games".
The reality is the deal is not what most MPs [outside payroll votes] want. They want to either go outside, or play inside. Those who want to go outside are hearing that's an option, those happy to stay inside are hearing that's an option.
The deal needs to be put as a binary choice and then Parliament needs to make a binary choice. Deal or no deal. Until that happens people will continue to reject the deal while still saying they oppose no deal.
Sorry to bring some reality into this, but she hasn't got the power to force MPs to vote between two options, as events since November have proven. I expect the Cooper amendment will pass next week.
And Parliament can’t instruct the executive on how to exercise the Royal Prerogative
Parliament can construct an alternative executive if it refuses to listen.
Absolutely it can. So far it has chosen not to, but that is its right
Give Parliament an ultimatum: My deal or no deal, your choice.
The fact she is still messing around saying "its either my deal, or no deal, or no Brexit" is why she's in this conundrum. She's saying it hoping leavers hear "my deal or no Brexit" and remainers hear "my deal or no deal". But instead of course everyone can hear exactly what she's saying so remainers think "if I want no Brexit I need to reject this deal" and leavers think "if I think no deal is better than a bad deal I need to reject this deal".
Make it a binary choice - and Article 50 provides the options. We have a deal, if you want to take no deal off the table you have to accept it otherwise we will switch to solely preparing for no deal and that will be your choice.
She's tried that, and she now has even fewer MPs to try to get it through.
No she hasn't. Even at the last vote she said it was "my deal or you risk no deal, or risk no Brexit".
That is like saying to a child "do you homework, or you risk having to go outside and play sport, or having to stay in your room and play computer games".
The reality is the deal is not what most MPs [outside payroll votes] want. They want to either go outside, or play inside. Those who want to go outside are hearing that's an option, those happy to stay inside are hearing that's an option.
The deal needs to be put as a binary choice and then Parliament needs to make a binary choice. Deal or no deal. Until that happens people will continue to reject the deal while still saying they oppose no deal.
Sorry to bring some reality into this, but she hasn't got the power to force MPs to vote between two options, as events since November have proven. I expect the Cooper amendment will pass next week.
And Parliament can’t instruct the executive on how to exercise the Royal Prerogative
Parliament has frequently legislated to remove the royal prerogative (eg the Fixed Term Parliaments Act). Obviously it could do so again here if it thought fit.
I’d need to look into the niceties but I would be very surprised if that could be done as a private members bill - ie it would need to be proposed by the executive
If TM capitulates on a second referendum , as a lifelong Tory voter , she will have lost my vote for life and I suspect many other leave voters who trusted the government to deliver on the referendum . It would destroy all faith in democracy in this country . The independent group are the referendum losers group They have no respect for the decision taken by 17.4 million voters to leave the EU. The betrayal of brexit is well under way.
Fine, do you have any better ideas given the parliamentary arithmetic?
She said that no deal was better than a bad deal.
Give Parliament an ultimatum: My deal or no deal, your choice.
The fact she is still messing around saying "its either my deal, or no deal, or no Brexit" is why she's in this conundrum. She's saying it hoping leavers hear "my deal or no Brexit" and remainers hear "my deal or no deal". But instead of course everyone can hear exactly what she's saying so remainers think "if I want no Brexit I need to reject this deal" and leavers think "if I think no deal is better than a bad deal I need to reject this deal".
Make it a binary choice - and Article 50 provides the options. We have a deal, if you want to take no deal off the table you have to accept it otherwise we will switch to solely preparing for no deal and that will be your choice.
That is not going to happen after next week when the HOC will take no deal off the table
They won't take no deal off the table, they can't. No amendment has yet been even proposed that will take no deal off the table.
Article 50 of the Treaties of the European Union is crystal clear. We leave automatically on 29 March [or whatever extension date is agreed] with no deal. Unless we agree a deal, or we revoke.
Unless or until Parliament is prepared to revoke, no deal remains firmly on the table. Only the date varies.
No deal will not happen
Are we going to ratify a deal or revoke?
Those are the only ways to take no deal off the table.
Extension for a deal referendum
You really do hate this country don't you. Either that or you are utterly deluded about what a second referendum will do to us.
There were a couple of dozen Labour MPs who opposed Cooper-Boles I who might be persuadable to break ranks to support the Deal had it been supported by the ERG and only required a small push to take it over the line.
Also, if the vote were likely to be close there would be immense pressure on Tory soft Remainers to support the Deal. By opposing the deal the ERG made it easy for everyone else to do so too.
This is what people don't understand. The ERG voting against the deal gave licesnse for Labour to vote against the deal, despite accusations of putting party before country. If May couldn't even persuade her own party, why on earth, is a legitimate line of thinking, should the opposition support her.
Yep. Idiots.
It goes further than that. Imagine, if you will, that Labour had decided to support the deal (or abstain). The deal would have been passed on the votes of Remain-voting MPs, with those MPs that had voted Leave having voted against it by something like 4:1. The deal would immediately have had no legitimacy with the Leave fraternity, who would to a man have labelled it a Remainers' Brexit.
With that in mind, why should Remain-voting MPs have set themselves up to be labelled quislings to implement a deal that they already thought was a pile of dog poo?
The position of the ERG was completely irrational and I refuse to defend it. But those elected on an undertaking to implement Brexit (the vast majority of the House) had obligations too.
Nicely avoiding the point. A deal that is going to stick needs substantial support among Leavers. This one doesn't have it.
I don't disagree with the first part of that. It does have the support of Gove and Fox but it could certainly do with more high profile leavers sticking their heads above the parapet.
Leavers? No Socialist Remainers? No Students? No Partisan party haters? No
It’s like Blair trying to get elected without the Labour brand. Would never have happened. Lefties who hate Tories would worry they’re letting in the enemy by splitting the vote and vice versa. What they have to offer is a menu that whets the appetite of a very narrow band of wealthy metropolitans who are put out by the great unwashed having voted against the status quo a couple of times.
R4 says basically the same deal is coming back for MV3 next Wednesday
The question is: has Theresa managed to bend Rees-Mogg to her will with that nonsense about the 'Malthouse Compromise'? From his recent pronouncements, it sounds as if he's been suckered good and proper. So perhaps he and his merry men can finally be whipped to heel.
Policy made up to appease the baying mob is not good policy .
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
Are you claiming that Brits living in this country who don't own a passport as they haven't travelled aren't citizens?
Passports are eligible to citizens, owning a passport doesn't make you a citizen. Either you're a citizen or not (or eligible to become one) but that is neither here nor there to owning a passport.
Bangladeshi law seems to be clear that she is a citizen until her 21st birthday jus sanguinis. In which case, the law is the law.
Do you object that she's not a Bangladeshi citizen? In which case that's not Javid's legal advice.
Or do you object even if she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
I agree Richard the last thing we want is the electorate voting again.
I would be very happy for them to vote again once we have enacted the result of the first vote. Indeed I would see it as a positive idea to have a confirmatory referendum 5 years after we have left to test whether people are satisfied or wish to reapply for membership. The important point is that we enact the result of one referendum before we vote again.
If people dont like Brexit now they see it, it would obviously be sensible to avoid the damage of pointless transition and to retain our current very favourable terms by having the confirmatory vote now.
I agree Richard the last thing we want is the electorate voting again.
I would be very happy for them to vote again once we have enacted the result of the first vote. Indeed I would see it as a positive idea to have a confirmatory referendum 5 years after we have left to test whether people are satisfied or wish to reapply for membership. The important point is that we enact the result of one referendum before we vote again.
Why do people think that not having a referendum is denying people a voice, when the voice from the last one hasn’t been listened to yet?
Maybe we should grant another referendum, so long as people understand we are leaving anyway whatever the result?
I agree Richard the last thing we want is the electorate voting again.
I would be very happy for them to vote again once we have enacted the result of the first vote. Indeed I would see it as a positive idea to have a confirmatory referendum 5 years after we have left to test whether people are satisfied or wish to reapply for membership. The important point is that we enact the result of one referendum before we vote again.
Do you disagree with Douglas Carswell and Daniel Hannan’s idea of a veto referendum initiated by citizens?
Centrist non-party candidates could be very successful at the ballot box. Of course there's no such thing as a non-party party though, so I imagine that eventually it'll merge with the LibDems.
Comments
Also, if the vote were likely to be close there would be immense pressure on Tory soft Remainers to support the Deal. By opposing the deal the ERG made it easy for everyone else to do so too.
Are you suggesting the Mail made up his comments?
Javid is so desperate to look good to the Tory Membership that he’d even deport his own grannie to get into No 10.
I have zero sympathy for Begam however the law is the law . Using his logic anyone with foreign links could end up in the same position .
Unless she currently holds a Bangladeshi passport then she is not a dual national , many Brits have the possibility of dual nationality through either parents or grandparents but unless they have taken officially dual nationality then they have only one nationality .
The problem is just as with human rights they are there to protect us all , sometimes they do protect nasty people but we accept that imperfection for the greater good.
Sadly just as in judgements from the ECHR the right wing media helped along by some politicians seek to dupe the masses into thinking a government unchecked is a good thing .
As it gets close the deadline, the more tangible binary choice is between no deal and revocation, given that a deal would most likely need an extension to allow time to pass the legislation.
Not quite. Revocation requires a number of things: willingness for Tories to risk political suicide, legislation passed through all stages to stop the 29th March clock, enough other MPs to take some risk too. None of these are nailed on. Whereas common sense says that if an extension is needed for the explicit purpose of enacting what is necessary for the WA - already agreed by both parties - to be implemented the European Council will agree.
Therefore, I suggest, the binary choice is TM's deal or no deal.
The EU listening to the UK [and May standing up for the UK] and replacing the backstop as Parliament voted for on 29th March would make it a hell of a lot more attainable. All bar one ERG MP voted for the deal in principle if the EU does that, plus the DUP. That way lies a majority.
ERG simply buckling under and swallowing what they hate doesn't.
Those are the only ways to take no deal off the table.
The first vote that the government lost was the Grieve amendment that created the Meaningful Vote in the first place.
The ERG opposed giving themselves a Meaningful Vote. Its thanks to Grieve, Soubry, Wollason etc that this impasse is happening!
https://twitter.com/jegteg/status/1098309678025592833
But what I strongly suspect is that 'evidence based' is just bullshit jargon for 'we won't do anything to frighten the horses'.
Which is absolutely fair enough. Many people do not want lots of change and many more say that they do but don't really. Defence of the status quo is a very respectable position to take and it ought to be represented. The IG will serve a useful purpose by doing so, and who knows how far they might go with it. Only 10/1 to win the next election.
But let us not pretend that this is something new and exciting, something more than it is. We can safely leave that to Chuka.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/21/rachel-riley-and-tracy-ann-oberman-to-take-legal-action-after-twitter-abuse-antisemitism
They wont like it up 'em sir.
If it wasn't for 12 hardcore Tory Remainers, led by Grieve, the Meaningful Vote wouldn't be law. I think this deal would have been ratified and no deal wouldn't be happening by now.
It is thanks to Grieve, not Baker or Rees Mogg, that we're this close to Brexit Day still facing No Deal.
A referendum needs two choices. Are you proposing deal yes or no? In which case no leads us back to here?
Or deal versus revoke?
Or a three-option referendum or something else?
The headline says: "Jeremy Corbyn says Shamima Begum SHOULD be let back into Britain and 'given our support' after ISIS bride was stripped of UK citizenship"
But the article quotes Corbyn as saying: "She was born in Britain, she has that right to remain in Britain and obviously a lot of questions she has to answer but also some support that she needs."
The only word that's a direct quote is "support".
I know that headlines are a precis and you can take occasional liberties (heaven knows I wrote enough headlines in my magazine editor days), but the Mail is playing fast and loose here. I can understand the "given", which is implicit in the sentence, but the "our" is particularly egregious given that Corbyn expressly qualifies "support" with "some".
Bloody hell, I'm defending Corbyn. I may need to go and lie down.
You’ve got a job you are going to. Money shouldn’t be an issue. Kick back and have fun.
It is by keeping every fantasy option alive that we are so perilously close to no deal. And the ERG voted against that.
Mr Larkin’s second statement also exhibits an e-mail dated 6 November 2017 from a member of the British High Commission in Bangladesh. This states that their Honorary Legal Adviser, who is also a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, has confirmed that:-
“If you’re a dual British-Bangladeshi national you will be considered by the Bangladesh Government to be a Bangladeshi citizen, even if you don’t hold or have never held, a Bangladeshi passport and were born outside Bangladesh."
Sadly family commitments prevent me from going anywhere.
Am mostly spending time in Cineworld and watching every boxset on Sky, Netflix, and Amazon Prime.
Oh and shopping.
The thing is all my friends are working.
I cannot believe people aren't prepared to use their holiday allowance/take unpaid leave for my benefit.
Her changing her tune is just a reaction to the righteous contempt her words and deeds have provoked. She's just trying to get back in to sponge off the system, a system she held in such low esteem she flew a thousand miles to escape, preferring the prisoner-burning, child-crucifying, Yazidi-slaughtering lunatics of ISIS.
A baby isn't a get out of jail free card.
Edited extra bit: first line sounded a bit passive aggressive, sorry. I meant only that maybe that's the case where you are, but I haven't seen any sign of opinion softening towards Little Miss ISIS.
With that in mind, why should Remain-voting MPs have set themselves up to be labelled quislings to implement a deal that they already thought was a pile of dog poo?
Won't this be MV2?
Leavers? No
Socialist Remainers? No
Students? No
Partisan party haters? No
It’s like Blair trying to get elected without the Labour brand. Would never have happened. Lefties who hate Tories would worry they’re letting in the enemy by splitting the vote and vice versa. What they have to offer is a menu that whets the appetite of a very narrow band of wealthy metropolitans who are put out by the great unwashed having voted against the status quo a couple of times.
Its not as if it came as a shock that Leavers opposed this, multiple Leave-backing Brexit Secretaries resigned in protest before the WA was closed.
You'll be entertained, I'll be (modestly) enriched. Everyone's a winner!
The government governs
The legislature legislated
The clue is in the names
The problems we have is because parliament has decided not to sack the government but wants to usurp their powers instead
Passports are eligible to citizens, owning a passport doesn't make you a citizen. Either you're a citizen or not (or eligible to become one) but that is neither here nor there to owning a passport.
Bangladeshi law seems to be clear that she is a citizen until her 21st birthday jus sanguinis. In which case, the law is the law.
Do you object that she's not a Bangladeshi citizen? In which case that's not Javid's legal advice.
Or do you object even if she is a Bangladeshi citizen?
Maybe we should grant another referendum, so long as people understand we are leaving anyway whatever the result?