As I have to keep repeating to people clearly too dumb to understand, democracy is not just about asking the question. It is about enacting the reply. Otherwise it counts for nothing. Henceforth we will be able to say that any alternative action is legitimate as we no longer live in a democracy.
That sort of offensiveness does you no favours whatever. Enacting the result of as advisory referendum means considering the advice. We have had three years to consider the effects of leaving. If you claim that you foresaw in 2016 that we would be where we are now in 2019, i don't believe you because i don't believe anyone could be evil and stupid enough to have campaigned for leave on that basis. The facts have changed; let's give ourselves the option of changing our minds.
You want the rules to be such that when the dice have fallen in your favour no further play is possible. I can see why you would want that, but just stop dressing it up in pompous flimflam about honour and democracy.
He's been at it for months. The reality is that pushing through such a self defeating change on the back of a single vote on merely the principle three years prior, without giving people any chance to say whether we like it now we see it, would be profoundly undemocratic.
Chris Sutton on the big story today … "Kepa should never play for Chelsea again. that should be his last performance in a Chelsea shirt. He's a disgrace. I've never seen anything like it."
It's received 54 up votes and 6 down votes.
Sarri is in line for a massive pay-off, so he'll toe the party line. I suspect Chelsea's reputation to sink deeper in the mire.
All the advantages of the WA, without the small inconvenince of needing a vote. In practice much the same only we are in pretending to be out, rather than out pretending to be in. Dec 20 still at 32 on BFEx.
That way May could hold votes on her Deal every month right up until nearly the next general election
May will have less authority than Mauricio Sarri if she does that !
The Commons clearly will have kicked the can down the road too and with no clear idea of what follows either
By moving the vote to 12 March and not later May wants the Cooper Letwin vote to pass . Of course she won’t say this out loud .
That amendment wouldn’t instruct May to seek an extension till the 13 th.
So effectively MPs wouldn’t have removed the no deal till after the deal vote. Even if she gives some subtle reassurance on Tuesday about accepting the will of parliament she clearly ignored the previous one on no deal and any MP believing a word she says is deluded .
All the advantages of the WA, without the small inconvenince of needing a vote. In practice much the same only we are in pretending to be out, rather than out pretending to be in. Dec 20 still at 32 on BFEx.
That way May could hold votes on her Deal every month right up until nearly the next general election
And, I believe, the first rumoured route that wins William his bet with Sean?
Quite possibly but I doubt it will be full revoke or EUref2, more like extension leading to BINO unless the ERG falls in line as the Deal is still better for them than that
I think I naively thought at the time that the once per generation rule could only apply in the event of a Remain vote, because if you vote leave you then promptly leave and there you are with a fait accompli. I do accept the point that if a referendum goes against you you can't rerun it 3 months later, but here we are three years down the road with leaving turning out to be 100 x worse than anyone expected in 2016. It is just incoherent to pretend that supporting the 2016 result against a 2019 one is a democratic position, because what you are saying is that the electorate is capable of making up its mind but absolutely incapable of changing it, even when the facts change.
Well my view is that it was a mistake to ask the public to make a decision that they are ill equipped to make.
However it happened and they did make a decision. A stupid one but a clear one. Given that the government plus all serious political parties plus business plus the unions were all arguing for the status quo, and that the status quo in any case has an innate advantage, that 52% to leave represented a very definitive result.
Now given that the public were ill equipped to decide whether to leave they are even less equipped to decide HOW we leave. That has to be decided by parliament. Which is where we are.
What parliament must not do having funked it once and abdicated responsibility to the ill equipped public is to go and do the very same thing again with a REF2. It would be truly pathetic.
All the advantages of the WA, without the small inconvenince of needing a vote. In practice much the same only we are in pretending to be out, rather than out pretending to be in. Dec 20 still at 32 on BFEx.
That way May could hold votes on her Deal every month right up until nearly the next general election
And, I believe, the first rumoured route that wins William his bet with Sean?
Remind me: what are the parameters of the bet? I remember the amount (£1000 down from the original £10000) but not the crystallization date (March 29? March 30? Dec 31?) nor the method of settlement.
Blair’s defenestration was something of a dubious victory for the wider Labour Party?
Possibly. But Gordon Brown is a colossus by comparison with his successors, both as Labour leader and, with the possible exception of Cameron, as PM.
HUH,, Brown was a colossal disaster as PM.
Yes - he was. But it looks as if May will rival with him.
He was a better leader of Labour though than either Milliband or Corbyn.
Labour voteshare and Seats
Brown 29% 258
Miliband 30% 232
Corbyn 40% 262
You could argue Brown was a better statesman than Miliband or Corbyn but he was certainly a worse leader for Labour than Corbyn and outside the Celtic fringe than Miliband too (Brown won 191 seats in England to 206 for Miliband)
All the advantages of the WA, without the small inconvenince of needing a vote. In practice much the same only we are in pretending to be out, rather than out pretending to be in. Dec 20 still at 32 on BFEx.
That way May could hold votes on her Deal every month right up until nearly the next general election
And, I believe, the first rumoured route that wins William his bet with Sean?
Remind me: what are the parameters of the bet? I remember the amount (£1000 down from the original £10000) but not the crystallization date (March 29? March 30? Dec 31?) nor the method of settlement.
The date was December 31st 2019. We agreed the bet before Article 50 was invoked.
All the advantages of the WA, without the small inconvenince of needing a vote. In practice much the same only we are in pretending to be out, rather than out pretending to be in. Dec 20 still at 32 on BFEx.
That way May could hold votes on her Deal every month right up until nearly the next general election
And, I believe, the first rumoured route that wins William his bet with Sean?
Quite possibly but I doubt it will be full revoke or EUref2, more like extension leading to BINO unless the ERG falls in line as the Deal is still better for them than that
There is no possibly about it. The route being suggested with a 21 month extension would mean that we are members of the EU in December. So William would win. The first time any way forward has been hinted at which would result in such.
As I have to keep repeating to people clearly too dumb to understand, democracy is not just about asking the question. It is about enacting the reply. Otherwise it counts for nothing. Henceforth we will be able to say that any alternative action is legitimate as we no longer live in a democracy.
That sort of offensiveness does you no favours whatever. Enacting the result of as advisory referendum means considering the advice. We have had three years to consider the effects of leaving. If you claim that you foresaw in 2016 that we would be where we are now in 2019, i don't believe you because i don't believe anyone could be evil and stupid enough to have campaigned for leave on that basis. The facts have changed; let's give ourselves the option of changing our minds.
You want the rules to be such that when the dice have fallen in your favour no further play is possible. I can see why you would want that, but just stop dressing it up in pompous flimflam about honour and democracy.
He's been at it for months. The reality is that pushing through such a self defeating change on the back of a single vote on merely the principle three years prior, without giving people any chance to say whether we like it now we see it, would be profoundly undemocratic.
Well of course it would. If I say that I would like a pint of bitter, no, actually make that Guinness, I don't expect the barman to start frothing at the mouth and yelling that he INTENDS TO HONOUR THE BITTER MANDATE.
The truth is that we don't have a framework of rules for referendums. We probably should have, burr we don't, and making them up on the spot to suit your own case doesn't really work. We do have such rules in cognate situations, one of them being that parliament cannot bind its successors. More astute students than Mr Tyndall will appreciate the need for such a rule and the desirability of extending it to say, nor can the electorate.
I think I naively thought at the time that the once per generation rule could only apply in the event of a Remain vote, because if you vote leave you then promptly leave and there you are with a fait accompli. I do accept the point that if a referendum goes against you you can't rerun it 3 months later, but here we are three years down the road with leaving turning out to be 100 x worse than anyone expected in 2016. It is just incoherent to pretend that supporting the 2016 result against a 2019 one is a democratic position, because what you are saying is that the electorate is capable of making up its mind but absolutely incapable of changing it, even when the facts change.
Well my view is that it was a mistake to ask the public to make a decision that they are ill equipped to make.
However it happened and they did make a decision. A stupid one but a clear one. Given that the government plus all serious political parties plus business plus the unions were all arguing for the status quo, and that the status quo in any case has an innate advantage, that 52% to leave represented a very definitive result.
Now given that the public were ill equipped to decide whether to leave they are even less equipped to decide HOW we leave. That has to be decided by parliament. Which is where we are.
What parliament must not do having funked it once and abdicated responsibility to the ill equipped public is to go and do the very same thing again with a REF2. It would be truly pathetic.
Ok, but don't go saying there are limits to democracy and claim that saying so proves that you are more democratic and honourable than everyone else.
As I have to keep repeating to people clearly too dumb to understand, democracy is not just about asking the question. It is about enacting the reply. Otherwise it counts for nothing. Henceforth we will be able to say that any alternative action is legitimate as we no longer live in a democracy.
That sort of offensiveness does you no favours whatever. Enacting the result of as advisory referendum means considering the advice. We have had three years to consider the effects of leaving. If you claim that you foresaw in 2016 that we would be where we are now in 2019, i don't believe you because i don't believe anyone could be evil and stupid enough to have campaigned for leave on that basis. The facts have changed; let's give ourselves the option of changing our minds.
You want the rules to be such that when the dice have fallen in your favour no further play is possible. I can see why you would want that, but just stop dressing it up in pompous flimflam about honour and democracy.
He's been at it for months. The reality is that pushing through such a self defeating change on the back of a single vote on merely the principle three years prior, without giving people any chance to say whether we like it now we see it, would be profoundly undemocratic.
Well of course it would. If I say that I would like a pint of bitter, no, actually make that Guinness, I don't expect the barman to start frothing at the mouth and yelling that he INTENDS TO HONOUR THE BITTER MANDATE.
The truth is that we don't have a framework of rules for referendums. We probably should have, burr we don't, and making them up on the spot to suit your own case doesn't really work. We do have such rules in cognate situations, one of them being that parliament cannot bind its successors. More astute students than Mr Tyndall will appreciate the need for such a rule and the desirability of extending it to say, nor can the electorate.
Tyndall knows precisely what he is doing. They know 2016 was won on a fluke and are petrified at giving people any more say over the matter.
To be fair with your analogy, if the drink was poured and you then declared you weren't thirsty, I doubt said barman would be very pleased. But none of these golf club/divorce/buying a car/pickyourown analogies shed any useful insight on the matter in the first place.
A nice simile, but wrong. It's more like we've decided to order a jug of beer to share and we've taken a vote and decided on Bitter. Half-way through pouring it, one of the people comes back to the bar and says "As it wasn't unanimous, we think you should add gin too to appease the spirt drinkers."
"You what? Who decided that?"
"The people who lost the original vote. Give them an hour or two and we might be able to persuade enough of them to change because they're very thirsty."
By moving the vote to 12 March and not later May wants the Cooper Letwin vote to pass . Of course she won’t say this out loud .
Makes about as much sense as anything else in this farce. She's practically asking for rebellion.
Like I said below, she desperately needs an extension, but needs someone else's fingerprints on it. Preferably lots of people's, other than hers.
The irony is that Mrs May as actual PM has finished in precisely the same position as Boris as wannabe PM started - pretending to believe in Brexit whilst relying on (and praying for) it never to come to pass.
That depends on a resurgent Farage Brexit Party taking Tory Leaver votes and maybe a few Labour Leave votes too, Corbyn also faces his own splits with TIG taking Labour Remainer votes unless he commits to EUref2
I think if there is a pre Brexit GE the Lab manifesto will have REF2. And it might win it for them.
Get Remain via Corbyn. Get Corbyn if you want Remain.
I know it sounds odd but I can see it panning out this way.
As I have to keep repeating to people clearly too dumb to understand, democracy is not just about asking the question. It is about enacting the reply. Otherwise it counts for nothing. Henceforth we will be able to say that any alternative action is legitimate as we no longer live in a democracy.
That sort of offensiveness does you no favours whatever. Enacting the result of as advisory referendum means considering the advice. We have had three years to consider the effects of leaving. If you claim that you foresaw in 2016 that we would be where we are now in 2019, i don't believe you because i don't believe anyone could be evil and stupid enough to have campaigned for leave on that basis. The facts have changed; let's give ourselves the option of changing our minds.
You want the rules to be such that when the dice have fallen in your favour no further play is possible. I can see why you would want that, but just stop dressing it up in pompous flimflam about honour and democracy.
He's been at it for months. The reality is that pushing through such a self defeating change on the back of a single vote on merely the principle three years prior, without giving people any chance to say whether we like it now we see it, would be profoundly undemocratic.
Well of course it would. If I say that I would like a pint of bitter, no, actually make that Guinness, I don't expect the barman to start frothing at the mouth and yelling that he INTENDS TO HONOUR THE BITTER MANDATE.
The truth is that we don't have a framework of rules for referendums. We probably should have, burr we don't, and making them up on the spot to suit your own case doesn't really work. We do have such rules in cognate situations, one of them being that parliament cannot bind its successors. More astute students than Mr Tyndall will appreciate the need for such a rule and the desirability of extending it to say, nor can the electorate.
Richard is a smart bloke, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be a passenger in a car he was driving.
'Er, Richard, you know when I told you to turn left back there.....I think I made a mistake and it should have been right.' 'Well that may be so, Peter, but you made your decision and we need to follow it through to its conclusion. ' 'But Richard, that's a cliff edge we are heading towards.' 'Well, it may be and when we have gone over it and can't go any further we can perhaps go back and try the other route.......' 'RICHARD!!!!!!!!!!!........'
All the advantages of the WA, without the small inconvenince of needing a vote. In practice much the same only we are in pretending to be out, rather than out pretending to be in. Dec 20 still at 32 on BFEx.
I’m curious why the EU is in favour of this. The people we will end up sending to the European Parliament will make UKIP look like the WI.
It will also be extremely damaging to the Tory Party’s standing in the opinion polls. Surely May knows that?
I think that if we have MEPs then Remain parties will do very well. UKIP MEPs are just punch and judy entertainment.
21 months is to the end of the budget cycle, and allows both a solution to the Backstop (such as permanent CU) to be negotiated, and of course a #peoplesvote.
Just a suggestion. Why not call it a second referendum rather than the silly 'peoples vote'
They should stick to 'confirmatory referendum'.
#FinalSay
Wasn't the vote in 2016 supposed to be the final say?
It might have been if the leavers had ever been able to agree on what it meant.
The leavers have agreed. Its the pesky Europeans and Remainers who don't agree.
(Seriously if you took a vote of just leave-backing MPs then this would be far simpler, but Remain MPs and the EU Commission and 27 other European nations have to agree too)
Perhaps you need to let Gove and Fox and Johnson and Mogg in what it is that they have agreed on because last time I checked they were advocating quite different courses of action
Gove and fox cant even agree on the no deal tariffs.
As I have to keep repeating to people clearly too dumb to understand, democracy is not just about asking the question. It is about enacting the reply. Otherwise it counts for nothing. Henceforth we will be able to say that any alternative action is legitimate as we no longer live in a democracy.
That sort of offensiveness does you no favours whatever. Enacting the result of as advisory referendum means considering the advice. We have had three years to consider the effects of leaving. If you claim that you foresaw in 2016 that we would be where we are now in 2019, i don't believe you because i don't believe anyone could be evil and stupid enough to have campaigned for leave on that basis. The facts have changed; let's give ourselves the option of changing our minds.
You want the rules to be such that when the dice have fallen in your favour no further play is possible. I can see why you would want that, but just stop dressing it up in pompous flimflam about honour and democracy.
And if remain had won and subsequent EU treaties changed the dynamics of our relationship the remainers would be onboard with another referendum because the situation had changed?
Do you really think that any jerrymandering away the referendum result will be acceptable to the British public? It's a very serious question. In retrospect, you might think it was inadvisable to ask the people directly, but having done so, it can't be brushed aside without a backlash.
It's no longer about whether we stay or go (it will make little real difference to me) but it's about the deep and long-lasting resentment it will cause. Don't let your deep enthusiasm for a cause blind you to the inevitable consequences.
I've always had a healthy cynicism for politicians, but this would take it to a new level.
As I have to keep repeating to people clearly too dumb to understand, democracy is not just about asking the question. It is about enacting the reply. Otherwise it counts for nothing. Henceforth we will be able to say that any alternative action is legitimate as we no longer live in a democracy.
That sort of offensiveness does you no favours whatever. Enacting the result of as advisory referendum means considering the advice. We have had three years to consider the effects of leaving. If you claim that you foresaw in 2016 that we would be where we are now in 2019, i don't believe you because i don't believe anyone could be evil and stupid enough to have campaigned for leave on that basis. The facts have changed; let's give ourselves the option of changing our minds.
You want the rules to be such that when the dice have fallen in your favour no further play is possible. I can see why you would want that, but just stop dressing it up in pompous flimflam about honour and democracy.
He's been at it for months. The reality is that pushing through such a self defeating change on the back of a single vote on merely the principle three years prior, without giving people any chance to say whether we like it now we see it, would be profoundly undemocratic.
Well of course it would. If I say that I would like a pint of bitter, no, actually make that Guinness, I don't expect the barman to start frothing at the mouth and yelling that he INTENDS TO HONOUR THE BITTER MANDATE.
The truth is that we don't have a framework of rules for referendums. We probably should have, burr we don't, and making them up on the spot to suit your own case doesn't really work. We do have such rules in cognate situations, one of them being that parliament cannot bind its successors. More astute students than Mr Tyndall will appreciate the need for such a rule and the desirability of extending it to say, nor can the electorate.
Richard is a smart bloke, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be a passenger in a car he was driving.
'Er, Richard, you know when I told you to turn left back there.....I think I made a mistake and it should have been right.' 'Well that may be so, Peter, but you made your decision and we need to follow it through to its conclusion. ' 'But Richard, that's a cliff edge we are heading towards.' 'Well, it may be and when we have gone over it and can't go any further we can perhaps go back and try the other route.......' 'RICHARD!!!!!!!!!!!........'
LOL, very good. Of course, just like the spoon there is no cliff.
That depends on a resurgent Farage Brexit Party taking Tory Leaver votes and maybe a few Labour Leave votes too, Corbyn also faces his own splits with TIG taking Labour Remainer votes unless he commits to EUref2
I think if there is a pre Brexit GE the Lab manifesto will have REF2. And it might win it for them.
Get Remain via Corbyn. Get Corbyn if you want Remain.
I know it sounds odd but I can see it panning out this way.
That would rely on May's Deal passing then the DUP voting down the government and Corbyn committing to EUref2 with a Remain option and weakening the TIG vote while some Tory Leavers move to Farage's new Brexit Party.
However I don't think the Deal passing will see major Tory to UKIP/Farage's new Brexit Party leakage unlike the Tories revoking Brexit which would and the Deal passing is also better for Tory fortunes longer term than the economic damage of No Deal.
Of course if Corbyn backs EUref2 he also risks turning off voters in Labour Leave seats
There needs to be a martyr for R2 or revoking A50 but, despite there being a majority in parliament for either happening, the remainers don’t have the guts to collectively front up and do it.
They want May to do it for them and I don’t blame her one bit for not playing their game,
As I have to keep repeating to people clearly too dumb to understand, democracy is not just about asking the question. It is about enacting the reply. Otherwise it counts for nothing. Henceforth we will be able to say that any alternative action is legitimate as we no longer live in a democracy.
That sort of offensiveness does you no favours whatever. Enacting the result of as advisory referendum means considering the advice. We have had three years to consider the effects of leaving. If you claim that you foresaw in 2016 that we would be where we are now in 2019, i don't believe you because i don't believe anyone could be evil and stupid enough to have campaigned for leave on that basis. The facts have changed; let's give ourselves the option of changing our minds.
You want the rules to be such that when the dice have fallen in your favour no further play is possible. I can see why you would want that, but just stop dressing it up in pompous flimflam about honour and democracy.
And if remain had won and subsequent EU treaties changed the dynamics of our relationship the remainers would be onboard with another referendum because the situation had changed?
Pull the other one.
I don't know, I'm not a passionate remainer (though i voted that way). I would expect a major Lisbon scale rewriting of the constitution to give rise to a referendum, but an accept or reject the changes one rather than in/out, but who knows?
Do you really think that any jerrymandering away the referendum result will be acceptable to the British public? It's a very serious question. In retrospect, you might think it was inadvisable to ask the people directly, but having done so, it can't be brushed aside without a backlash.
It's no longer about whether we stay or go (it will make little real difference to me) but it's about the deep and long-lasting resentment it will cause. Don't let your deep enthusiasm for a cause blind you to the inevitable consequences.
I've always had a healthy cynicism for politicians, but this would take it to a new level.
Ken Clarke, I believe, set out what would be the honorable and sensible way forward from here, but it involved Parliament admitting it made a mistake in offering in the first place a referendum in which the Leave option was inoperable. We should suspend A50 for, say, five years while genuine Leavers (JRM et al) work out a proper programme to take us out of the EU. They then submit that to the electorate in a referendum where everyone has a very clear idea of what Leave means, and the process through which it will be effected.
Taint gonna happen of course, but that would be the right way to do it.
Mrs May isn't a natural or a good politician but she has a better feeling for consequences than others who can only see their own point of view. She was a Remain voter, remember.
Going ahead with something she thinks could be disadvantageous is better than thwarting it and reaping something she knows will be disadvantageous.
Do you really think that any jerrymandering away the referendum result will be acceptable to the British public? It's a very serious question. In retrospect, you might think it was inadvisable to ask the people directly, but having done so, it can't be brushed aside without a backlash.
It's no longer about whether we stay or go (it will make little real difference to me) but it's about the deep and long-lasting resentment it will cause. Don't let your deep enthusiasm for a cause blind you to the inevitable consequences.
I've always had a healthy cynicism for politicians, but this would take it to a new level.
The fact of the matter is the parliamentarians have tied us more and more into the eu with no mandate asked for. Those anti eu have been derided and pooh poohed for many years and been called fruit cakes and loons....even on this site prior to the referendum various people said the eu isnt something people care about.
The vote happened and people unexpectedly voted to leave. I think regardless of which side you were on I can see their point. They were denied a vote for decades the moment the vote goes their way its "Oh we should have another vote because this time we think we should win it"
Thanks Tez and Jez, I had to rebuild my Brexit-we’re-fucked-up-o-meter, it blew up again today. How she can delay until 20 odd days out and still claim to be governing in the national interest is quite beyond me.
There needs to be a martyr for R2 or revoking A50 but, despite there being a majority in parliament for either happening, the remainers don’t have the guts to collectively front up and do it.
They want May to do it for them and I don’t blame her one bit for not playing their game,
Too true. Brexit is a tar-baby. Nobody wants it sticking to them.
Ok but don't go saying there are limits to democracy and claim that saying so proves that you are more democratic and honourable than everyone else.
Would not dream of it. In fact as I said my argument against REF2 is the same as my argument against REF1. Both are big mistakes but the only one we can avoid is the one that has not yet happened.
No they wouldn't. You know damn well that the 'once in a generation' quote would have been all over the place and the issue would be considered 'settled' for the foreseeable future.
Now you want to abandon that principle completely. You will not like what you reap.
No I don't, I've said we should leave, even with no deal.
Apologies you have. You at least have honour in this debate.
That also means you can, with an absolutely clear conscience, start campaigning for us to rejoin the day after we leave.
Nah. You get neither the right to define democracy nor honour.
Well you wouldn't know the meaning of either so I can ignore your dubious contribution.
By moving the vote to 12 March and not later May wants the Cooper Letwin vote to pass . Of course she won’t say this out loud .
Makes about as much sense as anything else in this farce. She's practically asking for rebellion.
You saw what the activists insisted on yesterday. No brexit or even a long delay isn’t going to play well with them. No leader of any party in history could deny this Conservative party membership and its leave voter base the brexit it existentially needs. All the column inches from so called pundits claiming she could, all the posts on here saying she can, all bloody naive. She can’t. She wont. It is her deal or no deal.
Impact of the no deal bogey man all bigged up anyway, especially in the mid and long term. It’s about time someone called it out. The horrendous earth shattering impact of no deal is completely bigged up. It will be brexit and it wont be the end of the world.
No deal brexit is the new normal. It’s coming in less than five weeks. Get used to it.
We're had forty years to consider the operation of the EU and its direction. That's why it's taking some time to disentangle from it. The main complaints about leaving are the Hotel California defence. It's too difficult, the EU isn't helping (no surprise there) and so we have to stay in.
Adding another five years of entanglement is obviously the solution? Do you assume the EU will stand still in that time? If so, I've some expensive beans you might like to buy.
As I have to keep repeating to people clearly too dumb to understand, democracy is not just about asking the question. It is about enacting the reply. Otherwise it counts for nothing. Henceforth we will be able to say that any alternative action is legitimate as we no longer live in a democracy.
That sort of offensiveness does you no favours whatever. Enacting the result of as advisory referendum means considering the advice. We have had three years to consider the effects of leaving. If you claim that you foresaw in 2016 that we would be where we are now in 2019, i don't believe you because i don't believe anyone could be evil and stupid enough to have campaigned for leave on that basis. The facts have changed; let's give ourselves the option of changing our minds.
You want the rules to be such that when the dice have fallen in your favour no further play is possible. I can see why you would want that, but just stop dressing it up in pompous flimflam about honour and democracy.
Nothing of any significance has changed. That is the great lie that the Remainers keep spouting but no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true.
And you need to seriously consider the consequences of claiming that democracy is something that can be ignored by the politicians. Once you head down that road then all democratic legitimacy disappears. If this vote is ignored then we will feel perfectly at liberty to ignore any vote in the future.
Do you really think that any jerrymandering away the referendum result will be acceptable to the British public? It's a very serious question. In retrospect, you might think it was inadvisable to ask the people directly, but having done so, it can't be brushed aside without a backlash.
It's no longer about whether we stay or go (it will make little real difference to me) but it's about the deep and long-lasting resentment it will cause. Don't let your deep enthusiasm for a cause blind you to the inevitable consequences.
I've always had a healthy cynicism for politicians, but this would take it to a new level.
Ken Clarke, I believe, set out what would be the honorable and sensible way forward from here, but it involved Parliament admitting it made a mistake in offering in the first place a referendum in which the Leave option was inoperable. We should suspend A50 for, say, five years while genuine Leavers (JRM et al) work out a proper programme to take us out of the EU. They then submit that to the electorate in a referendum where everyone has a very clear idea of what Leave means, and the process through which it will be effected.
Taint gonna happen of course, but that would be the right way to do it.
That can't happen - the mandate has to be delivered for good long term democratic reasons. But - and this is being too much underplayed at the moment - the moment we leave (29 March or whenever) the mandate of the referendum is done with. It is then completely legitimate to agitate for whatever further political action people, groups and parties would like. AND THEY WILL. This can include Rejoin, FTA, Norway or affirming TMs deal (which looks like a peculiar hybrid and is a set of proposals which will raise a huge number of really difficult questions).
Assuming there is a WA, Rejoin would be a real runner as it would be a new deal in law but would actually be mostly continuity. Expect it to start soon.
Add to that the strength this gives to Scottish Independence, a reordering of Irish arrangements (about time too) and even Welsh issues it won't be dull.
As a result all betting on related subjects is like predicting Foinavon's Grand National. Use a pin.
All the advantages of the WA, without the small inconvenince of needing a vote. In practice much the same only we are in pretending to be out, rather than out pretending to be in. Dec 20 still at 32 on BFEx.
I’m curious why the EU is in favour of this. The people we will end up sending to the European Parliament will make UKIP look like the WI.
It will also be extremely damaging to the Tory Party’s standing in the opinion polls. Surely May knows that?
I think that if we have MEPs then Remain parties will do very well. UKIP MEPs are just punch and judy entertainment.
21 months is to the end of the budget cycle, and allows both a solution to the Backstop (such as permanent CU) to be negotiated, and of course a #peoplesvote.
Just a suggestion. Why not call it a second referendum rather than the silly 'peoples vote'
They should stick to 'confirmatory referendum'.
#FinalSay
Wasn't the vote in 2016 supposed to be the final say?
It might have been if the leavers had ever been able to agree on what it meant.
The leavers have agreed. Its the pesky Europeans and Remainers who don't agree.
(Seriously if you took a vote of just leave-backing MPs then this would be far simpler, but Remain MPs and the EU Commission and 27 other European nations have to agree too)
Perhaps you need to let Gove and Fox and Johnson and Mogg in what it is that they have agreed on because last time I checked they were advocating quite different courses of action
Gove and fox cant even agree on the no deal tariffs.
When we no deal brexit in five weeks can we agree on here the right way to go with tariffs? Tariffs to protect producers (Gove) zero tariffs to protect consumers (fox)?
As I have to keep repeating to people clearly too dumb to understand, democracy is not just about asking the question. It is about enacting the reply. Otherwise it counts for nothing. Henceforth we will be able to say that any alternative action is legitimate as we no longer live in a democracy.
That sort of offensiveness does you no favours whatever. Enacting the result of as advisory referendum means considering the advice. We have had three years to consider the effects of leaving. If you claim that you foresaw in 2016 that we would be where we are now in 2019, i don't believe you because i don't believe anyone could be evil and stupid enough to have campaigned for leave on that basis. The facts have changed; let's give ourselves the option of changing our minds.
You want the rules to be such that when the dice have fallen in your favour no further play is possible. I can see why you would want that, but just stop dressing it up in pompous flimflam about honour and democracy.
Nothing of any significance has changed. That is the great lie that the Remainers keep spouting but no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true.
And you need to seriously consider the consequences of claiming that democracy is something that can be ignored by the politicians. Once you head down that road then all democratic legitimacy disappears. If this vote is ignored then we will feel perfectly at liberty to ignore any vote in the future.
You've always been at liberty to oppose the outcome of democratic votes, and have frequently done so.
As I have to keep repeating to people clearly too dumb to understand, democracy is not just about asking the question. It is about enacting the reply. Otherwise it counts for nothing. Henceforth we will be able to say that any alternative action is legitimate as we no longer live in a democracy.
That sort of offensiveness does you no favours whatever. Enacting the result of as advisory referendum means considering the advice. We have had three years to consider the effects of leaving. If you claim that you foresaw in 2016 that we would be where we are now in 2019, i don't believe you because i don't believe anyone could be evil and stupid enough to have campaigned for leave on that basis. The facts have changed; let's give ourselves the option of changing our minds.
You want the rules to be such that when the dice have fallen in your favour no further play is possible. I can see why you would want that, but just stop dressing it up in pompous flimflam about honour and democracy.
He's been at it for months. The reality is that pushing through such a self defeating change on the back of a single vote on merely the principle three years prior, without giving people any chance to say whether we like it now we see it, would be profoundly undemocratic.
Well of course it would. If I say that I would like a pint of bitter, no, actually make that Guinness, I don't expect the barman to start frothing at the mouth and yelling that he INTENDS TO HONOUR THE BITTER MANDATE.
The truth is that we don't have a framework of rules for referendums. We probably should have, burr we don't, and making them up on the spot to suit your own case doesn't really work. We do have such rules in cognate situations, one of them being that parliament cannot bind its successors. More astute students than Mr Tyndall will appreciate the need for such a rule and the desirability of extending it to say, nor can the electorate.
Richard is a smart bloke, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be a passenger in a car he was driving.
'Er, Richard, you know when I told you to turn left back there.....I think I made a mistake and it should have been right.' 'Well that may be so, Peter, but you made your decision and we need to follow it through to its conclusion. ' 'But Richard, that's a cliff edge we are heading towards.' 'Well, it may be and when we have gone over it and can't go any further we can perhaps go back and try the other route.......' 'RICHARD!!!!!!!!!!!........'
That would rely on May's Deal passing then the DUP voting down the government and Corbyn committing to EUref2 with a Remain option and weakening the TIG vote while some Tory Leavers move to Farage's new Brexit Party.
However I don't think the Deal passing will see major Tory to UKIP/Farage's new Brexit Party leakage unlike the Tories revoking Brexit which would and the Deal passing is also better for Tory fortunes longer term than the economic damage of No Deal.
Of course if Corbyn backs EUref2 he also risks turning off voters in Labour Leave seats
Alternative scenario -
Deal does not pass and she calls the GE as her best last resort - prefers it to Revoke or REF2 or adopting Labour BINO.
All the advantages of the WA, without the small inconvenince of needing a vote. In practice much the same only we are in pretending to be out, rather than out pretending to be in. Dec 20 still at 32 on BFEx.
I’m curious why the EU is in favour of this. The people we will end up sending to the European Parliament will make UKIP look like the WI.
It will also be extremely damaging to the Tory Party’s standing in the opinion polls. Surely May knows that?
I think that if we have MEPs then Remain parties will do very well. UKIP MEPs are just punch and judy entertainment.
21 months is to the end of the budget cycle, and allows both a solution to the Backstop (such as permanent CU) to be negotiated, and of course a #peoplesvote.
Just a suggestion. Why not call it a second referendum rather than the silly 'peoples vote'
They should stick to 'confirmatory referendum'.
#FinalSay
Wasn't the vote in 2016 supposed to be the final say?
It might have been if the leavers had ever been able to agree on what it meant.
The leavers have agreed. Its the pesky Europeans and Remainers who don't agree.
(Seriously if you took a vote of just leave-backing MPs then this would be far simpler, but Remain MPs and the EU Commission and 27 other European nations have to agree too)
Perhaps you need to let Gove and Fox and Johnson and Mogg in what it is that they have agreed on because last time I checked they were advocating quite different courses of action
Gove and fox cant even agree on the no deal tariffs.
When we no deal brexit in five weeks can we agree on here the right way to go with tariffs? Tariffs to protect producers (Gove) zero tariffs to protect consumers (fox)?
Unilaterally abandoning tarrifs and quotas would give us the weakest possible trade negotiation position. Why would any country reciprocate?
In any case, Gove is right, people voted Leave in order to protect their way of life from predatory foreign interests, not to sell out to them.
All the advantages of the WA, without the small inconvenince of needing a vote. In practice much the same only we are in pretending to be out, rather than out pretending to be in. Dec 20 still at 32 on BFEx.
I’m curious why the EU is in favour of this. The people we will end up sending to the European Parliament will make UKIP look like the WI.
It will also be extremely damaging to the Tory Party’s standing in the opinion polls. Surely May knows that?
I think that if we have MEPs then Remain parties will do very well. UKIP MEPs are just punch and judy entertainment.
21 months is to the end of the budget cycle, and allows both a solution to the Backstop (such as permanent CU) to be negotiated, and of course a #peoplesvote.
Just a suggestion. Why not call it a second referendum rather than the silly 'peoples vote'
They should stick to 'confirmatory referendum'.
#FinalSay
Wasn't the vote in 2016 supposed to be the final say?
It might have been if the leavers had ever been able to agree on what it meant.
The leavers have agreed. Its the pesky Europeans and Remainers who don't agree.
(Seriously if you took a vote of just leave-backing MPs then this would be far simpler, but Remain MPs and the EU Commission and 27 other European nations have to agree too)
Perhaps you need to let Gove and Fox and Johnson and Mogg in what it is that they have agreed on because last time I checked they were advocating quite different courses of action
Gove and fox cant even agree on the no deal tariffs.
When we no deal brexit in five weeks can we agree on here the right way to go with tariffs? Tariffs to protect producers (Gove) zero tariffs to protect consumers (fox)?
Maximum tariffs are essential to ensure other countries have a reason to want to sign a trade deal with us
Begging the question, how long is a generation? It is not defined, thus can be validly debated, but I don't think that 3 years is in the range of defensible answers.
He did not say HUMAN generation. He was clearly referring to fruitflies.
It will also be extremely damaging to the Tory Party’s standing in the opinion polls. Surely May knows that?
as permanent CU) to be negotiated, and of course a #peoplesvote.
Just a suggestion. Why not call it a second referendum rather than the silly 'peoples vote'
They should stick to 'confirmatory referendum'.
#FinalSay
Wasn't the vote in 2016 supposed to be the final say?
It might have been if the leavers had ever been able to agree on what it meant.
The leavers have agreed. Its the pesky Europeans and Remainers who don't agree.
(Seriously if you took a vote of just leave-backing MPs then this would be far simpler, but Remain MPs and the EU Commission and 27 other European nations have to agree too)
Perhaps you need to let Gove and Fox and Johnson and Mogg in what it is that they have agreed on because last time I checked they were advocating quite different courses of action
Gove and fox cant even agree on the no deal tariffs.
When we no deal brexit in five weeks can we agree on here the right way to go with tariffs? Tariffs to protect producers (Gove) zero tariffs to protect consumers (fox)?
We have no choice on day one. They have to be CET or we face a potential challenge at the WTO. This means that tariffs for 50% of goods are zero and 30% are less than 2%. I would argue that having a 2% tariff is a waste of time and the EU only has them because they collect 80% of the money but bear zero costs of the collection. So remove all these. That basically leaves 3 areas food, cars and textiles where tariffs are over 10%.
Going forward we have time. They should be changed according to the strategic interests of the country.
All the advantages of the WA, without the small inconvenince of needing a vote. In practice much the same only we are in pretending to be out, rather than out pretending to be in. Dec 20 still at 32 on BFEx.
I’m curious why the EU is in favour of this. The people we will end up sending to the European Parliament will make UKIP look like the WI.
It will also be extremely damaging to the Tory Party’s standing in the opinion polls. Surely May knows that?
rse a #peoplesvote.
Just a suggestion. Why not call it a second referendum rather than the silly 'peoples vote'
They should stick to 'confirmatory referendum'.
#FinalSay
Wasn't the vote in 2016 supposed to be the final say?
It might have been if the leavers had ever been able to agree on what it meant.
The leavers have agreed. Its the pesky Europeans and Remainers who don't agree.
(Seriously if you took a vote of just leave-backing MPs then this would be far simpler, but Remain MPs and the EU Commission and 27 other European nations have to agree too)
Perhaps you need to let Gove and Fox and Johnson and Mogg in what it is that they have agreed on because last time I checked they were advocating quite different courses of action
Gove and fox cant even agree on the no deal tariffs.
When we no deal brexit in five weeks can we agree on here the right way to go with tariffs? Tariffs to protect producers (Gove) zero tariffs to protect consumers (fox)?
Unilaterally abandoning tarrifs and quotas would give us the weakest possible trade negotiation position. Why would any country reciprocate?
In any case, Gove is right, people voted Leave in order to protect their way of life from predatory foreign interests, not to sell out to them.
How does Gove, or anybody, know why people voted Leave? All we know is they did. It was probably for a wide variety of reasons, some utterly unrelated to the EU, but Leave is what they voted, and literally any type of Leave ticks the box of fulfilling the mandate.
That would rely on May's Deal passing then the DUP voting down the government and Corbyn committing to EUref2 with a Remain option and weakening the TIG vote while some Tory Leavers move to Farage's new Brexit Party.
However I don't think the Deal passing will see major Tory to UKIP/Farage's new Brexit Party leakage unlike the Tories revoking Brexit which would and the Deal passing is also better for Tory fortunes longer term than the economic damage of No Deal.
Of course if Corbyn backs EUref2 he also risks turning off voters in Labour Leave seats
Alternative scenario -
Deal does not pass and she calls the GE as her best last resort - prefers it to Revoke or REF2 or adopting Labour BINO.
Do you ever post without turning into a GE
There is no appetite in the HOC for it, neither main party has a manifesto on brexit, and since this last week the likelihood has greatly diminished
It is more likely she gets her deal approved or there is an extension to A50
By moving the vote to 12 March and not later May wants the Cooper Letwin vote to pass . Of course she won’t say this out loud.
Yes. So Labour ought to oppose it.
Unfortunately I get the sense that they are instead going to act in the national interest and support it.
Corbyn is a softy if he supports Cooper and offers REF2 without getting a GE. Letting the Tories off the hook.
Well no, not a softy, he's hamstrung by lack of party discipline. All these supposedly Labour MPs who are far more concerned about staying in the EU than getting rid of a Tory government.
By moving the vote to 12 March and not later May wants the Cooper Letwin vote to pass . Of course she won’t say this out loud.
Yes. So Labour ought to oppose it.
Unfortunately I get the sense that they are instead going to act in the national interest and support it.
Corbyn is a softy if he supports Cooper and offers REF2 without getting a GE. Letting the Tories off the hook.
Well no, not a softy, he's hamstrung by lack of party discipline. All these supposedly Labour MPs who are far more concerned about staying in the EU than getting rid of a Tory government.
I think there are a clear majority of MP's who would easily place EU membership over party loyalty....the next few weeks we will see how this unfolds in the HoC....
Do you really think that any jerrymandering away the referendum result will be acceptable to the British public? It's a very serious question. In retrospect, you might think it was inadvisable to ask the people directly, but having done so, it can't be brushed aside without a backlash.
It's no longer about whether we stay or go (it will make little real difference to me) but it's about the deep and long-lasting resentment it will cause. Don't let your deep enthusiasm for a cause blind you to the inevitable consequences.
I've always had a healthy cynicism for politicians, but this would take it to a new level.
Ken Clarke, I believe, set out what would be the honorable and sensible way forward from here, but it involved Parliament admitting it made a mistake in offering in the first place a referendum in which the Leave option was inoperable. We should suspend A50 for, say, five years while genuine Leavers (JRM et al) work out a proper programme to take us out of the EU. They then submit that to the electorate in a referendum where everyone has a very clear idea of what Leave means, and the process through which it will be effected.
Taint gonna happen of course, but that would be the right way to do it.
That can't happen - the mandate has to be delivered for good long term democratic reasons. But - and this is being too much underplayed at the moment - the moment we leave (29 March or whenever) the mandate of the referendum is done with. It is then completely legitimate to agitate for whatever further political action people, groups and parties would like. AND THEY WILL. This can include Rejoin, FTA, Norway or affirming TMs deal (which looks like a peculiar hybrid and is a set of proposals which will raise a huge number of really difficult questions).
Assuming there is a WA, Rejoin would be a real runner as it would be a new deal in law but would actually be mostly continuity. Expect it to start soon.
Add to that the strength this gives to Scottish Independence, a reordering of Irish arrangements (about time too) and even Welsh issues it won't be dull.
As a result all betting on related subjects is like predicting Foinavon's Grand National. Use a pin.
Leave and rejoin was always my preferred option. Though the idea anyone would countenance doing it via no deal never crossed my mind.
It seems not just to be Theresa's little barfly minion with a 21 month extension in mind:
I’m curious why the EU is in favour of this. The people we will end up sending to the European Parliament will make UKIP look like the WI.
It will also be extremely damaging to the Tory Party’s standing in the opinion polls. Surely May knows that?
rse a #peoplesvote.
Just a suggestion. Why not call it a second referendum rather than the silly 'peoples vote'
They should stick to 'confirmatory referendum'.
#FinalSay
Wasn't the vote in 2016 supposed to be the final say?
It might have been if the leavers had ever been able to agree on what it meant.
The leavers have agreed. Its the pesky Europeans and Remainers who don't agree.
(Seriously if you took a vote of just leave-backing MPs then this would be far simpler, but Remain MPs and the EU Commission and 27 other European nations have to agree too)
Perhaps you need to let Gove and Fox and Johnson and Mogg in what it is that they have agreed on because last time I checked they were advocating quite different courses of action
Gove and fox cant even agree on the no deal tariffs.
When we no deal brexit in five weeks can we agree on here the right way to go with tariffs? Tariffs to protect producers (Gove) zero tariffs to protect consumers (fox)?
Unilaterally abandoning tarrifs and quotas would give us the weakest possible trade negotiation position. Why would any country reciprocate?
In any case, Gove is right, people voted Leave in order to protect their way of life from predatory foreign interests, not to sell out to them.
How does Gove, or anybody, know why people voted Leave? All we know is they did. It was probably for a wide variety of reasons, some utterly unrelated to the EU, but Leave is what they voted, and literally any type of Leave ticks the box of fulfilling the mandate.
Oh sure, Leave is a blank canvas, but cannot stay blank for long. The Tories then need to decide which of their voters are most dispensible. Farmers or supermarket purchasers? Quality standards or agribusiness?
How does Gove, or anybody, know why people voted Leave? All we know is they did. It was probably for a wide variety of reasons, some utterly unrelated to the EU, but Leave is what they voted, and literally any type of Leave ticks the box of fulfilling the mandate.
I know why a couple of people voted leave...my brother for one, and he is a bellend..
I suspect she is waiting to see the view of the HOC on wednesday and will bring it forward as soon as the implications have been assessed
That seems an optimistic assessment of someone who's made a habit of bringing things forward rather than pushing them back.
It is the reality of the situation. TM has to make a decision and I suspect she is waiting for the HOC to make it easier for her. She has an end date of the 12h March, two weeks on Tuesday
That would rely on May's Deal passing then the DUP voting down the government and Corbyn committing to EUref2 with a Remain option and weakening the TIG vote while some Tory Leavers move to Farage's new Brexit Party.
However I don't think the Deal passing will see major Tory to UKIP/Farage's new Brexit Party leakage unlike the Tories revoking Brexit which would and the Deal passing is also better for Tory fortunes longer term than the economic damage of No Deal.
Of course if Corbyn backs EUref2 he also risks turning off voters in Labour Leave seats
Alternative scenario -
Deal does not pass and she calls the GE as her best last resort - prefers it to Revoke or REF2 or adopting Labour BINO.
GE makes no difference given the ERG will all refuse to back the Deal regardless in personal manifestos preferring No Deal, extension of Art 50 is her best chance of forcing the ERG to back the Deal
By moving the vote to 12 March and not later May wants the Cooper Letwin vote to pass . Of course she won’t say this out loud.
Yes. So Labour ought to oppose it.
Unfortunately I get the sense that they are instead going to act in the national interest and support it.
Corbyn is a softy if he supports Cooper and offers REF2 without getting a GE. Letting the Tories off the hook.
Well no, not a softy, he's hamstrung by lack of party discipline. All these supposedly Labour MPs who are far more concerned about staying in the EU than getting rid of a Tory government.
If Corbyn opposed extending Article 50 and reduced the chance of EUref2 and BINO and brought No Deal much closer actually he would risk turning the current trickle of Labour Remainers to TIG into an avalanche
Arse arse arse arse bottom burp arse arse. What in the name of [rudeword] does she think she's doing? "Let's have a pointless delay for two months because I just can't make up my mind". The cheque's in the post, honest. I need an extension on an essay. A bad boy stole my homework and ran away. My mum said I wasn't allowed to do gym. This isn't government, it's standing on the desk in the middle of the exam and screaming "I am an orange".
By moving the vote to 12 March and not later May wants the Cooper Letwin vote to pass . Of course she won’t say this out loud .
Makes about as much sense as anything else in this farce. She's practically asking for rebellion.
You saw what the activists insisted on yesterday. No brexit or even a long delay isn’t going to play well with them. No leader of any party in history could deny this Conservative party membership and its leave voter base the brexit it existentially needs. All the column inches from so called pundits claiming she could, all the posts on here saying she can, all bloody naive. She can’t. She wont. It is her deal or no deal.
Impact of the no deal bogey man all bigged up anyway, especially in the mid and long term. It’s about time someone called it out. The horrendous earth shattering impact of no deal is completely bigged up. It will be brexit and it wont be the end of the world.
No deal brexit is the new normal. It’s coming in less than five weeks. Get used to it.
I got the impression yesterday that some of those who call themselves commentators had little grasp as to what the "National Union" is. Although the Conservative Party had to be transformed in theory to conform to the Political Parties legislation dreamt up by Blair the practice is that the National Union is still the real fount of all power on the RHS of British politics.
MPs and candidates seeking election or re-election under a C and U Party banner would be wise to read the advisory motion from yesterday with some care.
All the advantages of the WA, without the small inconvenince of needing a vote. In practice much the same only we are in pretending to be out, rather than out pretending to be in. Dec 20 still at 32 on BFEx.
I’m curious why the EU is in favour of this. The people we will end up sending to the European Parliament will make UKIP look like the WI.
It will also be extremely damaging to the Tory Party’s standing in the opinion polls. Surely May knows that?
I think that if we have MEPs then Remain parties will do very well. UKIP MEPs are just punch and judy entertainment.
21 months is to the end of the budget cycle, and allows both a solution to the Backstop (such as permanent CU) to be negotiated, and of course a #peoplesvote.
Just a suggestion. Why not call it a second referendum rather than the silly 'peoples vote'
They should stick to 'confirmatory referendum'.
#FinalSay
Wasn't the vote in 2016 supposed to be the final say?
It might have been if the leavers had ever been able to agree on what it meant.
The leavers have agreed. Its the pesky Europeans and Remainers who don't agree.
(Seriously if you took a vote of just leave-backing MPs then this would be far simpler, but Remain MPs and the EU Commission and 27 other European nations have to agree too)
Of course Leavers agree. They want sunlit uplands where the unicorns roam. Not surprisingly, the Europeans don't agree. (Although they are not above referencing unicorns to get their deal through).
How does Gove, or anybody, know why people voted Leave? All we know is they did. It was probably for a wide variety of reasons, some utterly unrelated to the EU, but Leave is what they voted, and literally any type of Leave ticks the box of fulfilling the mandate.
I agree with you. Any of the possible Brexits that have been proposed since the referendum would all fulfil that mandate. Those who say we must end FoM are just as wrong about this as those who say we must stay in the single Market . Both are positions which would be in accordance with the vote.
Basically if we leave the political entity that is bound by the treaties we have left.
How does Gove, or anybody, know why people voted Leave? All we know is they did. It was probably for a wide variety of reasons, some utterly unrelated to the EU, but Leave is what they voted, and literally any type of Leave ticks the box of fulfilling the mandate.
I know why a couple of people voted leave...my brother for one, and he is a bellend..
I agree with you (Although not about your brother of course as I don't know him) but any of the possible Brexits that have been proposed since the referendum would all fulfil that mandate. Those who say we must end FoM are just as wrong about this as those who say we must stay in the single Market . Both are positions which would be in accordance with the vote.
Basically if we leave the political entity that is bound by the treaties we have left.
MY POST STARTS HERE MESSED IT UP
I have thought about what does leaving actually mean mean and think that seeing as the EU is a legal construct leaving really is about undoing the legal mechanism of how we joined.
So revoke the 1972 European Communities Act and all that flows from that would cancel out how we joined.
Then the political parties could put in manifestos the areas of co-operation they want with the EU in the future to build the future relationship.
Too late now, but could have been a starting point that was explainable to the voters 3 years ago.
I have thought about what does leaving actually mean mean and think that seeing as the EU is a legal construct leaving really is about undoing the legal mechanism of how we joined.
So revoke the 1972 European Communities Act and all that flows from that would cancel out how we joined.
Then the political parties could put in manifestos the areas of co-operation they want with the EU in the future to build the future relationship.
Too late now, but could have been a starting point that was explainable to the voters 3 years ago.
I think it was Tyson who claimed to have a bellend brother. I have no brother, bell end or otherwise
Not sure you could scream Fuck Business louder than Theresa May has done today.
I think she is just screaming "Fuck!". If you say, "fuck business", you are making a choice at some level, that people don't need business, prosperity, jobs etc. That there are other more important things.
Theresa May's Brexit is where ideas die, as Matthew Paris expounds so brilliantly in this snippet:
I would think being the person whose job it is to come up with more ideas on how May can justify kicking the can must be, for one, exhausting and depressing, but also the worst job in the world right now. Can you imagine being the people who have to try to turn desperation to buy more time, and nothing else, into a seemingly coherent and plausible plan?
By moving the vote to 12 March and not later May wants the Cooper Letwin vote to pass . Of course she won’t say this out loud.
Yes. So Labour ought to oppose it.
Unfortunately I get the sense that they are instead going to act in the national interest and support it.
Corbyn is a softy if he supports Cooper and offers REF2 without getting a GE. Letting the Tories off the hook.
Well no, not a softy, he's hamstrung by lack of party discipline. All these supposedly Labour MPs who are far more concerned about staying in the EU than getting rid of a Tory government.
I think there are a clear majority of MP's who would easily place EU membership over party loyalty....the next few weeks we will see how this unfolds in the HoC....
It has been worrying and surprising that Brexit divisions have largely stayed within the bounds of party loyalty, and particularly the even narrower political posturing of the various sides. Yes yes, manifestos and all that, but since getting out or remaining in really is that vital to the future of the nation I am surprised it took so long for the Tiggers to emerge as they have, and that more significant rebellions have not occurred.
Not sure you could scream Fuck Business louder than Theresa May has done today.
If May was saying now she was happy to take us to No Deal that would be saying a loud 'Fuck Business', instead she is delaying the meaningful vote until just before the proposed Art 50 extension would kick if Cooper Letwin passes in in an effort to force the ERG to back her Deal
She can't win a vote on the desk that she has, so she's trying to win a vote on the deal that she'd like to have and will then go to the EU two weeks before X-Day and say she wants more time and oh, I've changed the deal, thx.
I've kind of given up at this point. We've turned into goodness knows what. Has anybody noticed how people have stopped talking about managed no-deal? Nobody's managing anything, we're just generating fantasies to vote on...
Completely off topic, but when I was at the cinema there was a bizarre advert which involved a unicorn walking into the House of Commons. I thought it very apt for our times if a little on the nose, but turns out it was just something to do with the news as it turned into the royal coat of arms from The Times. I only wish I had paid more attention so I knew what on earth the point of it was - cinema ads are getting really surreal.
We agree that No Deal is unthinkable therefore the choice is TM deal or something else. We agree that the TM deal will probably go through - but if it doesn't what will the 'something else' be? It will obviously require an extension, yes, again agreed, but then what? There are 5 possibles -
1) TM deal goes through during the extension, or it doesn't and so as a last resort she - 2) Revokes. 3) Offers REF2. 4) Adopts Labour's Brexit policy. 5) Calls a GE.
Now it might be (1). I think that is likely. But if not (and we must contemplate this) then she must choose 2 or 3 or 4 or 5.
I think (5) in those circumstances is by no means out of the question.
OK so you 100% rule it out. Fair enough. Surprising level of certainty but I like it.
She can't win a vote on the desk that she has, so she's trying to win a vote on the deal that she'd like to have and will then go to the EU two weeks before X-Day and say she wants more time and oh, I've changed the deal, thx.
I've kind of given up at this point. We've turned into goodness knows what. Has anybody noticed how people have stopped talking about managed no-deal? Nobody's managing anything, we're just generating fantasies to vote on...
Well, yes. That was what happened with the Brady amendment after all. I get why May is pretending the same thing will work this time, but surely it is time for rebels to call her out on that and take action, otherwise they truly are the dumbest bunch of legislators in existence.
If Corbyn opposed extending Article 50 and reduced the chance of EUref2 and BINO and brought No Deal much closer actually he would risk turning the current trickle of Labour Remainers to TIG into an avalanche
Exactly. That is my point. He is hamstrung by lack of party discipline.
Not sure you could scream Fuck Business louder than Theresa May has done today.
If May was saying now she was happy to take us to No Deal that would be saying a loud 'Fuck Business', instead she is delaying the meaningful vote until just before the proposed Art 50 extension would kick if Cooper Letwin passes in in an effort to force the ERG to back her Deal
Though a coerced Deal forced by May on either ERG or Labour is not likely to be comfortable afterwards. The coerced will repudiate, revoke or fail to pass supporting legislation. A forced Deal just sets up a second round of poisoned rancour.
A freely agreed Deal is a different matter, but that is a unicorn with wings and a magic wand.
She can't win a vote on the desk that she has, so she's trying to win a vote on the deal that she'd like to have and will then go to the EU two weeks before X-Day and say she wants more time and oh, I've changed the deal, thx.
I've kind of given up at this point. We've turned into goodness knows what. Has anybody noticed how people have stopped talking about managed no-deal? Nobody's managing anything, we're just generating fantasies to vote on...
Well, yes. That was what happened with the Brady amendment after all. I get why May is pretending the same thing will work this time, but surely it is time for rebels to call her out on that and take action, otherwise they truly are the dumbest bunch of legislators in existence.
Hence the Cooper Letwin amendment if it passes on Wednesday will set the ball in motion for extending Art 50 or BINO or EUref2 ultimately giving an alternative to May's Deal that is not No Deal
As I have to keep repeating to people clearly too dumb to understand, democracy is not just about asking the question. It is about enacting the reply. Otherwise it counts for nothing. Henceforth we will be able to say that any alternative action is legitimate as we no longer live in a democracy.
That sort of offensiveness does you no favours whatever. Enacting the result of as advisory referendum means considering the advice. We have had three years to consider the effects of leaving. If you claim that you foresaw in 2016 that we would be where we are now in 2019, i don't believe you because i don't believe anyone could be evil and stupid enough to have campaigned for leave on that basis. The facts have changed; let's give ourselves the option of changing our minds.
You want the rules to be such that when the dice have fallen in your favour no further play is possible. I can see why you would want that, but just stop dressing it up in pompous flimflam about honour and democracy.
Nothing of any significance has changed. That is the great lie that the Remainers keep spouting but no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true.
And you need to seriously consider the consequences of claiming that democracy is something that can be ignored by the politicians. Once you head down that road then all democratic legitimacy disappears. If this vote is ignored then we will feel perfectly at liberty to ignore any vote in the future.
You've always been at liberty to oppose the outcome of democratic votes, and have frequently done so.
Not oppose, ignore. That is a very different and dangerous position that you are now advocating and will make reality if we do not Leave.
Comments
It's received 54 up votes and 6 down votes.
Sarri is in line for a massive pay-off, so he'll toe the party line. I suspect Chelsea's reputation to sink deeper in the mire.
He was a better leader of Labour though than either Milliband or Corbyn.
That amendment wouldn’t instruct May to seek an extension till the 13 th.
So effectively MPs wouldn’t have removed the no deal till after the deal vote. Even if she gives some subtle reassurance on Tuesday about accepting the will of parliament she clearly ignored the previous one on no deal and any MP believing a word she says is deluded .
However it happened and they did make a decision. A stupid one but a clear one. Given that the government plus all serious political parties plus business plus the unions were all arguing for the status quo, and that the status quo in any case has an innate advantage, that 52% to leave represented a very definitive result.
Now given that the public were ill equipped to decide whether to leave they are even less equipped to decide HOW we leave. That has to be decided by parliament. Which is where we are.
What parliament must not do having funked it once and abdicated responsibility to the ill equipped public is to go and do the very same thing again with a REF2. It would be truly pathetic.
Brown 29% 258
Miliband 30% 232
Corbyn 40% 262
You could argue Brown was a better statesman than Miliband or Corbyn but he was certainly a worse leader for Labour than Corbyn and outside the Celtic fringe than Miliband too (Brown won 191 seats in England to 206 for Miliband)
The truth is that we don't have a framework of rules for referendums. We probably should have, burr we don't, and making them up on the spot to suit your own case doesn't really work. We do have such rules in cognate situations, one of them being that parliament cannot bind its successors. More astute students than Mr Tyndall will appreciate the need for such a rule and the desirability of extending it to say, nor can the electorate.
To be fair with your analogy, if the drink was poured and you then declared you weren't thirsty, I doubt said barman would be very pleased. But none of these golf club/divorce/buying a car/pickyourown analogies shed any useful insight on the matter in the first place.
A nice simile, but wrong. It's more like we've decided to order a jug of beer to share and we've taken a vote and decided on Bitter. Half-way through pouring it, one of the people comes back to the bar and says "As it wasn't unanimous, we think you should add gin too to appease the spirt drinkers."
"You what? Who decided that?"
"The people who lost the original vote. Give them an hour or two and we might be able to persuade enough of them to change because they're very thirsty."
The irony is that Mrs May as actual PM has finished in precisely the same position as Boris as wannabe PM started - pretending to believe in Brexit whilst relying on (and praying for) it never to come to pass.
Get Remain via Corbyn. Get Corbyn if you want Remain.
I know it sounds odd but I can see it panning out this way.
'Er, Richard, you know when I told you to turn left back there.....I think I made a mistake and it should have been right.'
'Well that may be so, Peter, but you made your decision and we need to follow it through to its conclusion. '
'But Richard, that's a cliff edge we are heading towards.'
'Well, it may be and when we have gone over it and can't go any further we can perhaps go back and try the other route.......'
'RICHARD!!!!!!!!!!!........'
Pull the other one.
Do you really think that any jerrymandering away the referendum result will be acceptable to the British public? It's a very serious question. In retrospect, you might think it was inadvisable to ask the people directly, but having done so, it can't be brushed aside without a backlash.
It's no longer about whether we stay or go (it will make little real difference to me) but it's about the deep and long-lasting resentment it will cause. Don't let your deep enthusiasm for a cause blind you to the inevitable consequences.
I've always had a healthy cynicism for politicians, but this would take it to a new level.
However I don't think the Deal passing will see major Tory to UKIP/Farage's new Brexit Party leakage unlike the Tories revoking Brexit which would and the Deal passing is also better for Tory fortunes longer term than the economic damage of No Deal.
Of course if Corbyn backs EUref2 he also risks turning off voters in Labour Leave seats
They want May to do it for them and I don’t blame her one bit for not playing their game,
Taint gonna happen of course, but that would be the right way to do it.
Going ahead with something she thinks could be disadvantageous is better than thwarting it and reaping something she knows will be disadvantageous.
The vote happened and people unexpectedly voted to leave. I think regardless of which side you were on I can see their point. They were denied a vote for decades the moment the vote goes their way its "Oh we should have another vote because this time we think we should win it"
Impact of the no deal bogey man all bigged up anyway, especially in the mid and long term. It’s about time someone called it out. The horrendous earth shattering impact of no deal is completely bigged up. It will be brexit and it wont be the end of the world.
No deal brexit is the new normal. It’s coming in less than five weeks. Get used to it.
Adding another five years of entanglement is obviously the solution? Do you assume the EU will stand still in that time? If so, I've some expensive beans you might like to buy.
And you need to seriously consider the consequences of claiming that democracy is something that can be ignored by the politicians. Once you head down that road then all democratic legitimacy disappears. If this vote is ignored then we will feel perfectly at liberty to ignore any vote in the future.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1099778801859481605?s=19
Assuming there is a WA, Rejoin would be a real runner as it would be a new deal in law but would actually be mostly continuity. Expect it to start soon.
Add to that the strength this gives to Scottish Independence, a reordering of Irish arrangements (about time too) and even Welsh issues it won't be dull.
As a result all betting on related subjects is like predicting Foinavon's Grand National. Use a pin.
Deal does not pass and she calls the GE as her best last resort - prefers it to Revoke or REF2 or adopting Labour BINO.
In any case, Gove is right, people voted Leave in order to protect their way of life from predatory foreign interests, not to sell out to them.
That basically leaves 3 areas food, cars and textiles where tariffs are over 10%.
Going forward we have time. They should be changed according to the strategic interests of the country.
There is no appetite in the HOC for it, neither main party has a manifesto on brexit, and since this last week the likelihood has greatly diminished
It is more likely she gets her deal approved or there is an extension to A50
Unfortunately I get the sense that they are instead going to act in the national interest and support it.
Corbyn is a softy if he supports Cooper and offers REF2 without getting a GE. Letting the Tories off the hook.
Well no, not a softy, he's hamstrung by lack of party discipline. All these supposedly Labour MPs who are far more concerned about staying in the EU than getting rid of a Tory government.
I think there are a clear majority of MP's who would easily place EU membership over party loyalty....the next few weeks we will see how this unfolds in the HoC....
TM said there were more talks next week and the MV will take place by the 12th March
I suspect she is waiting to see the view of the HOC on wednesday and will bring it forward as soon as the implications have been assessed
A lot of misinformation is dished out by the media generally
I know why a couple of people voted leave...my brother for one, and he is a bellend..
https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/02/watch-may-we-wont-be-bringing-a-meaningful-vote-back-this-week-but-that-will-be-happening-by-12th-march.html#comments
But if it doesn't (even after an extension) she will have to choose between Revoke, REF2, adopting Labour's BINO Brexit, or a GE.
I think she goes for the latter - it's her best last resort.
Or 11 days after wednesday's amendments
MPs and candidates seeking election or re-election under a C and U Party banner would be wise to read the advisory motion from yesterday with some care.
https://twitter.com/GiuseppeConteIT/status/1099787057982001154
I agree with you. Any of the possible Brexits that have been proposed since the referendum would all fulfil that mandate. Those who say we must end FoM are just as wrong about this as those who say we must stay in the single Market . Both are positions which would be in accordance with the vote.
Basically if we leave the political entity that is bound by the treaties we have left.
I suppose I could collect my books and get on back to school
Or steal my daddy's cue and make a living out of playing pool.
Basically if we leave the political entity that is bound by the treaties we have left.
MY POST STARTS HERE MESSED IT UP
I have thought about what does leaving actually mean mean and think that seeing as the EU is a legal construct leaving really is about undoing the legal mechanism of how we joined.
So revoke the 1972 European Communities Act and all that flows from that would cancel out how we joined.
Then the political parties could put in manifestos the areas of co-operation they want with the EU in the future to build the future relationship.
Too late now, but could have been a starting point that was explainable to the voters 3 years ago.
i reckon it will not be a Labour member even
Theresa May's Brexit is where ideas die, as Matthew Paris expounds so brilliantly in this snippet:
https://twitter.com/Simon_Nixon/status/1099232895502299137
I've kind of given up at this point. We've turned into goodness knows what. Has anybody noticed how people have stopped talking about managed no-deal? Nobody's managing anything, we're just generating fantasies to vote on...
We agree that No Deal is unthinkable therefore the choice is TM deal or something else. We agree that the TM deal will probably go through - but if it doesn't what will the 'something else' be? It will obviously require an extension, yes, again agreed, but then what? There are 5 possibles -
1) TM deal goes through during the extension, or it doesn't and so as a last resort she -
2) Revokes.
3) Offers REF2.
4) Adopts Labour's Brexit policy.
5) Calls a GE.
Now it might be (1). I think that is likely. But if not (and we must contemplate this) then she must choose 2 or 3 or 4 or 5.
I think (5) in those circumstances is by no means out of the question.
OK so you 100% rule it out. Fair enough. Surprising level of certainty but I like it.
I actually hope she did, as perhaps it was just an elaborate hustle this whole time.
A freely agreed Deal is a different matter, but that is a unicorn with wings and a magic wand.