*If* Labour come out for a Referendum, this will simply bring out the tribalism in the Tories, won’t it?
I still can’t see how the PV has the numbers in Parliament. The PVers need to throw the Norway Plus lot a bone.
Yup, there's no majority for a PV, the potential majority is for *TMay's deal, subject to a PV* which is hardly anybody's first choice. I don't think it's clear whether Corbyn would go for that, and to be sure of passing it still needs support, or at least a lack of active opposition, from TMay.
That's literally what he just said he'll be supporting (the Peter Kyle amendment)...
I don't get how that's surprising?! Even when Corbyn was saying he didn't think there should be another referendum, he still said he would vote Remain should one come about:
Vote and campaign are two different things. I voted Remain, I wouldn't have campaigned for it.
Not sure Remain2 would want Corbyn capaigning for us tbh.
Because he is the most popular Labour politician (yougov) and the most positive figure associated with remain (from some podcast I listened to a while back) which I guess was based on a mix of liking the person and associating them with remain or leave.
Who else? Blair? Chuka?
I imagine you have different campaigns but if remain is to be selective about who can campaign for it then what politician doesn't put people off?
Blair is at least intelligent, coherent and engages with his opponents. He's also duplicitous, deceitful and manipulative, but so is Corbyn.
Did he ever have an approval rating of -47? Genuine question (where's Justin when you need him)?
Doesn't he have an even lower rating than that?
I was under the impression he wasn't widely liked.
Most people who could be convinced by him are already on side anyway. The Blair from '97 would be an asset I'm sure but current Blair is best kept well away from it.
I don't get how that's surprising?! Even when Corbyn was saying he didn't think there should be another referendum, he still said he would vote Remain should one come about:
Vote and campaign are two different things. I voted Remain, I wouldn't have campaigned for it.
Not sure Remain2 would want Corbyn capaigning for us tbh.
Because he is the most popular Labour politician (yougov) and the most positive figure associated with remain (from some podcast I listened to a while back) which I guess was based on a mix of liking the person and associating them with remain or leave.
Who else? Blair? Chuka?
I imagine you have different campaigns but if remain is to be selective about who can campaign for it then what politician doesn't put people off?
Blair is at least intelligent, coherent and engages with his opponents. He's also duplicitous, deceitful and manipulative, but so is Corbyn.
Did he ever have an approval rating of -47? Genuine question (where's Justin when you need him)?
Doesn't he have an even lower rating than that?
I was under the impression he wasn't widely liked.
Most people who could be convinced by him are already on side anyway. The Blair from '97 would be an asset I'm sure but current Blair is best kept well away from it.
Normally I would agree with you re Blair, but I find it quite difficult to visualise a situation where Corbyn would be more of an asset than he was. (And I never voted Labour under Blair, although I have done since.)
As a Labour supporter they just saved my vote but a second EU ref isn’t happening . The likely outcome now is the Maybot drones on about deal or another EU ref to the ERG who might finally accept they need to quit whilst they’re winning or take their chances with a second vote .
Mays deal passes with the help of Labour rebels and that’s that .
Why would any Leave constituency Labour MP vote for May's deal when it can be left to their constituents to vote for it later in the second referendum that was agreed 30 minutes earlier.
I don't get how that's surprising?! Even when Corbyn was saying he didn't think there should be another referendum, he still said he would vote Remain should one come about:
Vote and campaign are two different things. I voted Remain, I wouldn't have campaigned for it.
Not sure Remain2 would want Corbyn capaigning for us tbh.
Because he is the most popular Labour politician (yougov) and the most positive figure associated with remain (from some podcast I listened to a while back) which I guess was based on a mix of liking the person and associating them with remain or leave.
Who else? Blair? Chuka?
I imagine you have different campaigns but if remain is to be selective about who can campaign for it then what politician doesn't put people off?
Blair is at least intelligent, coherent and engages with his opponents. He's also duplicitous, deceitful and manipulative, but so is Corbyn.
Did he ever have an approval rating of -47? Genuine question (where's Justin when you need him)?
Doesn't he have an even lower rating than that?
I was under the impression he wasn't widely liked.
Most people who could be convinced by him are already on side anyway. The Blair from '97 would be an asset I'm sure but current Blair is best kept well away from it.
Normally I would agree with you re Blair, but I find it quite difficult to visualise a situation where Corbyn would be more of an asset than he was. (And I never voted Labour under Blair, although I have done since.)
Mainly for turnout reasons I'd argue, the people Corbyn's appeals to are mostly remain anyway, though he can win some round by making sure they turnout for it.
Although if we do have another referendum, far from certain, you'd imagine those with any inclination towards remain have been given every reason to turnout rather than just skip it.
*If* Labour come out for a Referendum, this will simply bring out the tribalism in the Tories, won’t it?
I still can’t see how the PV has the numbers in Parliament. The PVers need to throw the Norway Plus lot a bone.
Yup, there's no majority for a PV, the potential majority is for *TMay's deal, subject to a PV* which is hardly anybody's first choice.I don't think it's clear whether Corbyn would go for that, and to be sure of passing it still needs support, or at least a lack of active opposition, from TMay.
Worked for Henry VII. Nobody's first choice, everybody's second.
The difficulty with that scenario is timing. Given the complexities, would the EU give as a long enough extension for it? I'm pretty doubtful about it.
I hesitate to challenge an historian but didn't Henry VII seize the throne himself and was thus his own (and presumably his supporters') first choice?
This is a big defeat for Len McCluskey, Seamus Milne and the other Morning Star Brexiteers. Remember what Champagne Len was saying about a referendum just a few days ago? What could possibly have led to such a turnaround?
Maybe moderate Tories can finally vote for this against TMay's opposition:
1) Parliament passes a ban on No Deal - I think the votes for this are there already 2) EU says the minimum extension will be 3 years 3) Say, "I don't like this second referendum business but it's the quickest way to get Brexit done"
I have reservations regarding what this does for Labour's electoral chances but destroying the tiggers and staying in the EU are on the 'would like to happen' list so overall happy with the direction.
But boy is this going to be handy ammunition for rejoiners in the post-Brexit debate. It was a Tory Brexit pushed in the face of opinion polls opposing Brexit. And a referendum refused despite being called for by every other opposition party, huge crowds of demonstrators and even in the face of splits in the Tory Party itself.
How undemocratic.
They can have their second vote after we enact the first. That is democracy.
How do you get the previous vote enacted? I'm no closer to seeing a means of leaving now than I was 6 months ago...
MPs abide by the will of the people. There is a deal on the table. It may not be perfect but it is a deal that fulfils the instruction of the referendum. Alternatively leave without a deal. They have always been the two legitimate choices. What they cannot do is claim they agree with the referendum result (as the overwhelming majority of them did) but then refuse to enact either a deal or No Deal.
As a footnote to this, if you follow this logic, the "overwhelming majority" does of course exclude the SNP: they voted against holding the referendum, and given its advisory status, there's no reason they should be held to implementing its result.
Oh I agree. But then I have long campaigned for Scottish Independence as well. As I have said on here before I find it logically incoherent to argue for British Independence from the EU on democracy and accountability terms but then to deny those are valid arguments for Scottish Independence.
Does this go for say Yorkshire and say Cornwall as well?
Not making a Brexit argument here but where do you draw the line, how small is small enough to meet the requirements to be democratic and accountable?
I understand the EU is a little different to the UK but would you say the UK isn't democratic and accountable in a way that smaller divisions would be, like say Yorkshire or Scotland, though they still contain millions of people so I can't see a massive difference in democratic terms.
They strike me as democratic either way, the people of Yorkshire are not disenfranchised IMO.
If they want it then yes. Yorkshire has a larger population than the 7 smallest EU countries. Of course the difference is they have never shown any interest in independence.
Its not even that it is half a loaf. It is pretty much 9/10ths of a loaf. There are a few bits I don't like about it but it meets pretty much all of the requirements set out by the Leave campaigners of any stripe prior to the referendum. This should be the easiest compromise in history for any Leaver who spent more than 30 seconds thinking about it.
You get some stick on here at times Richard, but you have been one of the most consistent and pramatic Leavers. It's a shame that there aren't more people like you on the Leave side.
Corbyn's best outcome was the deal passed thanks to Labour rebels who he could disavow. He cannot have that, so I guess not being able to get a referendum thanks to Labour rebels would be the next best thing.
Worked for Henry VII. Nobody's first choice, everybody's second.
I hesitate to challenge an historian but didn't Henry VII seize the throne himself and was thus his own (and presumably his supporters') first choice?
The short answer is No.
The longer answer is to run through alternatives. The Lancastrian choice was Henry VI, his son Edward of Westminster and his cousin the Duke of Somerset. They all suffered from the minor drawback of being dead. Didn't stop their diehard supporters, e.g. Oxford and Pembroke, who rallied round Henry's nephew.
Then you have the Yorkists. Their King was Edward IV, who died young in 1483 causing a succession crisis. Their first choice was Edward V. He vanished and was presumed murdered. The next choice was his cousin, Edward, Earl of Warwick. He suffered from a number of drawbacks. He was young, rumoured to be mentally unstable, his father had been executed for treason, his lands had been seized and he was a prisoner. That didn't make him a popular choice. The next choice, and not an altogether unpopular choice, was their uncle Richard. The small matter of him being a usurper, murderer, thief and rumoured infanticide, told against him, although he did seize the throne and hold it for 26 months. Absent all these, the next possible candidate was Edward V's oldest sister Elizabeth. She was a woman. Vaginas were for producing babies not sitting on thrones.
That didn't leave many candidates. It was the genius of Henry (and his mother Margaret) to persuade people that their preferred candidate being unavailable because of X reason, he was a plausible alternative. To be sure, it helped considerably that he offered to marry Elizabeth. But it was this ability to be the second choice of a wide range that was the clincher. It drew in the southern gentry who hated Richard and wanted Edward V, the northern barons who were suspicious of him and wanted Warwick whom they hoped to manipulate, the dowager queen who wanted Elizabeth, and the supporters of Henry VI who wanted a Lancastrian on the throne. They were the ones who supported him in his battle (along with the regent of France who was just out to cause trouble).
I was in fact quoting Michael Hicks, who said Henry VII was 'a king elected by proportional representation. He was the first choice of very few people, but gained enough transfers from other candidates to become king when they were ruled out.' (He obviously means STV not PR, but I'm not responsible for his misunderstanding of constitutional theory.)
Corbyn's best outcome was the deal passed thanks to Labour rebels who he could disavow. He cannot have that, so I guess not being able to get a referendum thanks to Labour rebels would be the next best thing.
ERG could fold now, and accept there's a real risk of not leaving if they don't sign May's deal (and then revisit it all later, as Gove keeps saying).
This is precisely what Jezza wants. Tory Brexit with none of his fingerprints anywhere near it.
I have reservations regarding what this does for Labour's electoral chances but destroying the tiggers and staying in the EU are on the 'would like to happen' list so overall happy with the direction.
Corbyn's best outcome was the deal passed thanks to Labour rebels who he could disavow. He cannot have that, so I guess not being able to get a referendum thanks to Labour rebels would be the next best thing.
ERG could fold now, and accept there's a real risk of not leaving if they don't sign May's deal (and then revisit it all later, as Gove keeps saying).
This is precisely what Jezza wants. Tory Brexit with none of his fingerprints anywhere near it.
Yes, but we know plenty of ERGers think the deal is worse than Leaving, so the risk of not getting Brexit is not as strong a motivator as it could be.
Corbyn's best outcome was the deal passed thanks to Labour rebels who he could disavow. He cannot have that, so I guess not being able to get a referendum thanks to Labour rebels would be the next best thing.
ERG could fold now, and accept there's a real risk of not leaving if they don't sign May's deal (and then revisit it all later, as Gove keeps saying).
This is precisely what Jezza wants. Tory Brexit with none of his fingerprints anywhere near it.
Yes, but we know plenty of ERGers think the deal is worse than Leaving, so the risk of not getting Brexit is not as strong a motivator as it could be.
Doesn't the DUP have to fold too for May's Deal to squeak through?
Worked for Henry VII. Nobody's first choice, everybody's second.
I hesitate to challenge an historian but didn't Henry VII seize the throne himself and was thus his own (and presumably his supporters') first choice?
The short answer is No.
The longer answer is to run through alternatives. The Lancastrian choice was Henry VI, his son Edward of Westminster and his cousin the Duke of Somerset. They all suffered from the minor drawback of being dead. Didn't stop their diehard supporters, e.g. Oxford and Pembroke, who rallied round Henry's nephew.
Then you have the Yorkists. Their King was Edward IV, who died young in 1483 causing a succession crisis. Their first choice was Edward V. He vanished and was presumed murdered. The next choice was his cousin, Edward, Earl of Warwick. He suffered from a number of drawbacks. He was young, rumoured to be mentally unstable, his father had been executed for treason, his lands had been seized and he was a prisoner. That didn't make him a popular choice. The next choice, and not an altogether unpopular choice, was their uncle Richard. The small matter of him being a usurper, murderer, thief and rumoured infanticide, told against him, although he did seize the throne and hold it for 26 months. Absent all these, the next possible candidate was Edward V's oldest sister Elizabeth. She was a woman. Vaginas were for producing babies not sitting on thrones.
That didn't leave many candidates. It was the genius of Henry (and his mother Margaret) to persuade people that their preferred candidate being unavailable because of X reason, he was a plausible alternative. To be sure, it helped considerably that he offered to marry Elizabeth. But it was this ability to be the second choice of a wide range that was the clincher. It drew in the southern gentry who hated Richard and wanted Edward V, the northern barons who were suspicious of him and wanted Warwick whom they hoped to manipulate, the dowager queen who wanted Elizabeth, and the supporters of Henry VI who wanted a Lancastrian on the throne. They were the ones who supported him in his battle (along with the regent of France who was just out to cause trouble).
I was in fact quoting Michael Hicks, who said Henry VII was 'a king elected by proportional representation. He was the first choice of very few people, but gained enough transfers from other candidates to become king when they were ruled out.' (He obviously means STV not PR, but I'm not responsible for his misunderstanding of constitutional theory.)
Thank you. Very enlightening.
I note from Wikipedea Henry VII was born in Pembroke Castle; was he the only Welshman to become King of England?
Keep saying it Big G if it makes you feel better. But you are wrong.
You are wrong to take Labour leave votes for granted as not going to Labour in a general election.
You may not even be right that it was Labour votes that made key difference in those areas called leave constituency’s. 2017 GE hints at such. The reason is, in 2016, up and down the country, polling stations didn't get all the usual faces, but quite a lot of faces who don't go in there very often, if at all. The rationale was voting leave because remain belonged to the political establishment these voters think never listens to them and has hollowed out their communities with globalisation and austerity. Not a rationale that suggests they rush into arms of long standing conservative government.
That’s my reasoning why your statement is wrong. Where’s your reasoning supporting your statement.
I would refer you to tonight comments by labour mps in leave seats with 25 already saying they will vote against
Corbyn's best outcome was the deal passed thanks to Labour rebels who he could disavow. He cannot have that, so I guess not being able to get a referendum thanks to Labour rebels would be the next best thing.
ERG could fold now, and accept there's a real risk of not leaving if they don't sign May's deal (and then revisit it all later, as Gove keeps saying).
This is precisely what Jezza wants. Tory Brexit with none of his fingerprints anywhere near it.
Yes, but we know plenty of ERGers think the deal is worse than Leaving, so the risk of not getting Brexit is not as strong a motivator as it could be.
Doesn't the DUP have to fold too for May's Deal to squeak through?
Under the Peter Kyle amendment (which Corbyn is now seemingly supporting), May's deal automatically gets ratified after a Leave vote in another referendum.
Of course, there's also the issue that "May's deal" is only really for a transition period, not for the permanent solution, so we'd end up right back here a couple of years later even in that scenario...
I note from Wikipedea Henry VII was born in Pembroke Castle; was he the only Welshman to become King of England?
Glad you liked it
On your second point: it depends on what you mean by 'Welsh'. If you mean 'Welsh-speaker,' yes he probably was. But both Edward II (Caernarfon) and Henry V (Monmouth) were born in Wales.
Does this go for say Yorkshire and say Cornwall as well?
Not making a Brexit argument here but where do you draw the line, how small is small enough to meet the requirements to be democratic and accountable?
I understand the EU is a little different to the UK but would you say the UK isn't democratic and accountable in a way that smaller divisions would be, like say Yorkshire or Scotland, though they still contain millions of people so I can't see a massive difference in democratic terms.
They strike me as democratic either way, the people of Yorkshire are not disenfranchised IMO.
If they want it then yes. Yorkshire has a larger population than the 7 smallest EU countries. Of course the difference is they have never shown any interest in independence.
Your original post mentioned democracy and accountability though, not trying to catch you out I am just wondering if you believe that any independence movement should be supported on the basis of democracy and accountability or is there some cut off somewhere?
If Scotland became independent but then some people in the Highlands started campaigning for independence would you argue that is the right thing on the basis of democracy and accountability even if, like with Scottish independence (in the ref) it is not the majority opinion?
I agree on the general idea of self determination so if Scottish people decided to leave they should be allowed to (or Yorkshire etc.) but that is different from saying you campaign for it to happen (which I took to mean advance your opinion Scotland should be independent rather than leafleting during the referendum) I agree Britain should have a Conservative government if it votes for it but I certainly don't campaign for it, grudging acceptance at best
Corbyn's best outcome was the deal passed thanks to Labour rebels who he could disavow. He cannot have that, so I guess not being able to get a referendum thanks to Labour rebels would be the next best thing.
ERG could fold now, and accept there's a real risk of not leaving if they don't sign May's deal (and then revisit it all later, as Gove keeps saying).
This is precisely what Jezza wants. Tory Brexit with none of his fingerprints anywhere near it.
Yes, but we know plenty of ERGers think the deal is worse than Leaving, so the risk of not getting Brexit is not as strong a motivator as it could be.
Doesn't the DUP have to fold too for May's Deal to squeak through?
I don't see how it is possible without them, and them doing so gives cause for many Tories to do the same.
Corbyn's best outcome was the deal passed thanks to Labour rebels who he could disavow. He cannot have that, so I guess not being able to get a referendum thanks to Labour rebels would be the next best thing.
ERG could fold now, and accept there's a real risk of not leaving if they don't sign May's deal (and then revisit it all later, as Gove keeps saying).
This is precisely what Jezza wants. Tory Brexit with none of his fingerprints anywhere near it.
Yes, but we know plenty of ERGers think the deal is worse than Leaving, so the risk of not getting Brexit is not as strong a motivator as it could be.
Doesn't the DUP have to fold too for May's Deal to squeak through?
Under the Peter Kyle amendment (which Corbyn is now seemingly supporting), May's deal automatically gets ratified after a Leave vote in another referendum.
Of course, there's also the issue that "May's deal" is only really for a transition period, not for the permanent solution, so we'd end up right back here a couple of years later even in that scenario...
That's one can kicking I can support though, to get it out of news cycle for a bit at least.
Presently, I still can’t see the DUP voting for May’s Deal.
The smarter DUPers must know that Brexit is a dead end and would perhaps welcome a PV as a potential escape route. Not that they would vote for it, but they might abstain.
Corbyn's best outcome was the deal passed thanks to Labour rebels who he could disavow. He cannot have that, so I guess not being able to get a referendum thanks to Labour rebels would be the next best thing.
ERG could fold now, and accept there's a real risk of not leaving if they don't sign May's deal (and then revisit it all later, as Gove keeps saying).
This is precisely what Jezza wants. Tory Brexit with none of his fingerprints anywhere near it.
Since Corbyn is only accepting a 2nd referendum for May's deal, but not for "Labour Brexit", the Tories could really wind the Remainers up by passing "Labour Brexit".
Corbyn's best outcome was the deal passed thanks to Labour rebels who he could disavow. He cannot have that, so I guess not being able to get a referendum thanks to Labour rebels would be the next best thing.
ERG could fold now, and accept there's a real risk of not leaving if they don't sign May's deal (and then revisit it all later, as Gove keeps saying).
This is precisely what Jezza wants. Tory Brexit with none of his fingerprints anywhere near it.
Since Corbyn is only accepting a 2nd referendum for May's deal, but not for "Labour Brexit", the Tories could really wind the Remainers up by passing "Labour Brexit".
Not sure it can be classed as winding up if it sees remaining in the customs union.
Corbyn's best outcome was the deal passed thanks to Labour rebels who he could disavow. He cannot have that, so I guess not being able to get a referendum thanks to Labour rebels would be the next best thing.
ERG could fold now, and accept there's a real risk of not leaving if they don't sign May's deal (and then revisit it all later, as Gove keeps saying).
This is precisely what Jezza wants. Tory Brexit with none of his fingerprints anywhere near it.
Yes, but we know plenty of ERGers think the deal is worse than Leaving, so the risk of not getting Brexit is not as strong a motivator as it could be.
Doesn't the DUP have to fold too for May's Deal to squeak through?
I don't see how it is possible without them, and them doing so gives cause for many Tories to do the same.
And as we all know, the DUP love to fold.
Are the DUP that bothered by a 2nd Referendum though? So long as nothing is done to introduce barrieirs between NI and Britain, I'd have thought they'd settle* for Remain in the end if that's how it panned out.
Presently, I still can’t see the DUP voting for May’s Deal.
The smarter DUPers must know that Brexit is a dead end and would perhaps welcome a PV as a potential escape route. Not that they would vote for it, but they might abstain.
They won't vote for it, but they ain't voting for May's deal. For them, hard brexit or remaining really are both better options.
Corbyn's best outcome was the deal passed thanks to Labour rebels who he could disavow. He cannot have that, so I guess not being able to get a referendum thanks to Labour rebels would be the next best thing.
ERG could fold now, and accept there's a real risk of not leaving if they don't sign May's deal (and then revisit it all later, as Gove keeps saying).
This is precisely what Jezza wants. Tory Brexit with none of his fingerprints anywhere near it.
Yes, but we know plenty of ERGers think the deal is worse than Leaving, so the risk of not getting Brexit is not as strong a motivator as it could be.
Doesn't the DUP have to fold too for May's Deal to squeak through?
I don't see how it is possible without them, and them doing so gives cause for many Tories to do the same.
And as we all know, the DUP love to fold.
Are the DUP that bothered by a 2nd Referendum though? So long as nothing is done to introduce barrieirs between NI and Britain, I'd have thought they'd settle* for Remain in the end if that's how it panned out.
(*Settle for it, not campaign for it though)
I think they would too, but in practice I don't think it means something other than them being as bloody minded as possible, as now.
There are people desperate to vote Labour in Scotland. They are unionists. They want to stay in the EU. They hate Corbyn and the SNP.
Let's call them the JK Rowling types.
Tonight Corbyn has given them enough to work with to stop them contemplating Scottish Independence as a way of staying in the EU.
Haven't they burnt their 'I could never be in the same party as these ghastly antisemites let alone vote for them' boats? Though of course one can never say never when it comes to the Rowlingites.
Corbyn's best outcome was the deal passed thanks to Labour rebels who he could disavow. He cannot have that, so I guess not being able to get a referendum thanks to Labour rebels would be the next best thing.
ERG could fold now, and accept there's a real risk of not leaving if they don't sign May's deal (and then revisit it all later, as Gove keeps saying).
This is precisely what Jezza wants. Tory Brexit with none of his fingerprints anywhere near it.
Since Corbyn is only accepting a 2nd referendum for May's deal, but not for "Labour Brexit", the Tories could really wind the Remainers up by passing "Labour Brexit".
Not sure it can be classed as winding up if it sees remaining in the customs union.
I think it would wind up a lot of the People's Vote mob if the second referendum turned out to be May's deal vs No deal...
Corbyn's best outcome was the deal passed thanks to Labour rebels who he could disavow. He cannot have that, so I guess not being able to get a referendum thanks to Labour rebels would be the next best thing.
ERG could fold now, and accept there's a real risk of not leaving if they don't sign May's deal (and then revisit it all later, as Gove keeps saying).
This is precisely what Jezza wants. Tory Brexit with none of his fingerprints anywhere near it.
Yes, but we know plenty of ERGers think the deal is worse than Leaving, so the risk of not getting Brexit is not as strong a motivator as it could be.
To accept May's Deal is to accept Brexit has failed. They are reluctant to do that. Ultimately, I think they can rationalise their vote by pretending they can tear up the Deal once it's passed. We vote for the Deal, they will tell themselves, but we don't support it.
I don't think they are necessarily extremist, by the way. If you vote for something you want it to have a purpose.
Corbyn's best outcome was the deal passed thanks to Labour rebels who he could disavow. He cannot have that, so I guess not being able to get a referendum thanks to Labour rebels would be the next best thing.
ERG could fold now, and accept there's a real risk of not leaving if they don't sign May's deal (and then revisit it all later, as Gove keeps saying).
This is precisely what Jezza wants. Tory Brexit with none of his fingerprints anywhere near it.
Since Corbyn is only accepting a 2nd referendum for May's deal, but not for "Labour Brexit", the Tories could really wind the Remainers up by passing "Labour Brexit".
Not sure it can be classed as winding up if it sees remaining in the customs union.
I think it would wind up a lot of the People's Vote mob if the second referendum turned out to be May's deal vs No deal...
With so much of parliament wanting to remain, if not as many will admit it, there's no way remain does not get on the ballot.
Just trying to work out how many Tories you need to pass Deal+PV.
Start with the last confidence vote for the govt vs opposition baseline: 325 to 306, maj 19 so you have to swing 10.
25 Lab rebels go to the dark side (see upthread), 3 Tories go TIG, now it's 32. Add a few misc small party votes and maybe 35?
Seems like it might be a doable number if the alternatives are the No Deal Kaiju and endless extensions, but would their consituency associations string them up from a lamppost?
Corbyn's best outcome was the deal passed thanks to Labour rebels who he could disavow. He cannot have that, so I guess not being able to get a referendum thanks to Labour rebels would be the next best thing.
ERG could fold now, and accept there's a real risk of not leaving if they don't sign May's deal (and then revisit it all later, as Gove keeps saying).
This is precisely what Jezza wants. Tory Brexit with none of his fingerprints anywhere near it.
Since Corbyn is only accepting a 2nd referendum for May's deal, but not for "Labour Brexit", the Tories could really wind the Remainers up by passing "Labour Brexit".
Not sure it can be classed as winding up if it sees remaining in the customs union.
I think it would wind up a lot of the People's Vote mob if the second referendum turned out to be May's deal vs No deal...
It would, but literally nobody is arguing for that except Brexity trolls on the interwebs.
Keep saying it Big G if it makes you feel better. But you are wrong.
You are wrong to take Labour leave votes for granted as not going to Labour in a general election.
You may not even be right that it was Labour votes that made key difference in those areas called leave constituency’s. 2017 GE hints at such. The reason is, in 2016, up and down the country, polling stations didn't get all the usual faces, but quite a lot of faces who don't go in there very often, if at all. The rationale was voting leave because remain belonged to the political establishment these voters think never listens to them and has hollowed out their communities with globalisation and austerity. Not a rationale that suggests they rush into arms of long standing conservative government.
That’s my reasoning why your statement is wrong. Where’s your reasoning supporting your statement.
I would refer you to tonight comments by labour mps in leave seats with 25 already saying they will vote against
You taking the 25 for granted? That’s the same mistake Mr Big. 😁 Those that campaigned for remain and found their constituency go leave no longer have to play the game. They have been freed from that game. I predict labour MPs voting against will not only be in single figures, but less than 5.
Labour Leavers should leave and form their own group!
They will - Field, Austin, Mann has one foot out the door, Hoey will go when she's deselected. Hopkins is Labour Leave but suspended at the moment anyway. Stringer must be a risk.
Just trying to work out how many Tories you need to pass Deal+PV.
Start with the last confidence vote for the govt vs opposition baseline: 325 to 306, maj 19 so you have to swing 10.
25 Lab rebels go to the dark side (see upthread), 3 Tories go TIG, now it's 32. Add a few misc small party votes and maybe 35?
Seems like it might be a doable number if the alternatives are the No Deal Kaiju and endless extensions, but would their consituency associations string them up from a lamppost?
They could claim they were voting for May's Deal - it is after all the only way it's going to get through.
Keep saying it Big G if it makes you feel better. But you are wrong.
You are wrong to take Labour leave votes for granted as not going to Labour in a general election.
You may not even be right that it was Labour votes that made key difference in those areas called leave constituency’s. 2017 GE hints at such. The reason is, in 2016, up and down the country, polling stations didn't get all the usual faces, but quite a lot of faces who don't go in there very often, if at all. The rationale was voting leave because remain belonged to the political establishment these voters think never listens to them and has hollowed out their communities with globalisation and austerity. Not a rationale that suggests they rush into arms of long standing conservative government.
That’s my reasoning why your statement is wrong. Where’s your reasoning supporting your statement.
I would refer you to tonight comments by labour mps in leave seats with 25 already saying they will vote against
You taking the 25 for granted? That’s the same mistake Mr Big. 😁 Those that campaigned for remain and found their constituency go leave no longer have to play the game. They have been freed from that game. I predict labour MPs voting against will not only be in single figures, but less than 5.
I've lost the plot - when is this vote going to be held, is it this week?
Keep saying it Big G if it makes you feel better. But you are wrong.
You are wrong to take Labour leave votes for granted as not going to Labour in a general election.
You may not even be right that it was Labour votes that made key difference in those areas called leave constituency’s. 2017 GE hints at such. The reason is, in 2016, up and down the country, polling stations didn't get all the usual faces, but quite a lot of faces who don't go in there very often, if at all. The rationale was voting leave because remain belonged to the political establishment these voters think never listens to them and has hollowed out their communities with globalisation and austerity. Not a rationale that suggests they rush into arms of long standing conservative government.
That’s my reasoning why your statement is wrong. Where’s your reasoning supporting your statement.
I would refer you to tonight comments by labour mps in leave seats with 25 already saying they will vote against
Apparently Momentum are being mobilized in those leave areas !
Just trying to work out how many Tories you need to pass Deal+PV.
Start with the last confidence vote for the govt vs opposition baseline: 325 to 306, maj 19 so you have to swing 10.
25 Lab rebels go to the dark side (see upthread), 3 Tories go TIG, now it's 32. Add a few misc small party votes and maybe 35?
Seems like it might be a doable number if the alternatives are the No Deal Kaiju and endless extensions, but would their consituency associations string them up from a lamppost?
They could claim they were voting for May's Deal - it is after all the only way it's going to get through.
Right and like I say if you've passed the anti-kaiju motion first, they can say they're voting to stop dicking around and actually get brexit done.
Corbyn's best outcome was the deal passed thanks to Labour rebels who he could disavow. He cannot have that, so I guess not being able to get a referendum thanks to Labour rebels would be the next best thing.
ERG could fold now, and accept there's a real risk of not leaving if they don't sign May's deal (and then revisit it all later, as Gove keeps saying).
This is precisely what Jezza wants. Tory Brexit with none of his fingerprints anywhere near it.
Yes, but we know plenty of ERGers think the deal is worse than Leaving, so the risk of not getting Brexit is not as strong a motivator as it could be.
We know some postured that it was.
Whether they would actually vote that way when it mattered might be rather different.
This can't be right, we were told so reliably by so many people on the right exactly what Corbyn wanted, many on the left disagreed but there was an understanding that only those on the right really know what the left will do...
Worked for Henry VII. Nobody's first choice, everybody's second.
I hesitate to challenge an historian but didn't Henry VII seize the throne himself and was thus his own (and presumably his supporters') first choice?
The short answer is No.
The longer answer is to run through alternatives. The Lancastrian choice was Henry VI, his son Edward of Westminster and his cousin the Duke of Somerset. They all suffered from the minor drawback of being dead. Didn't stop their diehard supporters, e.g. Oxford and Pembroke, who rallied round Henry's nephew.
Then you have the Yorkists. Their King was Edward IV, who died young in 1483 causing a succession crisis. Their first choice was Edward V. He vanished and was presumed murdered. The next choice was his cousin, Edward, Earl of Warwick. He suffered from a number of drawbacks. He was young, rumoured to be mentally unstable, his father had been executed for treason, his lands had been seized and he was a prisoner. That didn't make him a popular choice. The next choice, and not an altogether unpopular choice, was their uncle Richard. The small matter of him being a usurper, murderer, thief and rumoured infanticide, told against him, although he did seize the throne and hold it for 26 months. Absent all these, the next possible candidate was Edward V's oldest sister Elizabeth. She was a woman. Vaginas were for producing babies not sitting on thrones.
That didn't leave many candidates. It was the genius of Henry (and his mother Margaret) to persuade people that their preferred candidate being unavailable because of X reason, he was a plausible alternative. To be sure, it helped considerably that he offered to marry Elizabeth. But it was this ability to be the second choice of a wide range that was the clincher. It drew in the southern gentry who hated Richard and wanted Edward V, the northern barons who were suspicious of him and wanted Warwick whom they hoped to manipulate, the dowager queen who wanted Elizabeth, and the supporters of Henry VI who wanted a Lancastrian on the throne. They were the ones who supported him in his battle (along with the regent of France who was just out to cause trouble).
I was in fact quoting Michael Hicks, who said Henry VII was 'a king elected by proportional representation. He was the first choice of very few people, but gained enough transfers from other candidates to become king when they were ruled out.' (He obviously means STV not PR, but I'm not responsible for his misunderstanding of constitutional theory.)
He did a fairly effective job of seizing a firm grasp on the throne after he became king, though.
Keep saying it Big G if it makes you feel better. But you are wrong.
You are wrong to take Labour leave votes for granted as not going to Labour in a general election.
You may not even be right that it was Labour votes that made key difference in those areas called leave constituency’s. 2017 GE hints at such. The reason is, in 2016, up and down the country, polling stations didn't get all the usual faces, but quite a lot of faces who don't go in there very often, if at all. The rationale was voting leave because remain belonged to the political establishment these voters think never listens to them and has hollowed out their communities with globalisation and austerity. Not a rationale that suggests they rush into arms of long standing conservative government.
That’s my reasoning why your statement is wrong. Where’s your reasoning supporting your statement.
I would refer you to tonight comments by labour mps in leave seats with 25 already saying they will vote against
You taking the 25 for granted? That’s the same mistake Mr Big. 😁 Those that campaigned for remain and found their constituency go leave no longer have to play the game. They have been freed from that game. I predict labour MPs voting against will not only be in single figures, but less than 5.
No I am not.. I am quoting labour sources shown downthread
And I am only the messenger. Frankly TM deal or remain are fine with me
This can't be right, we were told so reliably by so many people on the right exactly what Corbyn wanted, many on the left disagreed but there was an understanding that only those on the right really know what the left will do...
I'm still convinced Starmer tricked him.
Well, the cynical view is that he wanted the disaster socialist outcome so much that he wouldn't do this until he was literally threatened with the dissolution of his party.
I was in fact quoting Michael Hicks, who said Henry VII was 'a king elected by proportional representation. He was the first choice of very few people, but gained enough transfers from other candidates to become king when they were ruled out.' (He obviously means STV not PR, but I'm not responsible for his misunderstanding of constitutional theory.)
He did a fairly effective job of seizing a firm grasp on the throne after he became king, though.
Thanks in no small part to these selfsame supporters. Elizabeth obligingly bore him a son nine months after their marriage. Oxford and Northumberland commanded the army that won at Stoke. Surrey (who had supported Richard) restored order in the north after the tax riots of 1489. The southern gentry kept order for him in London through plague and rioting. And Edward of Warwick helpfully became progressively more insane as he aged until he was tricked into doing something treasonous and beheaded in 1499.
Henry's genius was always in persuading people that whatever his faults he was better than the alternatives. At one and the same time it made him a highly effective king and means in the verdict of posterity he has always suffered compared to his energetic and dynamic son and youngest granddaughter, who ruled very much more by their own charisma.
Comments
I was under the impression he wasn't widely liked.
Most people who could be convinced by him are already on side anyway. The Blair from '97 would be an asset I'm sure but current Blair is best kept well away from it.
I still have nightmares.
Although if we do have another referendum, far from certain, you'd imagine those with any inclination towards remain have been given every reason to turnout rather than just skip it.
In all honesty, given their coming together was very much a marriage of convenience, I wonder how well they get along on a personal level.
1) Parliament passes a ban on No Deal - I think the votes for this are there already
2) EU says the minimum extension will be 3 years
3) Say, "I don't like this second referendum business but it's the quickest way to get Brexit done"
Too many variables
I have reservations regarding what this does for Labour's electoral chances but destroying the tiggers and staying in the EU are on the 'would like to happen' list so overall happy with the direction.
https://twitter.com/willmenaker/status/1098270844239970304
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1100102376088891393
The longer answer is to run through alternatives. The Lancastrian choice was Henry VI, his son Edward of Westminster and his cousin the Duke of Somerset. They all suffered from the minor drawback of being dead. Didn't stop their diehard supporters, e.g. Oxford and Pembroke, who rallied round Henry's nephew.
Then you have the Yorkists. Their King was Edward IV, who died young in 1483 causing a succession crisis. Their first choice was Edward V. He vanished and was presumed murdered. The next choice was his cousin, Edward, Earl of Warwick. He suffered from a number of drawbacks. He was young, rumoured to be mentally unstable, his father had been executed for treason, his lands had been seized and he was a prisoner. That didn't make him a popular choice. The next choice, and not an altogether unpopular choice, was their uncle Richard. The small matter of him being a usurper, murderer, thief and rumoured infanticide, told against him, although he did seize the throne and hold it for 26 months. Absent all these, the next possible candidate was Edward V's oldest sister Elizabeth. She was a woman. Vaginas were for producing babies not sitting on thrones.
That didn't leave many candidates. It was the genius of Henry (and his mother Margaret) to persuade people that their preferred candidate being unavailable because of X reason, he was a plausible alternative. To be sure, it helped considerably that he offered to marry Elizabeth. But it was this ability to be the second choice of a wide range that was the clincher. It drew in the southern gentry who hated Richard and wanted Edward V, the northern barons who were suspicious of him and wanted Warwick whom they hoped to manipulate, the dowager queen who wanted Elizabeth, and the supporters of Henry VI who wanted a Lancastrian on the throne. They were the ones who supported him in his battle (along with the regent of France who was just out to cause trouble).
I was in fact quoting Michael Hicks, who said Henry VII was 'a king elected by proportional representation. He was the first choice of very few people, but gained enough transfers from other candidates to become king when they were ruled out.' (He obviously means STV not PR, but I'm not responsible for his misunderstanding of constitutional theory.)
This is precisely what Jezza wants. Tory Brexit with none of his fingerprints anywhere near it.
PB, commentary at its finest.
Let's call them the JK Rowling types.
Tonight Corbyn has given them enough to work with to stop them contemplating Scottish Independence as a way of staying in the EU.
I note from Wikipedea Henry VII was born in Pembroke Castle; was he the only Welshman to become King of England?
Of course, there's also the issue that "May's deal" is only really for a transition period, not for the permanent solution, so we'd end up right back here a couple of years later even in that scenario...
On your second point: it depends on what you mean by 'Welsh'. If you mean 'Welsh-speaker,' yes he probably was. But both Edward II (Caernarfon) and Henry V (Monmouth) were born in Wales.
If Scotland became independent but then some people in the Highlands started campaigning for independence would you argue that is the right thing on the basis of democracy and accountability even if, like with Scottish independence (in the ref) it is not the majority opinion?
I agree on the general idea of self determination so if Scottish people decided to leave they should be allowed to (or Yorkshire etc.) but that is different from saying you campaign for it to happen (which I took to mean advance your opinion Scotland should be independent rather than leafleting during the referendum) I agree Britain should have a Conservative government if it votes for it but I certainly don't campaign for it, grudging acceptance at best
And as we all know, the DUP love to fold.
I'd sooner eat a pizza with pineapple on it than go back.
I would've thought she would've been in her element this past week.
The smarter DUPers must know that Brexit is a dead end and would perhaps welcome a PV as a potential escape route.
Not that they would vote for it, but they might abstain.
(*Settle for it, not campaign for it though)
Wetherspoon himself is an obnoxious turd, so I spend my money elsewhere nowadays.
I don't think they are necessarily extremist, by the way. If you vote for something you want it to have a purpose.
Start with the last confidence vote for the govt vs opposition baseline: 325 to 306, maj 19 so you have to swing 10.
25 Lab rebels go to the dark side (see upthread), 3 Tories go TIG, now it's 32. Add a few misc small party votes and maybe 35?
Seems like it might be a doable number if the alternatives are the No Deal Kaiju and endless extensions, but would their consituency associations string them up from a lamppost?
Those that campaigned for remain and found their constituency go leave no longer have to play the game. They have been freed from that game. I predict labour MPs voting against will not only be in single figures, but less than 5.
They could claim they were voting for May's Deal - it is after all the only way it's going to get through.
Whether they would actually vote that way when it mattered might be rather different.
But, but, but... hard left! communist! marxist!
This can't be right, we were told so reliably by so many people on the right exactly what Corbyn wanted, many on the left disagreed but there was an understanding that only those on the right really know what the left will do...
I'm still convinced Starmer tricked him.
And I am only the messenger. Frankly TM deal or remain are fine with me
But all's well that ends well...
One thing I'd say about Weatherspoons is that they are good at putting old buildings back into use and so improving the general area.
I bloody love Yo Sushi!
As a good Muslim boy it is very difficult to find a nice eatery.
Henry's genius was always in persuading people that whatever his faults he was better than the alternatives. At one and the same time it made him a highly effective king and means in the verdict of posterity he has always suffered compared to his energetic and dynamic son and youngest granddaughter, who ruled very much more by their own charisma.
' House prices in London could dip three per cent after a no deal Brexit, new research has found.
However, if an agreement is reached, property prices are expected to rise 0.5 per cent in the capital and 1.5 per cent nationally. '
http://www.cityam.com/273691/lonon-house-prices-fall-three-per-cent-after-no-deal-brexit