...I suspect Wollaston will pull the amendment at the last minute, to save it only getting about 30 votes.
More critically, the amendment will be pulled because once voted on it isn't normally allowable to table the same proposal again (May and her deal being an exception, clearly)
At what point can you no longer pull an amendment. Bercow did not allow Spelman to pull her amendment yesterday. I am not clear on how close to the vote that was but it seems like to was a few hours before. Might Wollaston be unable to pull her amendment?
I think you can always effectively pull an amendment right at the last moment by not pressing it to a vote. Yesterday was unusual in that Spelman wanted to do that but it was instead pressed to a vote by one of the other co-signatories.
NotwhatIam (14.10 Cheltenham) was fancied last week quite strongly but the price is drifting out faster than the ERG's commitment to Brexit so maybe something has changed.
...I suspect Wollaston will pull the amendment at the last minute, to save it only getting about 30 votes.
More critically, the amendment will be pulled because once voted on it isn't normally allowable to table the same proposal again (May and her deal being an exception, clearly)
One of the ERG should have signed it, so they could stop it being pulled.
I don't know if that's allowed, but it would have been very funny.
...I suspect Wollaston will pull the amendment at the last minute, to save it only getting about 30 votes.
More critically, the amendment will be pulled because once voted on it isn't normally allowable to table the same proposal again (May and her deal being an exception, clearly)
At what point can you no longer pull an amendment. Bercow did not allow Spelman to pull her amendment yesterday. I am not clear on how close to the vote that was but it seems like to was a few hours before. Might Wollaston be unable to pull her amendment?
I think you can always effectively pull an amendment right at the last moment by not pressing it to a vote. Yesterday was unusual in that Spelman wanted to do that but it was instead pressed to a vote by one of the other co-signatories.
I think Caroline Flint is a signatory so she could use the Cooper precedent and insist on it being voted on - probably one of the reasons she signed it, to ensure PV gets a vote and gets taken out of the equation. At least until the next time....
Control of the process is now clearly passing to Parliament as last night's votes show and for some sort of CU and SM BINO, Tusk has also signalled the EU would grant a lengthy extension if the UK shifted in that direction today
It seems to me that control is passing to nobody.
Control is passing to a cabal of unrepresentative MPs and a speaker who are hell bent on ignoring the referendum.
Good luck to anyone trying to run the country if they succeed.
Nah, the HoC is accurately reflecting a British public lost, conflicted and confused about the fiasco of Brexit.
Disagree - the public want Brexit over. The HoC wants to can kick forever rather than take a decision.
Brexit will never be over. Not for ten years at least. Maybe if we revoke, but even then doubtful.
Same goes for EU integration. An unstoppable force with only one destination.
ble of change" criticism that comes from largely the same people. I think the second criticism has more validity, incidentally.
What the bleeding fuck are you talking about? Integration is accelerating. What’s more, since Lisbon they don’t need Treaty change to do it. They want an EU army, EU wide migration laws, harmonised taxes, harmonised minimum wages, one EU UNSC seat, they want it all. Moreover, the horrible logic of the eurozone means that they HAVE to go for much closer integration - pooling debt, etc. Because if they don’t the eurozone will fly apart in the next crisis.
Perhaps you missed Macron’s speech on all this. Understandable I suppose. He is just the president of France.
Sure, he won’t get everything he wants at once. But the direction of travel is obvious. Only a lying cretin, or a British Europhile (i.e. the same thing) would pretend otherwise.
I think the term cretin and any other term for people of limited intellect belongs to anyone who believes Muslims should be deported for simply being Muslim. You are talking out of your backside once again. It is said that travel broadens the mind. Clearly being of broad mind does not apply to travel writers for Rupert Murdoch's Times.
Like I said, Europhiles are lying cretins. To be fair, though, I think you’re more of a cretin than a liar.
Its more akin to the landlord inviting the customer in with "What would you like?" The customer says "A pint of bitter, please," and the landlord shakes his head. "You can only have lemonade, this is a vegan pub."
...I suspect Wollaston will pull the amendment at the last minute, to save it only getting about 30 votes.
More critically, the amendment will be pulled because once voted on it isn't normally allowable to table the same proposal again (May and her deal being an exception, clearly)
At what point can you no longer pull an amendment. Bercow did not allow Spelman to pull her amendment yesterday. I am not clear on how close to the vote that was but it seems like to was a few hours before. Might Wollaston be unable to pull her amendment?
I think you can always effectively pull an amendment right at the last moment by not pressing it to a vote. Yesterday was unusual in that Spelman wanted to do that but it was instead pressed to a vote by one of the other co-signatories.
Which does of course mean that someone else could press the amendment today.
But I expect yesterday was unusual because of the suspicion that Spelman had somehow been nobbled.
...I suspect Wollaston will pull the amendment at the last minute, to save it only getting about 30 votes.
More critically, the amendment will be pulled because once voted on it isn't normally allowable to table the same proposal again (May and her deal being an exception, clearly)
At what point can you no longer pull an amendment. Bercow did not allow Spelman to pull her amendment yesterday. I am not clear on how close to the vote that was but it seems like to was a few hours before. Might Wollaston be unable to pull her amendment?
I think you can always effectively pull an amendment right at the last moment by not pressing it to a vote. Yesterday was unusual in that Spelman wanted to do that but it was instead pressed to a vote by one of the other co-signatories.
I think Caroline Flint is a signatory so she could use the Cooper precedent and insist on it being voted on - probably one of the reasons she signed it, to ensure PV gets a vote and gets taken out of the equation. At least until the next time....
That'd be funny but I doubt Flint is a signatory to Wollaston.
Control of the process is now clearly passing to Parliament as last night's votes show and for some sort of CU and SM BINO, Tusk has also signalled the EU would grant a lengthy extension if the UK shifted in that direction today
It seems to me that control is passing to nobody.
Control is passing to a cabal of unrepresentative MPs and a speaker who are hell bent on ignoring the referendum.
Good luck to anyone trying to run the country if they succeed.
Nah, the HoC is accurately reflecting a British public lost, conflicted and confused about the fiasco of Brexit.
Disagree - the public want Brexit over. The HoC wants to can kick forever rather than take a decision.
Brexit will never be over. Not for ten years at least. Maybe if we revoke, but even then doubtful.
Same goes for EU integration. An unstoppable force with only one destination.
The EU integration bandwagon has more or less stopped.There is almost zero willingness for it amongst member states. This is the other side of the coin from "The EU is incapable of change" criticism that comes from largely the same people. I think the second criticism has more validity, incidentally.
I think that is simply untrue. And at two separate levels. As someone has already pointed out you have Macron, Merkel and others claiming that the only way to deal with populism is to have further integration - and quickly.
And then at the Commission level you have the proposal that they will use the Passerelle clause to bypass national vetoes and introduce majority voting for all tax issues. Whether or not this would pass, it certainly shows a desire for continuing integration by the EU.
They are going to get sued for billions. This is worse than dieselgate. Many people have died.
Boeing made a complete fool of themselves by allowing Trump to make the announcement to ground the plane before they did. The same goes for the Federal Aviation Authority.
...I suspect Wollaston will pull the amendment at the last minute, to save it only getting about 30 votes.
More critically, the amendment will be pulled because once voted on it isn't normally allowable to table the same proposal again (May and her deal being an exception, clearly)
At what point can you no longer pull an amendment. Bercow did not allow Spelman to pull her amendment yesterday. I am not clear on how close to the vote that was but it seems like to was a few hours before. Might Wollaston be unable to pull her amendment?
I think you can always effectively pull an amendment right at the last moment by not pressing it to a vote. Yesterday was unusual in that Spelman wanted to do that but it was instead pressed to a vote by one of the other co-signatories.
Cheers Richard. I hadn't understood the circumstances.
...I suspect Wollaston will pull the amendment at the last minute, to save it only getting about 30 votes.
More critically, the amendment will be pulled because once voted on it isn't normally allowable to table the same proposal again (May and her deal being an exception, clearly)
One of the ERG should have signed it, so they could stop it being pulled.
I don't know if that's allowed, but it would have been very funny.
If the ERG started to play games like that at such a critical time they would deserve everything that is coming their way
Every single speech and interview with Bill Cash seems to arrive at the matter of repealing the 1972 Act remarkably quickly, irrespective of the subject of debate or the question being asked.
I wonder historically, how many other amendments with 127 signatories have not been selected by a Speaker?
I am not terribly in favour of a second referendum, but why are Brexiteers so terrified of a second ref? I thought you have always said the will-o-the-people is with you?
More that the decision of the first one should be enacted first.
I don't understand that argument. If I say, I'll have a pint of bitter, and I then say, *before the barman has started to pump the bitter, *, no make that Guinness, where is the sense in saying sorry, mate, you have to have the bitter first?
Political transactions are rarely so simple. It was repeated during the campaign that this would be it, no further votes. You don’t have the same conditions when ordering your drink.
The trouble is we don't have any rules for referenda like we do for General Elections (ftpa and a lot of preceding stuff) or Commons votes (Erskine May), which provide how much time has to pass before you can ask the same question again. It would be sensible to have a similar time based rule for referenda and we can argue about how long that should be but I don't see any force in or precedent for the claim that you have to do what the referendum said, irrespective of the passage of time. Its like a rule that you can't hold a General Election until every single pledge in the manifesto has been enacted. And promises made by the parties in the campaign like "no further votes" have no force whatever if they weren't in the legislation nor in the wording of the question.
...I suspect Wollaston will pull the amendment at the last minute, to save it only getting about 30 votes.
More critically, the amendment will be pulled because once voted on it isn't normally allowable to table the same proposal again (May and her deal being an exception, clearly)
At what point can you no longer pull an amendment. Bercow did not allow Spelman to pull her amendment yesterday. I am not clear on how close to the vote that was but it seems like to was a few hours before. Might Wollaston be unable to pull her amendment?
I think you can always effectively pull an amendment right at the last moment by not pressing it to a vote. Yesterday was unusual in that Spelman wanted to do that but it was instead pressed to a vote by one of the other co-signatories.
I think Caroline Flint is a signatory so she could use the Cooper precedent and insist on it being voted on - probably one of the reasons she signed it, to ensure PV gets a vote and gets taken out of the equation. At least until the next time....
That'd be funny but I doubt Flint is a signatory to Wollaston.
no she isn't - she just sarcastically thanked the speaker for selecting it - I was misled by a tweet I saw, should have known better!
That's quite correct. A People's Vote will only happen if and when MPs panic enough and while the panic is rising, they haven't yet reached Def Con 1.
Further proof that a peoples vote is about stopping Brexit and not much else.
It is asking the people. I don't personally have much truck with it myself but it is asking the effing people. The same people who voted to Leave in 2016. It's not like they are going to ask the French to vote to overturn the British decision. It is the very same British people, give or take a few additions to the electoral register (and conversely a few now older-ies).
That's quite correct. A People's Vote will only happen if and when MPs panic enough and while the panic is rising, they haven't yet reached Def Con 1.
Further proof that a peoples vote is about stopping Brexit and not much else.
It is asking the people. I don't personally have much truck with it myself but it is asking the effing people. The same people who voted to Leave in 2016. It's not like they are going to ask the French to vote to overturn the British decision. It is the very same British people, give or take a few additions to the electoral register (and conversely a few now older-ies).
Mr Meeks seems to be a bit more honest than you in his reply.
We've had plenty of leaks from cabinet meetings recently. If there's no leaks from this one, we can narrow down the moles to the civil service present.
That's quite correct. A People's Vote will only happen if and when MPs panic enough and while the panic is rising, they haven't yet reached Def Con 1.
Any extension granted will take the wind out of panic though.
After a 4 yr extension all men will have changed their names by deed poll to Bob = bored of Brexit. Then quietly abandon the whole exercise but FFS do something to prevent it happening again.
That's quite correct. A People's Vote will only happen if and when MPs panic enough and while the panic is rising, they haven't yet reached Def Con 1.
Further proof that a peoples vote is about stopping Brexit and not much else.
It is asking the people. I don't personally have much truck with it myself but it is asking the effing people. The same people who voted to Leave in 2016. It's not like they are going to ask the French to vote to overturn the British decision. It is the very same British people, give or take a few additions to the electoral register (and conversely a few now older-ies).
Mr Meeks seems to be a bit more honest than you in his reply.
Huh? What bit about my post is dishonest? Or do you actually think they *are* going to ask the French. They wouldn't do that...would they?
That's quite correct. A People's Vote will only happen if and when MPs panic enough and while the panic is rising, they haven't yet reached Def Con 1.
Any extension granted will take the wind out of panic though.
I reckon there might ultimately be a "let's just get this thing over with either way" move from pro-deal Tories, but they can't do it until brexit is clearly not happening any time soon without the PV or something else to break the logjam. Ideally you'd be a month or two into the extension, with the whole thing becalmed.
The hitch is that it's not clear you can get the 27 to agree the extension unless you first agree to the referendum...
That's quite correct. A People's Vote will only happen if and when MPs panic enough and while the panic is rising, they haven't yet reached Def Con 1.
Further proof that a peoples vote is about stopping Brexit and not much else.
It is asking the people. I don't personally have much truck with it myself but it is asking the effing people. The same people who voted to Leave in 2016. It's not like they are going to ask the French to vote to overturn the British decision. It is the very same British people, give or take a few additions to the electoral register (and conversely a few now older-ies).
Mr Meeks seems to be a bit more honest than you in his reply.
Huh? What bit about my post is dishonest? Or do you actually think they *are* going to ask the French. They wouldn't do that...would they?
Depends if they change the eligibility, perhaps to ensure the correct vote?
That's quite correct. A People's Vote will only happen if and when MPs panic enough and while the panic is rising, they haven't yet reached Def Con 1.
Further proof that a peoples vote is about stopping Brexit and not much else.
It is asking the people. I don't personally have much truck with it myself but it is asking the effing people. The same people who voted to Leave in 2016. It's not like they are going to ask the French to vote to overturn the British decision. It is the very same British people, give or take a few additions to the electoral register (and conversely a few now older-ies).
Mr Meeks seems to be a bit more honest than you in his reply.
Huh? What bit about my post is dishonest? Or do you actually think they *are* going to ask the French. They wouldn't do that...would they?
The part about "asking the people" - they are only being asked on the chance they say remain.
Every single speech and interview with Bill Cash seems to arrive at the matter of repealing the 1972 Act remarkably quickly, irrespective of the subject of debate or the question being asked.
Perhaps if parliament passed a bill to repeal the 1972 Act and replace it with the 2019 Act he'd be content?
I wonder historically, how many other amendments with 127 signatories have not been selected by a Speaker?
I am not terribly in favour of a second referendum, but why are Brexiteers so terrified of a second ref? I thought you have always said the will-o-the-people is with you?
More that the decision of the first one should be enacted first.
I don't understand that argument. If I say, I'll have a pint of bitter, and I then say, *before the barman has started to pump the bitter, *, no make that Guinness, where is the sense in saying sorry, mate, you have to have the bitter first?
Political transactions are rarely so simple. It was repeated during the campaign that this would be it, no further votes. You don’t have the same conditions when ordering your drink.
The trouble is we don't have any rules for referenda like we do for General Elections (ftpa and a lot of preceding stuff) or Commons votes (Erskine May), which provide how much time has to pass before you can ask the same question again. It would be sensible to have a similar time based rule for referenda and we can argue about how long that should be but I don't see any force in or precedent for the claim that you have to do what the referendum said, irrespective of the passage of time. Its like a rule that you can't hold a General Election until every single pledge in the manifesto has been enacted. And promises made by the parties in the campaign like "no further votes" have no force whatever if they weren't in the legislation nor in the wording of the question.
I don't actually think you should limit it in that way. The day after we leave the EU I drop all opposition to another vote. If people really want that then it should be allowed rather than having some arbitrary time limit.
What I object to is having a second vote before the first has been enacted. That is where you destroy democratic legitimacy.
...I suspect Wollaston will pull the amendment at the last minute, to save it only getting about 30 votes.
More critically, the amendment will be pulled because once voted on it isn't normally allowable to table the same proposal again (May and her deal being an exception, clearly)
One of the ERG should have signed it, so they could stop it being pulled.
I don't know if that's allowed, but it would have been very funny.
If the ERG started to play games like that at such a critical time they would deserve everything that is coming their way
I mostly agree, but from their point of view Bercow is being so one-sided that such tricks are necessary to expose the hypocrisy.
Also you could argue that having Ref2 voted down by a colossal margin at this point would be beneficial, if it takes one way forward off the table permanently.
We are rewriting the rulebook if Conservative MPs will not vote to sustain a Conservative government.
Ministers are not sustaining a Conservative government as of last night.
The queen should step in soon.
The stakes certainly got upped yesterday, with a lot of Ministers - including in the Cabinet - putting their careers on the line. Those who rebelled will now see that if May succeeds, they will be out on their ear in a mahoosive reshuffle. And if Brexit fails, they will get deselected for their pains of being on the "winning" side.....
Where are the men in grey suits that should be stepping in to tell May to step aside.
Could May agreeing to step down get MV3 through ?
May stepping down won't be of any interest to the DUP. They need a Bloody Big Bribe. I've been saying it long enough - PROMISE THEM THE BRIDGE-TUNNEL COMBO TO SCOTLAND.
It's not like May is going to be cutting the bloody ribbon. She won't even be around when the first detailed costs are offered up, making her successor blanche at that many noughts......
It will be an exciting crossing as it will tunnel through the biggest pile of WW2 bombs
You'd probably take a longer, more northern route to avoid Beaufort's Dyke. What's a couple of extra billion out of Spreadsheet Phil's war chest? (And like he has any long-term career plans for that money anyway....)
That might stray into the oil rich waters of the southern end of the Firth of Clyde....
This is infinitely depressing. We have lost. We have no backbone. The Enlightenment is over. Now comes the Darkening.
Ofsted should step in and close the school.
They'd probably end up having to close a great many schools in Birmingham.
This is what it’s like when the Muslim population of the country is just 5%. We cower and cringe, and abandon precious freedoms and principles with barely a fight. We already have a de facto blasphemy law - that only protects Islam.
Imagine what it will be like if and when the Muslim population reaches 10%, or 20%.
That's quite correct. A People's Vote will only happen if and when MPs panic enough and while the panic is rising, they haven't yet reached Def Con 1.
Further proof that a peoples vote is about stopping Brexit and not much else.
It is asking the people. I don't personally have much truck with it myself but it is asking the effing people. The same people who voted to Leave in 2016. It's not like they are going to ask the French to vote to overturn the British decision. It is the very same British people, give or take a few additions to the electoral register (and conversely a few now older-ies).
Mr Meeks seems to be a bit more honest than you in his reply.
Huh? What bit about my post is dishonest? Or do you actually think they *are* going to ask the French. They wouldn't do that...would they?
The part about "asking the people" - they are only being asked on the chance they say remain.
That's just dumb. They are being asked - there won't be a pre-vote questionnaire to see how they will vote before they are asked to vote.
We are rewriting the rulebook if Conservative MPs will not vote to sustain a Conservative government.
Ministers are not sustaining a Conservative government as of last night.
The queen should step in soon.
The stakes certainly got upped yesterday, with a lot of Ministers - including in the Cabinet - putting their careers on the line. Those who rebelled will now see that if May succeeds, they will be out on their ear in a mahoosive reshuffle. And if Brexit fails, they will get deselected for their pains of being on the "winning" side.....
Where are the men in grey suits that should be stepping in to tell May to step aside.
Could May agreeing to step down get MV3 through ?
May stepping down won't be of any interest to the DUP. They need a Bloody Big Bribe. I've been saying it long enough - PROMISE THEM THE BRIDGE-TUNNEL COMBO TO SCOTLAND.
It's not like May is going to be cutting the bloody ribbon. She won't even be around when the first detailed costs are offered up, making her successor blanche at that many noughts......
It will be an exciting crossing as it will tunnel through the biggest pile of WW2 bombs
You'd probably take a longer, more northern route to avoid Beaufort's Dyke. What's a couple of extra billion out of Spreadsheet Phil's war chest? (And like he has any long-term career plans for that money anyway....)
That might stray into the oil rich waters of the southern end of the Firth of Clyde....
I somehow doubt the oil is that shallow.... Not much of a seal if so.
I think it’s a classic case of “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing”
They’ve correctly identified that the backstop is uncomfortable and not desirable. They are therefore opposed
They are not sophisticated enough to say that, on the balance of risk, the right oprion is to vote for the deal despite this drawback
When you have ERG members such as JRM assuring us that it will all be fine we will have border checks in NI just as we did during the Troubles, you know that "not sophisticated enough" doesn't begin to cover it.
This is infinitely depressing. We have lost. We have no backbone. The Enlightenment is over. Now comes the Darkening.
Ofsted should step in and close the school.
They'd probably end up having to close a great many schools in Birmingham.
This is what it’s like when the Muslim population of the country is just 5%. We cower and cringe, and abandon precious freedoms and principles with barely a fight. We already have a de facto blasphemy law - that only protects Islam.
Imagine what it will be like if and when the Muslim population reaches 10%, or 20%.
The stakes certainly got upped yesterday, with a lot of Ministers - including in the Cabinet - putting their careers on the line. Those who rebelled will now see that if May succeeds, they will be out on their ear in a mahoosive reshuffle. And if Brexit fails, they will get deselected for their pains of being on the "winning" side.....
Well, we have the hilarious sight of rebel Brexiteers - who have spent the last four months repeatedly voting against three-line whips on the most important policy of the government - complaining about colleagues not following a very late and confused three-line whip on a motion which had not been discussed in Cabinet. So if we're going to do deselections, let's start with the serial rebels, eh?
There are quite a few people I'd like to see get a free transfer.
This is infinitely depressing. We have lost. We have no backbone. The Enlightenment is over. Now comes the Darkening.
Ofsted should step in and close the school.
They'd probably end up having to close a great many schools in Birmingham.
This is what it’s like when the Muslim population of the country is just 5%. We cower and cringe, and abandon precious freedoms and principles with barely a fight. We already have a de facto blasphemy law - that only protects Islam.
Imagine what it will be like if and when the Muslim population reaches 10%, or 20%.
Grim.
According to the article, all kinds of God Squadders have got involved.
Christians and Jews have also joined the protests, and on one Friday this month campaigners claimed that 600 of the school’s 750 children did not attend classes after being pulled out by their parents.
May has faults, but let's face it, even Cicero or Pericles would fail to get this lot to agree on anything.
I think when people say that May always had an impossible job, they forget how high she was riding before she called the GE, and how many options she had before she drew her red lines.
Yes. Her original sin was the hubris with which she established her initial red lines. Even if Lab (as they no doubt would have) had dismissed an early appeal for a big tent approach, that she had made it would give a lot less cover for them voting against her deal now.
She did make that appeal
I think Corbyn emailed her the Labour manifesto and said he would be delighted to help her implement the attached programme
The fact that I don't remember this and that it hasn't been used by May, for example at every PMQs since, is indicative of the problem.
We are rewriting the rulebook if Conservative MPs will not vote to sustain a Conservative government.
Ministers are not sustaining a Conservative government as of last night.
The queen should step in soon.
The stakes certainly got upped yesterday, with a lot of Ministers - including in the Cabinet - putting their careers on the line. Those who rebelled will now see that if May succeeds, they will be out on their ear in a mahoosive reshuffle. And if Brexit fails, they will get deselected for their pains of being on the "winning" side.....
Where are the men in grey suits that should be stepping in to tell May to step aside.
Could May agreeing to step down get MV3 through ?
May stepping down won't be of any interest to the DUP. They need a Bloody Big Bribe. I've been saying it long enough - PROMISE THEM THE BRIDGE-TUNNEL COMBO TO SCOTLAND.
It's not like May is going to be cutting the bloody ribbon. She won't even be around when the first detailed costs are offered up, making her successor blanche at that many noughts......
It will be an exciting crossing as it will tunnel through the biggest pile of WW2 bombs
You'd probably take a longer, more northern route to avoid Beaufort's Dyke. What's a couple of extra billion out of Spreadsheet Phil's war chest? (And like he has any long-term career plans for that money anyway....)
That might stray into the oil rich waters of the southern end of the Firth of Clyde....
It also strays across the most active fault line in the British Isles. You know, the one we built a nuclear power station next to.
This is infinitely depressing. We have lost. We have no backbone. The Enlightenment is over. Now comes the Darkening.
Ofsted should step in and close the school.
They'd probably end up having to close a great many schools in Birmingham.
This is what it’s like when the Muslim population of the country is just 5%. We cower and cringe, and abandon precious freedoms and principles with barely a fight. We already have a de facto blasphemy law - that only protects Islam.
Imagine what it will be like if and when the Muslim population reaches 10%, or 20%.
I wonder historically, how many other amendments with 127 signatories have not been selected by a Speaker?
I am not terribly in favour of a second referendum, but why are Brexiteers so terrified of a second ref? I thought you have always said the will-o-the-people is with you?
More that the decision of the first one should be enacted first.
I don't understand that argument. If I say, I'll have a pint of bitter, and I then say, *before the barman has started to pump the bitter, *, no make that Guinness, where is the sense in saying sorry, mate, you have to have the bitter first?
Political transactions are rarely so simple. It was repeated during the campaign that this would be it, no further votes. You don’t have the same conditions when ordering your drink.
The trouble is we don't have any rules for referenda like we do for General Elections (ftpa and a lot of preceding stuff) or Commons votes (Erskine May), which provide how much time has to pass before you can ask the same question again. It would be sensible to have a similar time based rule for referenda and we can argue about how long that should be but I don't see any force in or precedent for the claim that you have to do what the referendum said, irrespective of the passage of time. Its like a rule that you can't hold a General Election until every single pledge in the manifesto has been enacted. And promises made by the parties in the campaign like "no further votes" have no force whatever if they weren't in the legislation nor in the wording of the question.
I don't actually think you should limit it in that way. The day after we leave the EU I drop all opposition to another vote. If people really want that then it should be allowed rather than having some arbitrary time limit.
What I object to is having a second vote before the first has been enacted. That is where you destroy democratic legitimacy.
I have a lot of sympathy for that view but my objection to a second referendum isn't necessarily one of democracy; my view is that it is never undemocratic to ask the people what they think - how can it be? My objection is that it invites an admin and procedural nightmare - it is more a reductio ad absurdam problem. At what point do you decide that you will ask again?
Control of the process is now clearly passing to Parliament as last night's votes show and for some sort of CU and SM BINO, Tusk has also signalled the EU would grant a lengthy extension if the UK shifted in that direction today
But other EU countries saying no
Like who? Provided it is a shift towards BINO or EUref2 then should be no problem
Mark Stone said several countries led by France
Sucks teeth and says “I could do it but it’ll cost you”
The stakes certainly got upped yesterday, with a lot of Ministers - including in the Cabinet - putting their careers on the line. Those who rebelled will now see that if May succeeds, they will be out on their ear in a mahoosive reshuffle. And if Brexit fails, they will get deselected for their pains of being on the "winning" side.....
Well, we have the hilarious sight of rebel Brexiteers - who have spent the last four months repeatedly voting against three-line whips on the most important policy of the government - complaining about colleagues not following a very late and confused three-line whip on a motion which had not been discussed in Cabinet. So if we're going to do deselections, let's start with the serial rebels, eh?
There are quite a few people I'd like to see get a free transfer.
This is infinitely depressing. We have lost. We have no backbone. The Enlightenment is over. Now comes the Darkening.
Ofsted should step in and close the school.
They'd probably end up having to close a great many schools in Birmingham.
This is what it’s like when the Muslim population of the country is just 5%. We cower and cringe, and abandon precious freedoms and principles with barely a fight. We already have a de facto blasphemy law - that only protects Islam.
Imagine what it will be like if and when the Muslim population reaches 10%, or 20%.
Grim.
According to the article, all kinds of God Squadders have got involved.
Christians and Jews have also joined the protests, and on one Friday this month campaigners claimed that 600 of the school’s 750 children did not attend classes after being pulled out by their parents.
Do you really think the school would have abandoned these lessons if it was just Christians or Jews complaining? Of course not. And what’s your guess as to the religious complexion of the kids in this school. In Birmingham. Majority Jewish? Welsh evangelicals?
May has faults, but let's face it, even Cicero or Pericles would fail to get this lot to agree on anything.
I think when people say that May always had an impossible job, they forget how high she was riding before she called the GE, and how many options she had before she drew her red lines.
Yes. Her original sin was the hubris with which she established her initial red lines. Even if Lab (as they no doubt would have) had dismissed an early appeal for a big tent approach, that she had made it would give a lot less cover for them voting against her deal now.
She did make that appeal
I think Corbyn emailed her the Labour manifesto and said he would be delighted to help her implement the attached programme
The fact that I don't remember this and that it hasn't been used by May, for example at every PMQs since, is indicative of the problem.
We are rewriting the rulebook if Conservative MPs will not vote to sustain a Conservative government.
Ministers are not sustaining a Conservative government as of last night.
The queen should step in soon.
The stakes certainly got upped yesterday, with a lot of Ministers - including in the Cabinet - putting their careers on the line. Those who rebelled will now see that if May succeeds, they will be out on their ear in a mahoosive reshuffle. And if Brexit fails, they will get deselected for their pains of being on the "winning" side.....
Where are the men in grey suits that should be stepping in to tell May to step aside.
Could May agreeing to step down get MV3 through ?
May stepping down won't be of any interest to the DUP. They need a Bloody Big Bribe. I've been saying it long enough - PROMISE THEM THE BRIDGE-TUNNEL COMBO TO SCOTLAND.
It's not like May is going to be cutting the bloody ribbon. She won't even be around when the first detailed costs are offered up, making her successor blanche at that many noughts......
It will be an exciting crossing as it will tunnel through the biggest pile of WW2 bombs
You'd probably take a longer, more northern route to avoid Beaufort's Dyke. What's a couple of extra billion out of Spreadsheet Phil's war chest? (And like he has any long-term career plans for that money anyway....)
That might stray into the oil rich waters of the southern end of the Firth of Clyde....
It also strays across the most active fault line in the British Isles. You know, the one we built a nuclear power station next to.
I presume a tunnel/bridge/tunnel combo could avoid that?
I have a lot of sympathy for that view but my objection to a second referendum isn't necessarily one of democracy; my view is that it is never undemocratic to ask the people what they think - how can it be? My objection is that it invites an admin and procedural nightmare - it is more a reductio ad absurdam problem. At what point do you decide that you will ask again?
Maybe a FTRA.
I think the lesson from our recent referendums is that they should be linked to concrete legislative proposals, not vague attempts to determine the will of the people. A second referendum between ratifying the withdrawal agreement and revoking Article 50 would be a one-off question and wouldn't hang over future political decisions or turn legitimate political opposition into treachery.
no she isn't - she just sarcastically thanked the speaker for selecting it - I was misled by a tweet I saw, should have known better!
There's a subtle point here which people who haven't been in Parliament may not realise. The Speaker could have selected the motion calling for a referendum, or the motion opposing a second referendum (it'd obviously have been a waste of time to call both).By choosing the former, he gives Wollaston the chance not to move it, and thus keep the issue alive. If he'd selected the other motion, they would have insisted on moving it and it would have been defeated. It could then not be reintroduced.
Whether this was his intention, or he merely felt it made sense to choose the positive one, we'll never know, but People's Vote people may be quietly grateful to him - assuming Wollaston doesn't press it to a vote, and I assume she won't.
The position was different with the amendment where Cooper forced a vote against the wishes of the prime mover. That worked (and always works - it doesn't need the Speaker's approval) because Cooper had co-signed it. Wollaston could have suffered the same fate if a Brexiteer had been fast enough to co-sign it before the debate started, but I don't think they did.
They are going to get sued for billions. This is worse than dieselgate. Many people have died.
Boeing made a complete fool of themselves by allowing Trump to make the announcement to ground the plane before they did. The same goes for the Federal Aviation Authority.
I think there are bigger things to worry about than whether you were made to look foolish.
I have a lot of sympathy for that view but my objection to a second referendum isn't necessarily one of democracy; my view is that it is never undemocratic to ask the people what they think - how can it be? My objection is that it invites an admin and procedural nightmare - it is more a reductio ad absurdam problem. At what point do you decide that you will ask again?
Maybe a FTRA.
I think the lesson from our recent referendums is that they should be linked to concrete legislative proposals, not vague attempts to determine the will of the people. A second referendum between ratifying the withdrawal agreement and revoking Article 50 would be a one-off question and wouldn't hang over future political decisions or turn legitimate political opposition into treachery.
I have long thought that any referendum could only be Deal vs Remain.
I have a lot of sympathy for that view but my objection to a second referendum isn't necessarily one of democracy; my view is that it is never undemocratic to ask the people what they think - how can it be? My objection is that it invites an admin and procedural nightmare - it is more a reductio ad absurdam problem. At what point do you decide that you will ask again?
Maybe a FTRA.
I think the lesson from our recent referendums is that they should be linked to concrete legislative proposals, not vague attempts to determine the will of the people. A second referendum between ratifying the withdrawal agreement and revoking Article 50 would be a one-off question and wouldn't hang over future political decisions or turn legitimate political opposition into treachery.
I have a lot of sympathy for that view but my objection to a second referendum isn't necessarily one of democracy; my view is that it is never undemocratic to ask the people what they think - how can it be? My objection is that it invites an admin and procedural nightmare - it is more a reductio ad absurdam problem. At what point do you decide that you will ask again?
Maybe a FTRA.
I think the lesson from our recent referendums is that they should be linked to concrete legislative proposals, not vague attempts to determine the will of the people. A second referendum between ratifying the withdrawal agreement and revoking Article 50 would be a one-off question and wouldn't hang over future political decisions or turn legitimate political opposition into treachery.
I have long thought that any referendum could only be Deal vs Remain.
Nope deal vs no deal would be honest and respect the referendum result - you know the peoples vote.
no she isn't - she just sarcastically thanked the speaker for selecting it - I was misled by a tweet I saw, should have known better!
There's a subtle point here which people who haven't been in Parliament may not realise. The Speaker could have selected the motion calling for a referendum, or the motion opposing a second referendum (it'd obviously have been a waste of time to call both).By choosing the former, he gives Wollaston the chance not to move it, and thus keep the issue alive. If he'd selected the other motion, they would have insisted on moving it and it would have been defeated. It could then not be reintroduced.
Whether this was his intention, or he merely felt it made sense to choose the positive one, we'll never know, but People's Vote people may be quietly grateful to him - assuming Wollaston doesn't press it to a vote, and i assume she won't.
The position was different with the amendment where Cooper forced a vote against the wishes of the prime mover. That worked (and always works - it doesn't need the Speaker's approval) because Cooper had co-signed it. Wollaston could have suffered the same fate if a Brexiteer had been fast enough to co-sign it before the debate started, but I don't think they did.
If bercow had a spine and wasn't in the pocket of PV he'd tell them they had their chance when they try and reintroduce it and pick something else
Comments
NotwhatIam (14.10 Cheltenham) was fancied last week quite strongly but the price is drifting out faster than the ERG's commitment to Brexit so maybe something has changed.
DYORDYORDYOR
https://twitter.com/scottmann4NC/status/1106128906480951296
I don't know if that's allowed, but it would have been very funny.
Its more akin to the landlord inviting the customer in with "What would you like?" The customer says "A pint of bitter, please," and the landlord shakes his head. "You can only have lemonade, this is a vegan pub."
"Since when?" you ask.
"Since I became teetotal thirty seconds ago."
But I expect yesterday was unusual because of the suspicion that Spelman had somehow been nobbled.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-software-in-boeing-737-max-planes-under-scrutinty-after-second-crash/2019/03/13/06716fda-45c7-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html
They are going to get sued for billions. This is worse than dieselgate. Many people have died.
And then at the Commission level you have the proposal that they will use the Passerelle clause to bypass national vetoes and introduce majority voting for all tax issues. Whether or not this would pass, it certainly shows a desire for continuing integration by the EU.
After extensive investigation, turns out it was a fault with their Artificial Intelligence.
They were actually thick as bricks.
You then tell him that you own the pub, and if he doesn't do what the electorate want, he might find himself unemployed.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1106196762690314240?s=21
The hitch is that it's not clear you can get the 27 to agree the extension unless you first agree to the referendum...
They’ve correctly identified that the backstop is uncomfortable and not desirable. They are therefore opposed
They are not sophisticated enough to say that, on the balance of risk, the right oprion is to vote for the deal despite this drawback
What I object to is having a second vote before the first has been enacted. That is where you destroy democratic legitimacy.
Also you could argue that having Ref2 voted down by a colossal margin at this point would be beneficial, if it takes one way forward off the table permanently.
Corbyn's staff moonlighting as speech-writers for VW?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47566898
Imagine what it will be like if and when the Muslim population reaches 10%, or 20%.
Grim.
Christians and Jews have also joined the protests, and on one Friday this month campaigners claimed that 600 of the school’s 750 children did not attend classes after being pulled out by their parents.
But stupid enough to still walk into it.
I mean, it's not like the Establishment has hidden the serried ranks of its finest troops, deployed to stop Brexit.
Maybe a FTRA.
(Defenestration is also an option....)
Corbyn actively campaigning for the tiggers
That 31% will look like nosebleed territory in a fortnight
Whether this was his intention, or he merely felt it made sense to choose the positive one, we'll never know, but People's Vote people may be quietly grateful to him - assuming Wollaston doesn't press it to a vote, and I assume she won't.
The position was different with the amendment where Cooper forced a vote against the wishes of the prime mover. That worked (and always works - it doesn't need the Speaker's approval) because Cooper had co-signed it. Wollaston could have suffered the same fate if a Brexiteer had been fast enough to co-sign it before the debate started, but I don't think they did.