Confirmation ballot is just a yes/no on the Deal (and the future trade agreement) afaics.
Harder to vote against that the deal straight up. Might be we end up going down that route if MV3 falls.
Whatever they call it in the amendment, there’s no way Parliament approves a referendum without remain being on the ballot - remaining is the whole point (it’s because opinions have changed etc etc, not because they actually want a confirmation that deal is ok)
I don’t quite follow how the MPs will decide which ‘Brexiteer’ candidate is suitable enough to send to the membership against, IDK, Hunt or Javid say. Must it be someone who did not vote for the deal ever? Someone who voted it against it twice? Is once enough? Did Raab and McVey quit Cabinet too late to have proper Brexiteer credentials?
McVey has said she will vote for the Deal now so that would rule her out and of course both she and McVey did not resign over Chequers unlike Boris
We should welcome the DUP to the negotiations for the trade deal, they seem to know what they are doing compared to the government.
A good deal of trouble could have been avoided if they'd been involved from the word go. And, if they're on board, it won't matter if a few loons support a VONC against the government.
The idea that we should be OK with having the DUP at the heart of government really troubles me. Look at their history, both recent and past; look at what some of their leading spokesman have said. They are not frankly a million miles away from Sinn Fein in the repulsiveness of their approach to a whole range of questions.
That this is what Brexit has led to just so that May can save her pride is both pathetic and ominous. Being held hostage by extremist parties - and the DUP is not some sort of cuddly liberal party just with a different accent - is not a good omen for the future.
For the trade deal we need people who understand about how a country earns its wealth not people who only know how to spend it.
Yeh Gods. These two actually believe they have what it takes to be PM.
Every time I have seen Raab on TV he has massively underwhelmed. No idea why he is seen as the torch bearer of a new generation.
I imagine they see May doing it and think, "looks tricky but surely I can't be worse than her?"
Given how many MPs for so long absolutely tore May’s strategy to shreds and said her approach was terrible, borderline treasonous in some cases, and yet many of those same people for months and months claimed to support her leadership, I think we can safely say that none of them are that confident they could indeed be better than her. Not confident enough to launch a challenge until a change in direction was way too late.
But more seriously, May tried, too hard in my opinion, to keep the warring factions of her party on the same side, resulting in prevarication and paralysis for far too long. Is there anyone who actually has the respect of the various factions, the skill and deftness of touch to manage them and a broad enough plan for the next phase to paper over the cracks?
Because right now I just see May as Richard Cromwell, lacking in enough support from any area to maintain any authority, and a bunch of Lamberts who don’t have enough appeal wide enough to take the top job after she is gone.
The Kyle-Wilson Amendment is a dogs breakfast. It would take goodness knows how long to organise a so called confirmatory ballot and then what happens if May's Deal is not confirmed? Remain cannot be the default in such eventuality because the public voted to leave and May's Deal is not the only version of Leave.
It's no good arguing No Deal is not an option because it's been rejected by the House and therefore Remain should prevail if May's Deal is not confirmed. As it stands Remain has also been rejected by the House because the House voted to Leave on 29 March.
We should welcome the DUP to the negotiations for the trade deal, they seem to know what they are doing compared to the government.
A good deal of trouble could have been avoided if they'd been involved from the word go. And, if they're on board, it won't matter if a few loons support a VONC against the government.
The idea that we should be OK with having the DUP at the heart of government really troubles me. Look at their history, both recent and past; look at what some of their leading spokesman have said. They are not frankly a million miles away from Sinn Fein in the repulsiveness of their approach to a whole range of questions.
That this is what Brexit has led to just so that May can save her pride is both pathetic and ominous. Being held hostage by extremist parties - and the DUP is not some sort of cuddly liberal party just with a different accent - is not a good omen for the future.
For the trade deal we need people who understand about how a country earns its wealth not people who only know how to spend it.
Minority government, riven by factional infighting, is going to find itself beholden to anyone who has the numbers to prop them up. Unfortunately Labour don’t seem to be any more united or likely to get a majority but I guess have fewer allies of the DUP’s ilk to prop them up.
But we are where we are. Is a GE right now a good idea? What if returns just as or an even more hung parliament? Unless we’re confident the latter wont be the case what can be done but to work with one of the two major parties of Northern Ireland? The Tories won’t reach out to anyone else, and no one else would take their hand if they offered it - the LDs will run from being seen to help the Tories, Labour have no reason to ever do so, the SNP would laugh in their face, PC would do whatever the SNP did, and the Tiggers will all be gone in an election scenario anyway.
I hope the question does not arise. If we long delay just roll over our meps or something.
The EU is a beacon of democracy, unlike us, they don't appoint Parliamentarians.
I love the dry sarcasm.
I didn't think TSE was being sarcastic. But even if he was, it is literally true. The EU doesn't appoint people to Parliament and we have a whole house full of them.
Hmmm. I think that is a very arguable position, TBH. (I would add not quite all of the Lords is appointed.)
People who are placed on top of party lists are elected, but by a narrow electorate of party members, rather than the electorate as a whole.
Hereditary lords are elected by history
House of Unelected Has-Beens!
You are always wrong when you say that Sunil, not all of them ever were in the first place, which is implied by your statement.
Yeh Gods. These two actually believe they have what it takes to be PM.
Every time I have seen Raab on TV he has massively underwhelmed. No idea why he is seen as the torch bearer of a new generation.
I imagine they see May doing it and think, "looks tricky but surely I can't be worse than her?"
Raab is his generation's John Moore.
Raab is even more of an empty suit. Moore lasted a few years in Cabinet. Raab barely managed a few months and during that time seemed totally ignorant, ineffectual and out of his depth. He couldn’t even manage to speak at a lectern without sounding scared of his own shadow.
Yeh Gods. These two actually believe they have what it takes to be PM.
Every time I have seen Raab on TV he has massively underwhelmed. No idea why he is seen as the torch bearer of a new generation.
I imagine they see May doing it and think, "looks tricky but surely I can't be worse than her?"
And, the funny thing is, they'd be wrong.
Quite so. May might be awful, but she remains less awful than this pair of chumps, and the leagues of jokers, dullards and quarterwits that pretend to her throne from time to time.
The Kyle-Wilson Amendment is a dogs breakfast. It would take goodness knows how long to organise a so called confirmatory ballot and then what happens if May's Deal is not confirmed? Remain cannot be the default in such eventuality because the public voted to leave and May's Deal is not the only version of Leave.
It's no good arguing No Deal is not an option because it's been rejected by the House and therefore Remain should prevail if May's Deal is not confirmed. As it stands Remain has also been rejected by the House because the House voted to Leave on 29 March.
It seems to me the only logical way forward if the deal was rejected at a confirmation stage would be to apply to rejoin and simultaneously negotiate a different retrospective Brexit deal but hold a further referendum once the terms available for both options were known. Which is why I think this is an insane proposal, but surprisingly popular amongst MPs.
50 constituency parties came up with that line independently and concurrently?
More likely 50 parties were sent the suggestion.
Even more likely some fantasist made the whole thing up.
Also what the hell would she care? In fact if she believes in the party she would probably be glad - any ‘betrayal’ would be on her and not on the party as as whole.
Yeh Gods. These two actually believe they have what it takes to be PM.
Every time I have seen Raab on TV he has massively underwhelmed. No idea why he is seen as the torch bearer of a new generation.
I imagine they see May doing it and think, "looks tricky but surely I can't be worse than her?"
Raab is his generation's John Moore.
Raab is even more of an empty suit. Moore lasted a few years in Cabinet. Raab barely managed a few months and during that time seemed totally ignorant, ineffectual and out of his depth. He couldn’t even manage to speak at a lectern without sounding scared of his own shadow.
The Kyle-Wilson Amendment is a dogs breakfast. It would take goodness knows how long to organise a so called confirmatory ballot and then what happens if May's Deal is not confirmed? Remain cannot be the default in such eventuality because the public voted to leave and May's Deal is not the only version of Leave.
It's no good arguing No Deal is not an option because it's been rejected by the House and therefore Remain should prevail if May's Deal is not confirmed. As it stands Remain has also been rejected by the House because the House voted to Leave on 29 March.
They’re calling it a confirmatory ballot because it sounds better to waverers, who can pretend it is not about ensuring remain. But it is.
It’s also the best hope May’s deal has. May needs near 50 ERGers and the DUP and a whole bunch of Labour still, just to squeak by, maybe.
I hope the question does not arise. If we long delay just roll over our meps or something.
The EU is a beacon of democracy, unlike us, they don't appoint Parliamentarians.
I love the dry sarcasm.
I didn't think TSE was being sarcastic. But even if he was, it is literally true. The EU doesn't appoint people to Parliament and we have a whole house full of them.
Hmmm. I think that is a very arguable position, TBH. (I would add not quite all of the Lords is appointed.)
People who are placed on top of party lists are elected, but by a narrow electorate of party members, rather than the electorate as a whole.
Hereditary lords are elected by history
House of Unelected Has-Beens!
You are always wrong when you say that Sunil, not all of them ever were in the first place, which is implied by your statement.
Yeh Gods. These two actually believe they have what it takes to be PM.
Every time I have seen Raab on TV he has massively underwhelmed. No idea why he is seen as the torch bearer of a new generation.
I imagine they see May doing it and think, "looks tricky but surely I can't be worse than her?"
Raab is his generation's John Moore.
Raab is even more of an empty suit. Moore lasted a few years in Cabinet. Raab barely managed a few months and during that time seemed totally ignorant, ineffectual and out of his depth. He couldn’t even manage to speak at a lectern without sounding scared of his own shadow.
Yeh Gods. These two actually believe they have what it takes to be PM.
Every time I have seen Raab on TV he has massively underwhelmed. No idea why he is seen as the torch bearer of a new generation.
I imagine they see May doing it and think, "looks tricky but surely I can't be worse than her?"
And, the funny thing is, they'd be wrong.
Quite so. May might be awful, but she remains less awful than this pair of chumps, and the leagues of jokers, dullards and quarterwits that pretend to her throne from time to time.
She might be awful, but she still falls within the top 10%, in terms of ability, in the Commons.
The Kyle-Wilson Amendment is a dogs breakfast. It would take goodness knows how long to organise a so called confirmatory ballot and then what happens if May's Deal is not confirmed? Remain cannot be the default in such eventuality because the public voted to leave and May's Deal is not the only version of Leave.
It's no good arguing No Deal is not an option because it's been rejected by the House and therefore Remain should prevail if May's Deal is not confirmed. As it stands Remain has also been rejected by the House because the House voted to Leave on 29 March.
If Kyle-Wilson passes then presumably Labour would then back the Withdrawal Agreement and it will pass too but subject to a confirmatory referendum ie back the Deal or Remain, the Government might try and whip against the Agreement as it did last Tuesday but once the initial Amendment had passed so did the Government proposal
The Kyle-Wilson Amendment is a dogs breakfast. It would take goodness knows how long to organise a so called confirmatory ballot and then what happens if May's Deal is not confirmed? Remain cannot be the default in such eventuality because the public voted to leave and May's Deal is not the only version of Leave.
It's no good arguing No Deal is not an option because it's been rejected by the House and therefore Remain should prevail if May's Deal is not confirmed. As it stands Remain has also been rejected by the House because the House voted to Leave on 29 March.
If Kyle-Wilson passes then presumably Labour would then back the Withdrawal Agreement and it will pass too but subject to a confirmatory referendum ie back the Deal or Remain, the Government might try and whip against the Agreement as it did last Tuesday but once the initial Amendment had passed so did the Government proposal
The Kyle-Wilson Amendment is a dogs breakfast. It would take goodness knows how long to organise a so called confirmatory ballot and then what happens if May's Deal is not confirmed? Remain cannot be the default in such eventuality because the public voted to leave and May's Deal is not the only version of Leave.
It's no good arguing No Deal is not an option because it's been rejected by the House and therefore Remain should prevail if May's Deal is not confirmed. As it stands Remain has also been rejected by the House because the House voted to Leave on 29 March.
If Kyle-Wilson passes then presumably Labour would then back the Withdrawal Agreement and it will pass too but subject to a confirmatory referendum ie back the Deal or Remain, the Government might try and whip against the Agreement as it did last Tuesday but once the initial Amendment had passed so did the Government proposal
The Kyle-Wilson Amendment is a dogs breakfast. It would take goodness knows how long to organise a so called confirmatory ballot and then what happens if May's Deal is not confirmed? Remain cannot be the default in such eventuality because the public voted to leave and May's Deal is not the only version of Leave.
It's no good arguing No Deal is not an option because it's been rejected by the House and therefore Remain should prevail if May's Deal is not confirmed. As it stands Remain has also been rejected by the House because the House voted to Leave on 29 March.
If Kyle-Wilson passes then presumably Labour would then back the Withdrawal Agreement and it will pass too but subject to a confirmatory referendum ie back the Deal or Remain, the Government might try and whip against the Agreement as it did last Tuesday but once the initial Amendment had passed so did the Government proposal
why is confirmatory deal or remain?
Because that is what those proposing it want it to be. They will say that it will prevent the need to go back to the people to ask what they want if they do not want the deal. They won’t allow the answer to be no deal.
Devious? To be sure. But it’s only getting to the point of a referendum because the plan is to remain, and no one who cries abou the unfairness of remain being an option is going to dissuade them. They had chances to vote for leave after all. If the ERG and co did not want to risk this, they had a way to avoid it.
Yeh Gods. These two actually believe they have what it takes to be PM.
Every time I have seen Raab on TV he has massively underwhelmed. No idea why he is seen as the torch bearer of a new generation.
I imagine they see May doing it and think, "looks tricky but surely I can't be worse than her?"
And, the funny thing is, they'd be wrong.
Quite so. May might be awful, but she remains less awful than this pair of chumps, and the leagues of jokers, dullards and quarterwits that pretend to her throne from time to time.
she still falls within the top 10%, in terms of ability, in the Commons.
You are damning by faint praise (although that’s probably true).
They should so whatever they feel is right. But if the DUP do move, they no longer have the cover they have been using for quite some time, it’ll just be them and their principles. I hope we get to see how they react when alone.
The Kyle-Wilson Amendment is a dogs breakfast. It would take goodness knows how long to organise a so called confirmatory ballot and then what happens if May's Deal is not confirmed? Remain cannot be the default in such eventuality because the public voted to leave and May's Deal is not the only version of Leave.
It's no good arguing No Deal is not an option because it's been rejected by the House and therefore Remain should prevail if May's Deal is not confirmed. As it stands Remain has also been rejected by the House because the House voted to Leave on 29 March.
If Kyle-Wilson passes then presumably Labour would then back the Withdrawal Agreement and it will pass too but subject to a confirmatory referendum ie back the Deal or Remain, the Government might try and whip against the Agreement as it did last Tuesday but once the initial Amendment had passed so did the Government proposal
why is confirmatory deal or remain?
As if it is rejected we would stay in the EU on current terms 'ie do you want to leave the EU with the proposed Withdrawal Agreement' if not then we do not leave at all
The Kyle-Wilson Amendment is a dogs breakfast. It would take goodness knows how long to organise a so called confirmatory ballot and then what happens if May's Deal is not confirmed? Remain cannot be the default in such eventuality because the public voted to leave and May's Deal is not the only version of Leave.
It's no good arguing No Deal is not an option because it's been rejected by the House and therefore Remain should prevail if May's Deal is not confirmed. As it stands Remain has also been rejected by the House because the House voted to Leave on 29 March.
If Kyle-Wilson passes then presumably Labour would then back the Withdrawal Agreement and it will pass too but subject to a confirmatory referendum ie back the Deal or Remain, the Government might try and whip against the Agreement as it did last Tuesday but once the initial Amendment had passed so did the Government proposal
why is confirmatory deal or remain?
Because that is what those proposing it want it to be. They will say that it will prevent the need to go back to the people to ask what they want if they do not want the deal. They won’t allow the answer to be no deal.
Devious? To be sure. But it’s only getting to the point of a referendum because the plan is to remain, and no one who cries abou the unfairness of remain being an option is going to dissuade them. They had chances to vote for leave after all. If the ERG and co did not want to risk this, they had a way to avoid it.
Well put. I’m on record as being against a second referendum - the first one was bad enough. But it is coming to the point where a second poll is the only way out of the mess. As you say, we cannot continue much longer when those who purport to want Brexit keep voting against it.
I hope the question does not arise. If we long delay just roll over our meps or something.
The EU is a beacon of democracy, unlike us, they don't appoint Parliamentarians.
I love the dry sarcasm.
I didn't think TSE was being sarcastic. But even if he was, it is literally true. The EU doesn't appoint people to Parliament and we have a whole house full of them.
Hmmm. I think that is a very arguable position, TBH. (I would add not quite all of the Lords is appointed.)
People who are placed on top of party lists are elected, but by a narrow electorate of party members, rather than the electorate as a whole.
Hereditary lords are elected by history
House of Unelected Has-Beens!
You are always wrong when you say that Sunil, not all of them ever were in the first place, which is implied by your statement.
Unelected Beans??
On naan?
I was just joking about the whole "beans on naan" the other night!
Obviously I am predisposed against the option, but I really have yet to see any proponent of a GE be persuasive as to why an incredibly uncertain event like a GE, when MPs on all sides do not follow the party or manifesto lines on crucial issues afterwards anyway and there are many other issues at play, is a good way of resolving rather than adding to the mess.
It also feels like them giving up on their own responsibilities even more than a referendum would. The country returned a very chaotically balanced parliament to sort this mess out, and the best solution is to ask us if we can provide a new set of MPs to sort it out, in a vain hope we won’t return a similarly confused outcome.
It’s barmy. There are certainly many flaws with other options including a referendum - on the question, on why this one should be made binding, and much more - but a GE could just replicate all our issues with a new proportion of MPs.
No thanks. Get it done with the parliament we elected, whichever way you choose.
Obviously I am predisposed against the option, but I really have yet to see any proponent of a GE be persuasive as to why an incredibly uncertain event like a GE, when MPs on all sides do not follow the party or manifesto lines on crucial issues afterwards anyway and there are many other issues at play, is a good way of resolving rather than adding to the mess.
It also feels like them giving up on their own responsibilities even more than a referendum would. The country returned a very chaotically balanced parliament to sort this mess out, and the best solution is to ask us if we can provide a new set of MPs to sort it out, in a vain hope we won’t return a similarly confused outcome.
It’s barmy. There are certainly many flaws with other options including a referendum - on the question, on why this one should be made binding, and much more - but a GE could just replicate all our issues with a new proportion of MPs.
No thanks. Get it done with the parliament we elected, whichever way you choose.
Exactly, if we are going to have a new vote at least make it a referendum so the voters actually get the final say, MPs have wasted enough time already refusing to come to a decision on Brexit, having a vote to put the final say back to them will change nothing
Why does there need to be a second option on the ballot?
I think the point is that what would be the default position if we voted no to May's deal. Is it remain, leave with no deal or go back and get a better deal? People will vote against it for different reasons - not all because they want to remain.
Tonight's Opinium poll in the Observer has leave without a deal at 43 per cent - tied with those backing a delay to have a second referendum. Are we seriously going to say to that 43 per cent - sorry we are going to have a people's vote but 43% of you won't have an option to vote for? Its like holding a general election and saying - sorry you won't be allowed to vote for the Tories as they won't be on the ballot paper?
As 2017 proved, no it is not, Parliament needs to come to a decision, that is the way forward
It won't. Because it can't. Parliamentarians are too stupid, malevolent or distanced to reach a practical consensus, as they are proving daily. It shouldn't have been given the responsibility by the courts and if practicable it should be taken away from them now (recall that I prefer the strong executive with the legislature limited to scrutinising legislation).
Why does there need to be a second option on the ballot?
I think the point is that what would be the default position if we voted no to May's deal. Is it remain, leave with no deal or go back and get a better deal? People will vote against it for different reasons - not all because they want to remain.
Tonight's Opinium poll in the Observer has leave without a deal at 43 per cent - tied with those backing a delay to have a second referendum. Are we seriously going to say to that 43 per cent - sorry we are going to have a people's vote but 43% of you won't have an option to vote for? Its like holding a general election and saying - sorry you won't be allowed to vote for the Tories as they won't be on the ballot paper?
My joking suggestion is that the ballot paper contains the following option:
"Do you support the government's Withdrawal Agreement Yes [ ]"
In this way, you can ensure 100% support.
Alternatively what's wrong with my other suggestion? The people get the chance to take the Withdrawal Agreement, or they get to roll the dice.
They should so whatever they feel is right. But if the DUP do move, they no longer have the cover they have been using for quite some time, it’ll just be them and their principles. I hope we get to see how they react when alone.
They’ll fold like a cheap suit ! And May is setting them up to take the fall if she has to ask for a long extension . The ERG think they’re really smart but their arrogance and delusions of grandeur will come back to bite them .
Alternatively what's wrong with my other suggestion? The people get the chance to take the Withdrawal Agreement, or they get to roll the dice.
Parliament will not put any form of 'no deal' on a ballot paper.
"Confirmatory referendum" means Yes or No to the Deal, not Deal or Remain. No to the Deal isn't the same as No Deal, but it certainly doesn't mean Remain either. If we end up with people campaigning against the Deal (on the basis of No Deal), and No wins, only for us to Remain, then what?
Why does there need to be a second option on the ballot?
I think the point is that what would be the default position if we voted no to May's deal. Is it remain, leave with no deal or go back and get a better deal? People will vote against it for different reasons - not all because they want to remain.
Tonight's Opinium poll in the Observer has leave without a deal at 43 per cent - tied with those backing a delay to have a second referendum. Are we seriously going to say to that 43 per cent - sorry we are going to have a people's vote but 43% of you won't have an option to vote for? Its like holding a general election and saying - sorry you won't be allowed to vote for the Tories as they won't be on the ballot paper?
My joking suggestion is that the ballot paper contains the following option:
"Do you support the government's Withdrawal Agreement Yes [ ]"
In this way, you can ensure 100% support.
Alternatively what's wrong with my other suggestion? The people get the chance to take the Withdrawal Agreement, or they get to roll the dice.
Thinking about the veto points the problem is that it loads things against the WA, since Remain voters will gang up with No Deal fans to kill it and give them their shot at a vote with a Remain option. This is a problem because the WA is the government's favourite option, and it's hard to get anything involving a referendum through against a Con whip. If No Deal MPs supported it then it might be a runner, but they need to keep outrage at the idea of a second referendum alive to have any chance of winning one against Remain.
Making the second (Remain vs Leave) part unconditional fixes that, and makes it something it might at least make sense for TMay to tolerate, if not support. She'd have a fighting chance of getting the WA though the first round with the support of Remainian voters, then if No Deal fans thought they'd been given a fair shake a lot of them should back Leave in the second vote.
"“My argument is [that neoliberalism] was incredibly successful; it lasted for a very long time, it worked for a lot of people,” Ellie Mae O’Hagan, a young Corbynista journalist, told me in a café just outside the British Library. “And in 2008, it died. But it was so hegemonic and successful that there was no node of power that could really identify that, because they’d all been colonized by it. And so it sort of limped on in this zombified version for like seven years.” O’Hagan is a working-class writer from Wales struggling to make a living in London and drawn to Corbyn because he alone seems immune to the logic of the past quarter-century. “I guess it’s like a Gramscian thing, you know, when he says the old is dying, the new is yet to be born, and now is full of monsters.”"
"“My argument is [that neoliberalism] was incredibly successful; it lasted for a very long time, it worked for a lot of people,” Ellie Mae O’Hagan, a young Corbynista journalist, told me in a café just outside the British Library. “And in 2008, it died. But it was so hegemonic and successful that there was no node of power that could really identify that, because they’d all been colonized by it. And so it sort of limped on in this zombified version for like seven years.” O’Hagan is a working-class writer from Wales struggling to make a living in London and drawn to Corbyn because he alone seems immune to the logic of the past quarter-century. “I guess it’s like a Gramscian thing, you know, when he says the old is dying, the new is yet to be born, and now is full of monsters.”"
"“My argument is [that neoliberalism] was incredibly successful; it lasted for a very long time, it worked for a lot of people,” Ellie Mae O’Hagan, a young Corbynista journalist, told me in a café just outside the British Library. “And in 2008, it died. But it was so hegemonic and successful that there was no node of power that could really identify that, because they’d all been colonized by it. And so it sort of limped on in this zombified version for like seven years.” O’Hagan is a working-class writer from Wales struggling to make a living in London and drawn to Corbyn because he alone seems immune to the logic of the past quarter-century. “I guess it’s like a Gramscian thing, you know, when he says the old is dying, the new is yet to be born, and now is full of monsters.”"
Corbyn is certainly immune to neoliberalism. But has she looked at what he is in favour of? Forget Venezuela or Hamas etc. She should look at the economic and social consensus he has supported and continues to support and ask herself how successful it was, why and how it failed and whether it has the answers to what is needed now. Any fool can point out injustices. Coming up with answers is a whole lot harder. Corbyn is very good at the former. Less so on the latter. How does he think Britain is going to earn its living?
Oh - and it is not a Gramscian thing. She is referencing - though she appears not to know this - Yeats’ poem “The Second Coming”.
And give over with the struggling working class writer shtick: O’Hagan has an agent, writes for the Guardian, NYT, The Times and Independent and has a book on the way.
Some form of May vs Remain is the only viable question, regardless of the fantasies of the hard right. No deal has been emphatically rejected by parliament. And, despite manifold efforts to undermine it, we remain a parliamentary democracy. Referenda are only advisory.
Some form of May vs Remain is the only viable question, regardless of the fantasies of the hard right. No deal has been emphatically rejected by parliament. And, despite manifold efforts to undermine it, we remain a parliamentary democracy. Referenda are only advisory.
To be fair, there are, erm, other options among those which have been emphatically rejected by parliament
Comments
Confirmation ballot is just a yes/no on the Deal (and the future trade agreement) afaics.
Harder to vote against that the deal straight up. Might be we end up going down that route if MV3 falls.
That this is what Brexit has led to just so that May can save her pride is both pathetic and ominous. Being held hostage by extremist parties - and the DUP is not some sort of cuddly liberal party just with a different accent - is not a good omen for the future.
For the trade deal we need people who understand about how a country earns its wealth not people who only know how to spend it.
But more seriously, May tried, too hard in my opinion, to keep the warring factions of her party on the same side, resulting in prevarication and paralysis for far too long. Is there anyone who actually has the respect of the various factions, the skill and deftness of touch to manage them and a broad enough plan for the next phase to paper over the cracks?
Because right now I just see May as Richard Cromwell, lacking in enough support from any area to maintain any authority, and a bunch of Lamberts who don’t have enough appeal wide enough to take the top job after she is gone.
More likely 50 parties were sent the suggestion.
Even more likely some fantasist made the whole thing up.
It's no good arguing No Deal is not an option because it's been rejected by the House and therefore Remain should prevail if May's Deal is not confirmed. As it stands Remain has also been rejected by the House because the House voted to Leave on 29 March.
But we are where we are. Is a GE right now a good idea? What if returns just as or an even more hung parliament? Unless we’re confident the latter wont be the case what can be done but to work with one of the two major parties of Northern Ireland? The Tories won’t reach out to anyone else, and no one else would take their hand if they offered it - the LDs will run from being seen to help the Tories, Labour have no reason to ever do so, the SNP would laugh in their face, PC would do whatever the SNP did, and the Tiggers will all be gone in an election scenario anyway.
It’s also the best hope May’s deal has. May needs near 50 ERGers and the DUP and a whole bunch of Labour still, just to squeak by, maybe.
Devious? To be sure. But it’s only getting to the point of a referendum because the plan is to remain, and no one who cries abou the unfairness of remain being an option is going to dissuade them. They had chances to vote for leave after all. If the ERG and co did not want to risk this, they had a way to avoid it.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/434408-buttigieg-says-campaign-gained-enough-donors-to-be-on-debate-stage
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/16/route-mess-general-election/
It also feels like them giving up on their own responsibilities even more than a referendum would. The country returned a very chaotically balanced parliament to sort this mess out, and the best solution is to ask us if we can provide a new set of MPs to sort it out, in a vain hope we won’t return a similarly confused outcome.
It’s barmy. There are certainly many flaws with other options including a referendum - on the question, on why this one should be made binding, and much more - but a GE could just replicate all our issues with a new proportion of MPs.
No thanks. Get it done with the parliament we elected, whichever way you choose.
Do you want to accept the government's Withdrawal Agreement with the European Union?, or
Would you rather have a referendum on Remain vs No Deal?
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/leendweik/why-we-confronted-chelsea-clinton?fbclid=IwAR08eh2FyLFUkoKDMa6rEzuB50AB1Tcxbp7ZdW_cGuDFqD2dNZMawg8gxj4
Tonight's Opinium poll in the Observer has leave without a deal at 43 per cent - tied with those backing a delay to have a second referendum. Are we seriously going to say to that 43 per cent - sorry we are going to have a people's vote but 43% of you won't have an option to vote for? Its like holding a general election and saying - sorry you won't be allowed to vote for the Tories as they won't be on the ballot paper?
"Do you support the government's Withdrawal Agreement
Yes [ ]"
In this way, you can ensure 100% support.
Alternatively what's wrong with my other suggestion? The people get the chance to take the Withdrawal Agreement, or they get to roll the dice.
During the Indy Ref the Govt conducted its own secret Daily Tracking Poll!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-47582288
Making the second (Remain vs Leave) part unconditional fixes that, and makes it something it might at least make sense for TMay to tolerate, if not support. She'd have a fighting chance of getting the WA though the first round with the support of Remainian voters, then if No Deal fans thought they'd been given a fair shake a lot of them should back Leave in the second vote.
"“My argument is [that neoliberalism] was incredibly successful; it lasted for a very long time, it worked for a lot of people,” Ellie Mae O’Hagan, a young Corbynista journalist, told me in a café just outside the British Library. “And in 2008, it died. But it was so hegemonic and successful that there was no node of power that could really identify that, because they’d all been colonized by it. And so it sort of limped on in this zombified version for like seven years.” O’Hagan is a working-class writer from Wales struggling to make a living in London and drawn to Corbyn because he alone seems immune to the logic of the past quarter-century. “I guess it’s like a Gramscian thing, you know, when he says the old is dying, the new is yet to be born, and now is full of monsters.”"
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/08/andrew-sullivan-on-jeremy-corbyn-face-of-the-new-new-left.html?utm_source=tw
Oh - and it is not a Gramscian thing. She is referencing - though she appears not to know this - Yeats’ poem “The Second Coming”.
And give over with the struggling working class writer shtick: O’Hagan has an agent, writes for the Guardian, NYT, The Times and Independent and has a book on the way.