No MP who is a holdout is getting the whip withdrawn for as long as Boris Johnson is in their number. So you can all forget that idea.
Who in the Cabinet would block it to protect Boris?
Who in the cabinet would back a plan that would see dozens lose the whip?
You think there are dozens prepared to give up their careers to go against the DUP's position on May's Deal?
There only need to be half a dozen floor-crossers (from either or both of the extreme Leave and Remain wings) to force an election (or May's replacement). There's certainly that many time-servers who'd take the retirement in order to stop the deal going through.
An election at which those who were not prepared to satisfy the Manifesto commitment would not be standing as Conservative candidates.
Fingers crossed the MV3 will be pulled or fail this week, we will get a decent delay and May will go.
Not a huge fan of May but aren't you worried about what could happen with Brexit with a leadership contest and a new leader in the Tory party?
I can see some advantages but that is with my Labour hat on, with my remainer hat on I can see the referendum being harder to get.
With my national interest (in just this matter) hat on I can see a Tory leadership contest leading to more chaos and uncertainty and potentially a worse Brexit outcome.
I can see a good outcome that satisfies all my hat wearing personalities but it is an uncertain path. This is why remainer Tory MPs stuck with May IMO.
No MP who is a holdout is getting the whip withdrawn for as long as Boris Johnson is in their number. So you can all forget that idea.
Who in the Cabinet would block it to protect Boris?
Tbh, if they walk because Boris gets the whip withdrawn then let them walk. We've got to a stage where the ERG need to be subjugated or expelled if they won't be.
No MP who is a holdout is getting the whip withdrawn for as long as Boris Johnson is in their number. So you can all forget that idea.
Who in the Cabinet would block it to protect Boris?
Who in the cabinet would back a plan that would see dozens lose the whip?
You think there are dozens prepared to give up their careers to go against the DUP's position on May's Deal?
There only need to be half a dozen floor-crossers (from either or both of the extreme Leave and Remain wings) to force an election (or May's replacement). There's certainly that many time-servers who'd take the retirement in order to stop the deal going through.
With so many independents, you'd need more than that for a VONC to be passed.
Will the MPs suddenly come together and embrace all the different opinions. or will the fractious in-fighting continue until the electorate want them all out? Moving the deadlines will only encourage that view. And what about the much-vaunted uncertainly for industry that must be prevented?
"Top Oxford researcher trying to bust the mystery of chronic fatigue syndrome says he quit and turned his focus to new research because trolls are 'too hostile'"
Not a huge fan of May but aren't you worried about what could happen with Brexit with a leadership contest and a new leader in the Tory party?
I can see some advantages but that is with my Labour hat on, with my remainer hat on I can see the referendum being harder to get.
With my national interest (in just this matter) hat on I can see a Tory leadership contest leading to more chaos and uncertainty and potentially a worse Brexit outcome.
I can see a good outcome that satisfies all my hat wearing personalities but it is an uncertain path. This is why remainer Tory MPs stuck with May IMO.
Hey, so Labour are not going to let the Tories off the hook by letting the May Deal pass subject to REF2, are they?
Plus probably the only referendum the Commons would allow is Deal v Remain
Almost certainly true. And if Deal = the May Deal, the formulation is so clearly rigged for Remain that it could not be deemed valid. Thus the only possible REF2 is not possible.
No MP who is a holdout is getting the whip withdrawn for as long as Boris Johnson is in their number. So you can all forget that idea.
Who in the Cabinet would block it to protect Boris?
Who in the cabinet would back a plan that would see dozens lose the whip?
You think there are dozens prepared to give up their careers to go against the DUP's position on May's Deal?
There only need to be half a dozen floor-crossers (from either or both of the extreme Leave and Remain wings) to force an election (or May's replacement). There's certainly that many time-servers who'd take the retirement in order to stop the deal going through.
An election at which those who were not prepared to satisfy the Manifesto commitment would not be standing as Conservative candidates.
Let's see how deep that "idealogical opposition" is.
2. Isolate the hardest of hard core Tory rebels. Buy off the waverers. Get the "idealist opposition" down below 20. Those who are prepared to side against the DUP might be as few as 10.
3. Find out, from discussions with their association chairmen, whether they have a preferred local candidate to replace their current MP if they will not pass the deal. Warn them that the selection process may need to be expedited with an EGM. Let the chairmen know you are happy fo rthem to discuss this succession-planning with their current MP.
4. Cabinet sign up to a 3-line whip for MV3. Those that vote against WILL be expelled from the party. That will almost certainly be the end of their Parliamentary careers. Some, like Grieve, will join the TIGs. Some, like Boris, will wave goodbye to their ambitions. Or else rethink. Either way, it will end the power of the ERG and the extreme EUrophiles. Which is why May will get the authority to do it. Whoever succeeds her will have got a coherent, cohesive party back.
5. Cabinet also sign up to a huge increase in the fund for redevelopment of town centres. As now, these towns will have to make well-argued applications, but those Labour MPs representing such northern, Leave-voting towns will be given a private reassurance these locally-driven projects in their constituency will be looked upon favourably. Personally, I can't think of a better way for Hammond to spend his war chest.
6. If MV3 fails, the PM will ask for a lengthy extension, saying she already has Parliamentary authority for this. During that extension, the PM will not stand down. She will wait for the Party to move against her in December. If they have the numbers.
I suspect much of the above is already in play.
Sounds lovely, but have you thought through the following:
1) the voluntary party aren't swinging behind the deal. The chairmen may well refuse to select new candidates, discipline the MPs etc.
2) the parliamentary majority is close to zero. As soon as MPs are expelled, Corbyn calls a VONC and wins. May doesn't have any wriggle room on the numbers.
3) as soon as VONC is lost, either there's a temp Gvt (everyone except the Tories) to kill the deal anyway, or a GE. The Tories would be rent asunder in that circumstance. The local parties wouldn't allow 'my deal or else' in the manifesto, you'd see local parties endorse Independents, and going rogue across the country.
4) the chance of getting the Withdrawal Agreement Implementation a Bill through in those circumstances? Sub-zero.
Winning the MV counts for nothing, if there isn't a stable majority for implementing the consequences in legislation. That's what would be terrifying me if I was involved with the EU - it could all break down as soon as something difficult comes up later.
No MP who is a holdout is getting the whip withdrawn for as long as Boris Johnson is in their number. So you can all forget that idea.
Who in the Cabinet would block it to protect Boris?
Who in the cabinet would back a plan that would see dozens lose the whip?
You think there are dozens prepared to give up their careers to go against the DUP's position on May's Deal?
There only need to be half a dozen floor-crossers (from either or both of the extreme Leave and Remain wings) to force an election (or May's replacement). There's certainly that many time-servers who'd take the retirement in order to stop the deal going through.
An election at which those who were not prepared to satisfy the Manifesto commitment would not be standing as Conservative candidates.
I don't see how pulling the meaningful vote works. What on earth does she go to the EU summit saying?
I'm virtually certain she won't bring MV3. She will wait on the EU who will set 2 yr delay, which means she will return next week for MV3 with a simple message:
This ... or a long delay.
Now, remind me, who was it that said that last month?
The only proviso to the post below is if Labour swap support for her deal in exchange for a referendum on it. Many in the PLP would go for that but of course Corbyn won't because he wants Brexit.
Much discussion over the weekend but the fog is not clearing
5 live this morning suggested TM has agreed a Stormont lock in a backstop position where all conditions the EU levy on Northern Ireland would actually apply UK wide creating a form of customs union until a FTA is agreed. More detail will no doubt follow but I notice Sky have gone off on one of their self promotions about an Ocean Dive, ignoring bringing us the news so nothing from them.
Lord Trimble and Lord Lamont have both endorsed the deal this morning, and of course Lord Trimble was very involved in Northern Ireland politics
Boris Johnson is acting the fool again demanding TM gets more out of the EU at the meeting this week and to be honest, if I was advising number 10, I would not hold the vote until after the EU meeting. The reasons are obvious because the EU will have been given the choice of short extension for the deal or a long extension for anything else. The long extension for the EU is causing real controversy, not only with the EU elections, but the idea some EU members may try to impede the UK influence in the EU during the extension, when in fact UK would be a full member with full enforceable rights under ECJ law
I may be all over the place on this but I expect TM attends the EU and lays out her demands while further discussions take place with the DUP and others to firm up the deal and then next week, just a couple of days or so from the 29th, the HOC gets a final vote on MV3 or it is finally lost and we disappear down a period of extreme uncertainty damaging business until the largely remain dominated HOC manage to stop brexit
Personally, I would prefer the first, purely because I do not want further disruption to business but if in the end we remain, it would be the irony of all ironies that the zealot ERG members conspired to finish off their life's dreams.
No MP who is a holdout is getting the whip withdrawn for as long as Boris Johnson is in their number. So you can all forget that idea.
Who in the Cabinet would block it to protect Boris?
Who in the cabinet would back a plan that would see dozens lose the whip?
You think there are dozens prepared to give up their careers to go against the DUP's position on May's Deal?
There only need to be half a dozen floor-crossers (from either or both of the extreme Leave and Remain wings) to force an election (or May's replacement). There's certainly that many time-servers who'd take the retirement in order to stop the deal going through.
An election at which those who were not prepared to satisfy the Manifesto commitment would not be standing as Conservative candidates.
Then why did Soubry and Grieve stand last time?
To oppose Brexit.
Well indeed. And any MPs who have strong feelings (which is a lot of them) on this will stand again regardless of what the manifesto says.
Corbyn managed to survive 3 Tony Blair manifestos.
May's "deal"/surrender document can only be voted through if a new PM has the space to fight the EU every step of the way moving forward. If it is the total capitulation Boris says it is, rejecting it is the only safe way forward.
Not a huge fan of May but aren't you worried about what could happen with Brexit with a leadership contest and a new leader in the Tory party?
I can see some advantages but that is with my Labour hat on, with my remainer hat on I can see the referendum being harder to get.
With my national interest (in just this matter) hat on I can see a Tory leadership contest leading to more chaos and uncertainty and potentially a worse Brexit outcome.
I can see a good outcome that satisfies all my hat wearing personalities but it is an uncertain path. This is why remainer Tory MPs stuck with May IMO.
Hey, so Labour are not going to let the Tories off the hook by letting the May Deal pass subject to REF2, are they?
They'll whip for something along the lines of it but it won't pass.
If a referendum with remain as an option gets voted through it happens later (if it happens)
Not a huge fan of May but aren't you worried about what could happen with Brexit with a leadership contest and a new leader in the Tory party?
I can see some advantages but that is with my Labour hat on, with my remainer hat on I can see the referendum being harder to get.
With my national interest (in just this matter) hat on I can see a Tory leadership contest leading to more chaos and uncertainty and potentially a worse Brexit outcome.
I can see a good outcome that satisfies all my hat wearing personalities but it is an uncertain path. This is why remainer Tory MPs stuck with May IMO.
Hey, so Labour are not going to let the Tories off the hook by letting the May Deal pass subject to REF2, are they?
They'll whip for something along the lines of it but it won't pass.
If a referendum with remain as an option gets voted through it happens later (if it happens)
It won't pass? May's Deal in return for a Referendum? I'd have thought that would have a sizeable HoC majority. And why wouldn't it? Ticks many boxes.
The only proviso to the post below is if Labour swap support for her deal in exchange for a referendum on it. Many in the PLP would go for that but of course Corbyn won't because he wants Brexit.
They won't. they'll 'maybe' offer a ref on their deal, but on May's deal? No chance.
Not a huge fan of May but aren't you worried about what could happen with Brexit with a leadership contest and a new leader in the Tory party?
I can see some advantages but that is with my Labour hat on, with my remainer hat on I can see the referendum being harder to get.
With my national interest (in just this matter) hat on I can see a Tory leadership contest leading to more chaos and uncertainty and potentially a worse Brexit outcome.
I can see a good outcome that satisfies all my hat wearing personalities but it is an uncertain path. This is why remainer Tory MPs stuck with May IMO.
Hey, so Labour are not going to let the Tories off the hook by letting the May Deal pass subject to REF2, are they?
They'll whip for something along the lines of it but it won't pass.
If a referendum with remain as an option gets voted through it happens later (if it happens)
It won't pass? May's Deal in return for a Referendum? I'd have thought that would have a sizeable HoC majority. And why wouldn't it? Ticks many boxes.
Outside of the Tory party sure. I don't see how the Conservative party votes for a referendum. Even people like Nick Boles are against the idea.
Maybe he can be won around now he won't stand again but if even he is ruling it out where are the Conservative votes coming from?
I don't expect the DUP to vote for it either. You can't get 100% of Labour MPs either. Over 90% but there will be hold outs into double figures, more than there are Tories who will vote for it.
Edit: The only way I see it happening is people pushed there by desperation and not enough are there.
On topic, my own belief is that if we must respect the 2016 vote then the simplest thing would be a referendum with a single transferable vote between Norway/Switzerland, The Deal, and No deal.
It is rather pathetic that Brexiteers who claim to be democratic are terrified of allowing the plebs to vote again. They clearly don't believe in democracy, or anything close to it.
The only proviso to the post below is if Labour swap support for her deal in exchange for a referendum on it. Many in the PLP would go for that but of course Corbyn won't because he wants Brexit.
They won't. they'll 'maybe' offer a ref on their deal, but on May's deal? No chance.
As I expect you know, that's not what's leaking. See twitter @AVMikhailova
May's "deal"/surrender document can only be voted through if a new PM has the space to fight the EU every step of the way moving forward. If it is the total capitulation Boris says it is, rejecting it is the only safe way forward.
With the greatest respect, who ever believes anything Boris Johnson says
May's "deal"/surrender document can only be voted through if a new PM has the space to fight the EU every step of the way moving forward. If it is the total capitulation Boris says it is, rejecting it is the only safe way forward.
I don't think you really should believe much that is said by Boris Johnson, unless you want to wear a great big "gullible" sign around your neck
Federal prosecutors and Department of Transportation officials are scrutinizing the development of Boeing Co.’s 737 MAX jetliners, according to people familiar with the matter, unusual inquiries that come amid probes of regulators’ safety approvals of the new plane.
A grand jury in Washington, D.C., issued a broad subpoena dated March 11 to at least one person involved in the 737 MAX’s development, seeking related documents, including correspondence, emails and other messages, one of these people said.
On topic, my own belief is that if we must respect the 2016 vote then the simplest thing would be a referendum with a single transferable vote between Norway/Switzerland, The Deal, and No deal.
It is rather pathetic that Brexiteers who claim to be democratic are terrified of allowing the plebs to vote again. They clearly don't believe in democracy, or anything close to it.
Er, and Remain. If that's not offered there would be a national riot. It was a tight vote in the first place and there are compelling reasons why Remain should still be an option.
"Top Oxford researcher trying to bust the mystery of chronic fatigue syndrome says he quit and turned his focus to new research because trolls are 'too hostile'"
I think, though, that you are upending the democratic structure in the U.K. without a clear idea of what you want. Fundamentally we have a representative democracy - in my view outside of special cases such as Switzerland - this is the best form of government.
In representative government parliament has the delegates authority to make law. However, should they refer back to the source of that authority - the people - Ona question of principal then they are duty bound to follow it
That is what has happened here. Parliament requested guidance on whether we should stay in or leave. They were instructed to leave. It is their job to execute on that instruction in the way they see
No. The problem with the above is that since 1688 we have been proceeding, and basing our institutions around, the assumption that Parliament is sovereign, not the people. Even EU law is, generally, only implemented domestically through Parliament. You may want that to change, you may be correct, but there has been no formal change in the rules (our constitution is uncodfied, not unwritten) & the “rule”, such as it is, is that there is no “source” of Parliament’s authority - it is sovereign so it *is* the ultimate source of authority. It decides who elects its members and thus its composition, it decides everything (in theory). If you want to instruct Parliament to do anything you need to put the proposition that that is possible on a legal basis or there is chaos. That’s why we are where we are now.
I’m old enough to remember when it was perceived wisdom on here that the Irish had overplayed their hand!
youre still not following the Irish press are you ? If its no deal Varadkar is in deep brown stuff, he'll be yet another leader who has sacrificesd himself on the altar of Europe.
I think, though, that you are upending the democratic structure in the U.K. without a clear idea of what you want. Fundamentally we have a representative democracy - in my view outside of special cases such as Switzerland - this is the best form of government.
In representative government parliament has the delegates authority to make law. However, should they refer back to the source of that authority - the people - Ona question of principal then they are duty bound to follow it
That is what has happened here. Parliament requested guidance on whether we should stay in or leave. They were instructed to leave. It is their job to execute on that instruction in the way they see
No. The problem with the above is that since 1688 we have been proceeding, and basing our institutions around, the assumption that Parliament is sovereign, not the people. Even EU law is, generally, only implemented domestically through Parliament. You may want that to change, you may be correct, but there has been no formal change in the rules (our constitution is uncodfied, not unwritten) & the “rule”, such as it is, is that there is no “source” of Parliament’s authority - it is sovereign so it *is* the ultimate source of authority. It decides who elects its members and thus its composition, it decides everything (in theory). If you want to instruct Parliament to do anything you need to put the proposition that that is possible on a legal basis or there is chaos. That’s why we are where we are now.
Yes and No. Since universal suffrage was introduced, the voters have taken the view that they are sovereign.
No MP who is a holdout is getting the whip withdrawn for as long as Boris Johnson is in their number. So you can all forget that idea.
Who in the Cabinet would block it to protect Boris?
The membership wouldn't wear it.
The membership wants Brexit delivered.
There is certainly evidence that Conservative voters have swung behind the WA. Members, I'm not so sure about.
In which case, the conservatives are as in hock to the damaging members are just as much as Corbyn is to Momentum.
But, hey, at least the Tory membership aren't anti-semites.
The voters generally seem far more sanguine about No Deal than the MPs. But the MPs will never allow that to be asked, given how the initial Referendum was a poke in the eye to the establishment. And the EU won't allow any extension that allows No Deal to be an outcome. So the membership don't have an outlet for No Deal. The Refusenik ERG-ers don't have an outlet for No Deal. Why is No Deal even still a thing?
They'll whip for something along the lines of it but it won't pass.
If a referendum with remain as an option gets voted through it happens later (if it happens)
My view is that Labour's position ought to be (i) negotiate softer deal and (ii) offer REF2 on that. With (ii) only if the electoral calculation is that it delivers a net benefit.
Either way the point is to adopt a position that can only become policy if there is a pre-Brexit GE and Labour win it.
Otherwise, make sure that May and the Tories own the Brexit outcome, be it the May Deal, No Deal, Revoke or REF2.
No MP who is a holdout is getting the whip withdrawn for as long as Boris Johnson is in their number. So you can all forget that idea.
Who in the Cabinet would block it to protect Boris?
Who in the cabinet would back a plan that would see dozens lose the whip?
You think there are dozens prepared to give up their careers to go against the DUP's position on May's Deal?
There only need to be half a dozen floor-crossers (from either or both of the extreme Leave and Remain wings) to force an election (or May's replacement). There's certainly that many time-servers who'd take the retirement in order to stop the deal going through.
An election at which those who were not prepared to satisfy the Manifesto commitment would not be standing as Conservative candidates.
Then why did Soubry and Grieve stand last time?
Because they lied to the voters.
And yet they think they have the moral high round. Sickening, really.
I’m old enough to remember when it was perceived wisdom on here that the Irish had overplayed their hand!
youre still not following the Irish press are you ? If its no deal Varadkar is in deep brown stuff, he'll be yet another leader who has sacrificesd himself on the altar of Europe.
As we all know now - and as the Irish government has always known - for the UK a bad deal is better than no deal.
Anyway, I don't have the least scintilla of sympathy with self-proclaimed moderate Leavers now desperate to see the deal go through. At every stage for many years they have pandered to the hardliners and indulged them, copied their rhetoric and encouraged their wildest fantasies.
Now it is costing them dearly. Tough shit. That's what you get for craven fawning. If you had hard truths to tell, you should have told them earlier.
What would you like to happen now - as opposed to what you think is likely to happen?
Hodges is right - for as long as the ERG are anti, Lab has cover. If she can't even convince her own party why should we listen to what she says.
If the ERG switch, not to say Lab will switch en masse (@NickPalmer had it right right from the start at around six Lab rebels) but it will be easier, and also more difficult not to.
They'll whip for something along the lines of it but it won't pass.
If a referendum with remain as an option gets voted through it happens later (if it happens)
My view is that Labour's position ought to be (i) negotiate softer deal and (ii) offer REF2 on that. With (ii) only if the electoral calculation is that it delivers a net benefit.
Either way the point is to adopt a position that can only become policy if there is a pre-Brexit GE and Labour win it.
Otherwise, i.e. if there is no snap GE, make sure that May and the Tories own the Brexit outcome, be it the May Deal, No Deal, Revoke or REF2.
I can't disagree with that but we can easily do that after losing the Kyle-Wilson amendment, which will lose, if somehow it doesn't that offers other electoral advantages although maybe not as much.
My remain hat may be biasing things but my head tells me it isn't a bad way to go tactically. It does also buy us the good faith of remain Labour MPs to play the game.
Yes. We import around 50% of all pork products, mainly from Denmark and the Netherlands. These are mostly, due to lax welfare standards in Denmark in particular and laxer enforcement of them, much cheaper than the British equivalents as well. Therefore, they are most likely to be stocked and used by commercial restaurants, hotels, takeaways etc. They are also probably the ones most commonly bought by Leavers.
I think, though, that you are upending the democratic structure in the U.K. without a clear idea of what you want. Fundamentally we have a representative democracy - in my view outside of special cases such as Switzerland - this is the best form of government.
In representative government parliament has the delegates authority to make law. However, should they refer back to the source of that authority - the people - Ona question of principal then they are duty bound to follow it
That is what has happened here. Parliament requested guidance on whether we should stay in or leave. They were instructed to leave. It is their job to execute on that instruction in the way they see
No. The problem with the above is that since 1688 we have been proceeding, and basing our institutions around, the assumption that Parliament is sovereign, not the people. Even EU law is, generally, only implemented domestically through Parliament. You may want that to change, you may be correct, but there has been no formal change in the rules (our constitution is uncodfied, not unwritten) & the “rule”, such as it is, is that there is no “source” of Parliament’s authority - it is sovereign so it *is* the ultimate source of authority. It decides who elects its members and thus its composition, it decides everything (in theory). If you want to instruct Parliament to do anything you need to put the proposition that that is possible on a legal basis or there is chaos. That’s why we are where we are now.
Yes and No. Since universal suffrage was introduced, the voters have taken the view that they are sovereign.
I might equally take the view that I’m going out with Scarlett Johansson. Okay, stopping my flippancy for a second, I take your point, but the mess we are in stems from the fact that the perception you correctly point out has undoubtedly grown, while the underlying law assumes otherwise. Theoretically, Parliament could revert the franchise to male 40 Shilling freeholders tomorrow. There’s no constitutional mechanism stopping them, as there is in other countries. Politically, yes,it would be nigh impossible, but there’s nothing legally stopping Parliament doing so and, if you, believe in the rule of law, then you have to believe Parliament is sovereign.
"Top Oxford researcher trying to bust the mystery of chronic fatigue syndrome says he quit and turned his focus to new research because trolls are 'too hostile'"
From the Mail link: trolls - including Russian bots in some cases - have fueled [sic] dangerous crusades like the anti-vaxxer movement that has made measles a public health threat in the US.
Anyway, I don't have the least scintilla of sympathy with self-proclaimed moderate Leavers now desperate to see the deal go through. At every stage for many years they have pandered to the hardliners and indulged them, copied their rhetoric and encouraged their wildest fantasies.
Now it is costing them dearly. Tough shit. That's what you get for craven fawning. If you had hard truths to tell, you should have told them earlier.
What would you like to happen now - as opposed to what you think is likely to happen?
To be honest, I've completely switched off thinking about what I want. All the outcomes look disastrous from here, one way or another. I'm just hunkering down for the next stage, whatever that might be.
So why won't Parliament just tell the electorate to shut up? They make the rules and they can do what they want.
They'd like to, but they daren't. It would expose their frailty. They promised to do something but many had their fingers firmly crossed behind their back. Now they're in the headmaster's study like the small boys they are. "It was 'im, sir."
They could challenge the electorate if they're so powerful … Who rules the country? See how far they get. Instead they fart around in a desperate attempt to use up time until they can go back and get the right answer to their referendum.
The problem with Dots' argument concerning a repeat referendum is that it assumes no one has any interest in basic principles of democracy and are only interested in their own side winning. To answer the question posed in bold. No, even if Leave were 50 points ahead I would still not support a repeat referendum and nor should anyone else.
Repeating the question because you didn't like the answer even before the original decision has been enacted is undemocratic and will always be undemocratic whether you know your side is going to win or not.
And the idea that a second referendum, even if it is won by Leave again, will restore faith in British democracy is just laughable. It will just prove the old adage that they will keep asking the same question again for as long as they can until we give them the answer they want.
I’m old enough to remember when it was perceived wisdom on here that the Irish had overplayed their hand!
youre still not following the Irish press are you ? If its no deal Varadkar is in deep brown stuff, he'll be yet another leader who has sacrificesd himself on the altar of Europe.
As we all know now - and as the Irish government has always known - for the UK a bad deal is better than no deal.
yeah now youre just parroting slogans.
However if Varadkar had deweaponised the back stop in September\ October last year he could have called an election and in all probability won a majoity in the Dail. Now he will be lucky to remain the largest party and is on for a hammering if Brexit turns sour.
It turns out that a bad deal is better than no deal. Obviously.
You keep saying this, but it's not a bad deal. It's actually a pretty good deal. All the benefits of 45+ EU trade deals, no free movement, all the benefits of the single market, no membership fees and now an exit mechanism should the EU try and sabotage the long terms trade deal.
I've mentioned this before, but amusingly Sweeney (my mp) was one signatory of a letter demanding that Corbyn resign for the good of the Labour party. That was before the 2017 GE 'miracle' of course.
I think, though, that you are upending the democratic structure in the U.K. without a clear idea of what you want. Fundamentally we have a representative democracy - in my view outside of special cases such as Switzerland - this is the best form of government.
In representative government parliament has the delegates authority to make law. However, should they refer back to the source of that authority - the people - Ona question of principal then they are duty bound to follow it
That is what has happened here. Parliament requested guidance on whether we should stay in or leave. They were instructed to leave. It is their job to execute on that instruction in the way they see
No. The problem with the above is that since 1688 we have been proceeding, and basing our institutions around, the assumption that Parliament is sovereign, not the people. Even EU law is, generally, only implemented domestically through Parliament. You may want that to change, you may be correct, but there has been no formal change in the rules (our constitution is uncodfied, not unwritten) & the “rule”, such as it is, is that there is no “source” of Parliament’s authority - it is sovereign so it *is* the ultimate source of authority. It decides who elects its members and thus its composition, it decides everything (in theory). If you want to instruct Parliament to do anything you need to put the proposition that that is possible on a legal basis or there is chaos. That’s why we are where we are now.
Yes and No. Since universal suffrage was introduced, the voters have taken the view that they are sovereign.
I might equally take the view that I’m going out with Scarlett Johansson. Okay, stopping my flippancy for a second, I take your point, but the mess we are in stems from the fact that the perception you correctly point out has undoubtedly grown, while the underlying law assumes otherwise. Theoretically, Parliament could revert the franchise to male 40 Shilling freeholders tomorrow. There’s no constitutional mechanism stopping them, as there is in other countries. Politically, yes,it would be nigh impossible, but there’s nothing legally stopping Parliament doing so and, if you, believe in the rule of law, then you have to believe Parliament is sovereign.
I take your points, too. 150 years ago, voting for MP's was a privilege confined to 7% of adults, not a right that everyone expected to possess.
It turns out that a bad deal is better than no deal. Obviously.
You keep saying this, but it's not a bad deal. It's actually a pretty good deal. All the benefits of 45+ EU trade deals, no free movement, all the benefits of the single market, no membership fees and now an exit mechanism should the EU try and sabotage the long terms trade deal.
That has been my reading of it too. I have never heard anyone from the Labour benches engage in that sort of examination of the deal - they just oppose for the sake of opposing rather than providing any analysis for their opposition.
I think, though, that you are upending the democratic structure in the U.K. without a clear idea of what you want. Fundamentally we have a representative democracy - in my view outside of special cases such as Switzerland - this is the best form of government.
In representative government parliament has the delegates authority to make law. However, should they refer back to the source of that authority - the people - Ona question of principal then they are duty bound to follow it
That is what has happened here. Parliament requested guidance on whether we should stay in or leave. They were instructed to leave. It is their job to execute on that instruction in the way they see fit (and, no, that does not include choosing to ignore it) and then be judged for it at the next election
A separate point is that introducing a second referendum at this point is changing to rules of the game after the event. If it had been set up front as a two referendum approach that would have been legitimate. But for the people who lost to agitate for a revote is fundamentally undemocratic no matter how they paint it
(And, I don’t agree that a second referendum will drain the well. But I thought you story was about Vortigern and his castle not a queen and her palace? The fighting dragons were the Saxons and the British/Welsh)
Democratic my butt, a system that has only a handful of seats changing so placemen are there for life so that a few at the top can run the country to suit their chums , there is scant democracy in the UK and nowadays it is approaching banana republic as the Tories ignore and steamroll over the unwritten constitution. Time to bring out the tumbrils.
Anyway, I don't have the least scintilla of sympathy with self-proclaimed moderate Leavers now desperate to see the deal go through. At every stage for many years they have pandered to the hardliners and indulged them, copied their rhetoric and encouraged their wildest fantasies.
Now it is costing them dearly. Tough shit. That's what you get for craven fawning. If you had hard truths to tell, you should have told them earlier.
What would you like to happen now - as opposed to what you think is likely to happen?
To be honest, I've completely switched off thinking about what I want. All the outcomes look disastrous from here, one way or another. I'm just hunkering down for the next stage, whatever that might be.
Fair enough. I’m hunkering down too.
I will be furious if we leave with no deal and sad if we leave with a deal which has been bludgeoned through and has no real consent behind it, not least because it makes more likely that May will stay on and she is the last person who should be in charge of thFTA negotiations. If she goes God knows who will replace her, probably someone even worse.
I’m not sure I follow this. Are you suggesting a second referendum between types of Brexit or between a type and remain? The problem with your hypothesis is how many types do you want and who is going to explain the differences?
The question asked was superficially simple: do you want to remain in the EU? I think that anything more complicated than that runs into the same sort of problems that we currently have in the HoC. The attempt by Parliament to fine tune the process has been a disaster. Negotiations are, rightly, a matter for the Executive. I just don’t see this working at all.
I think to be fair to the headers author it is a piece putting head above parapet honestly in favour of something, to end the damaging impasse and unite the country, whilst explaining how and why.
True it doesn’t go as far as define the question (as a rodent said, that’s another story) but asks the brexiteers is only option to hold their nose and vote for the obnoxious?
Esther McVey admits she will have to hold her nose. So politics 2019 is same as was 1478? if you are on a rack being branded with hot irons for long enough, you will eventually admit you are a witch? Brexiteer James Gray, North Wiltshire has called the deal obnoxious and yet must switch his vote for it.
If anyone feels the sweat of having no brexit on their mind it’s because May and her ministers keep putting it there as a mantra. But the actual problem going forward is to sign into law a bad deal, an obnoxious deal and it’s vassalage - hang a grievance around the neck of the Conservative Party that will burn bright in elections long after the architect is a baroness, and blaming you for making a mess of her legacy.
Vassalage quite logically is where we are in and under EU with a say, but move from in with opt outs and some influence, to out with opt ins - like Norway, we end up less in though without influence over what we are still part of or aligned to. Rule takers no longer rule shapers. Such horrendous end point comes when someone tries brexit not just for 52% but the 48 as well, tries to straddle both sides to give something to everyone, a compromise to bring the country back together. Yet doing so in their own sweet ignorance, actually making things worse.
My argument is simple, if it comes to this, or has already reached this, how is Leave going to stop vassalage or any bad deal other than completing direct democracy process, putting a bad deal back to the people, explaining to voters exactly why it is the very bad deal? The Velociraptor that is Farage is clearly up for that. But the ERG, like the great plodding diplodocus is still chewing the cud trying to work it out.
What makes you think voting into law something obnoxious is your only option and can turn out well, James etc?
I think, though, that you are upending the democratic structure in the U.K. without a clear idea of what you want. Fundamentally we have a representative democracy - in my view outside of special cases such as Switzerland - this is the best form of government.
In representative government parliament has the delegates authority to make law. However, should they refer back to the source of that authority - the people - Ona question of principal then they are duty bound to follow it
That is what has happened here. Parliament requested guidance on whether we should stay in or leave. They were instructed to leave. It is their job to execute on that instruction in the way they see fit (and, no, that does not include choosing to ignore it) and then be judged for it at the next election
A separate point is that introducing a second referendum at this point is changing to rules of the game after the event. If it had been set up front as a two referendum approach that would have been legitimate. But for the people who lost to agitate for a revote is fundamentally undemocratic no matter how they paint it
(And, I don’t agree that a second referendum will drain the well. But I thought you story was about Vortigern and his castle not a queen and her palace? The fighting dragons were the Saxons and the British/Welsh)
Democratic my butt, a system that has only a handful of seats changing so placemen are there for life so that a few at the top can run the country to suit their chums , there is scant democracy in the UK and nowadays it is approaching banana republic as the Tories ignore and steamroll over the unwritten constitution. Time to bring out the tumbrils.
malc
hope alls well
have to say your boys did a cracking job at Twickenham, shame they were pipped at the end
It turns out that a bad deal is better than no deal. Obviously.
You keep saying this, but it's not a bad deal. It's actually a pretty good deal. All the benefits of 45+ EU trade deals, no free movement, all the benefits of the single market, no membership fees and now an exit mechanism should the EU try and sabotage the long terms trade deal.
I'd be with those who find it an acceptable deal, and better than either Remain or No Deal.
For those that are interested, here are 37 Conservative MPs who I currently expect to vote against any revival of the meaningful vote (the first 31 are ERGonauts, the next six are from the Remain wing of the party):
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) Lucy Allan (Telford) Steve Baker (Wycombe) Crispin Blunt (Reigate) Peter Bone (Wellingborough) Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) Christopher Chope (Christchurch) Richard Drax (South Dorset) James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) Chris Green (Bolton West) Philip Hollobone (Kettering) Adam Holloway (Gravesham) Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) David Jones (Clwyd West) Julian Lewis (New Forest East) Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) Priti Patel (Witham) Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) John Redwood (Wokingham) Andrew Rosindell (Romford) Henry Smith (Crawley) Royston Smith (Southampton Itchen) Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) Justine Greening (Putney) Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) Joseph Johnson (Orpington) Phillip Lee (Bracknell)
Notable omissions include Bill Cash, John Baron, Dominic Raab and Bernard Jenkin, all of whom have been quiet recently so far as I can tell.
I’m old enough to remember when it was perceived wisdom on here that the Irish had overplayed their hand!
youre still not following the Irish press are you ? If its no deal Varadkar is in deep brown stuff, he'll be yet another leader who has sacrificesd himself on the altar of Europe.
"The result has isolated Britain, paralysed its political system, jeopardised peace in Ireland and made the UK a laughing stock – and that’s before Brexit has even happened."
It turns out that a bad deal is better than no deal. Obviously.
You keep saying this, but it's not a bad deal. It's actually a pretty good deal. All the benefits of 45+ EU trade deals, no free movement, all the benefits of the single market, no membership fees and now an exit mechanism should the EU try and sabotage the long terms trade deal.
It’s not me saying it. But we clearly won’t be getting all the benefits of single market membership, while ending freedom of movement is - in my view - a terrible deal for British citizens who do not have the money to buy it.
There should be some frank interviews with those MP's who have skeletons in their closets.
So that's bribery and blackmail being advocated in pursuit of the WA. Maybe she should just threaten to have their kids drowned in the Tees.
I note that the airy pronouncements of 'no deal it is then', which were once such a staple of pb.com tories, are now thin on in the ground.
The tories are lower than the low, there is nothing they will not stoop to. Anyone who supports these cretinous lying cheating no-marks should be ashamed of themselves.
I'm hearing that more often, and not just from the usual suspects. But MPs are beginning to take fright, even the cloth-eared can't evade the discontent from constituents. They're somewhere between lawyers and child-molesters in opprobrium now. I almost feel sorry for them
So why won't Parliament just tell the electorate to shut up? They make the rules and they can do what they want.
They'd like to, but they daren't. It would expose their frailty. They promised to do something but many had their fingers firmly crossed behind their back. Now they're in the headmaster's study like the small boys they are. "It was 'im, sir."
They could challenge the electorate if they're so powerful … Who rules the country? See how far they get. Instead they fart around in a desperate attempt to use up time until they can go back and get the right answer to their referendum.
The sad thing is the transparency of it all.
Absolutely. The constitution is no longer fit for purpose. Hasn’t been for years. I don’t believe in absolute Parliamentary sovereignty, the fact that EU mambership placed some limited checks on it is a reason I voted remain, but at the moment that is what we have, currently terrified of properly exercising its constitutional role for fear of personal consequences.
I know it is not fashionable but I do have some limited sympathy with MPs. They carry the can whatever happens. Many (most even) genuinely believe the referendum has placed the country in the road to economic disaster. Follow it through, they’re blamed if the disaster happens, don’t follow it through, they’re also blamed for failing to follow the “will of the people”.
Personally I think their duty is to do what they believe to be in the best interests of their constituents and be held accountable for those actions at the next election, whatever the result was in June 2016. I’m old fashioned and legalistic that way, but the modern world demands otherwise, and the sad reality is this is a job they don’t want to lose so they are too fearful to do what they consider correct. That situation is untenable.
Comments
https://twitter.com/wilko201/status/1107378688172146690
I can see some advantages but that is with my Labour hat on, with my remainer hat on I can see the referendum being harder to get.
With my national interest (in just this matter) hat on I can see a Tory leadership contest leading to more chaos and uncertainty and potentially a worse Brexit outcome.
I can see a good outcome that satisfies all my hat wearing personalities but it is an uncertain path. This is why remainer Tory MPs stuck with May IMO.
Point me to a recent straight Leave/Remain poll that has Leave in front.
https://twitter.com/bbcnewsnight/status/960635877130227713?s=21
Will the MPs suddenly come together and embrace all the different opinions. or will the fractious in-fighting continue until the electorate want them all out? Moving the deadlines will only encourage that view. And what about the much-vaunted uncertainly for industry that must be prevented?
"Top Oxford researcher trying to bust the mystery of chronic fatigue syndrome says he quit and turned his focus to new research because trolls are 'too hostile'"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6810393/Top-chronic-fatigue-researcher-QUITS-online-trolls-hostile.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2019/03/18/lettersthe-moral-course-mps-wish-honour-referendum-result/
You can add Steve Baker, Christopher Chope and Priti Patel to this list.
we can now call in the GFA need for parity of esteem and make 12 July a national holiday too
https://twitter.com/IanAustinMP/status/1107562084747886592
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1107565969738743808
I don't see how pulling the meaningful vote works. What on earth does she go to the EU summit saying?
1) the voluntary party aren't swinging behind the deal. The chairmen may well refuse to select new candidates, discipline the MPs etc.
2) the parliamentary majority is close to zero. As soon as MPs are expelled, Corbyn calls a VONC and wins. May doesn't have any wriggle room on the numbers.
3) as soon as VONC is lost, either there's a temp Gvt (everyone except the Tories) to kill the deal anyway, or a GE. The Tories would be rent asunder in that circumstance. The local parties wouldn't allow 'my deal or else' in the manifesto, you'd see local parties endorse Independents, and going rogue across the country.
4) the chance of getting the Withdrawal Agreement Implementation a Bill through in those circumstances? Sub-zero.
Winning the MV counts for nothing, if there isn't a stable majority for implementing the consequences in legislation. That's what would be terrifying me if I was involved with the EU - it could all break down as soon as something difficult comes up later.
This ... or a long delay.
Now, remind me, who was it that said that last month?
Much discussion over the weekend but the fog is not clearing
5 live this morning suggested TM has agreed a Stormont lock in a backstop position where all conditions the EU levy on Northern Ireland would actually apply UK wide creating a form of customs union until a FTA is agreed. More detail will no doubt follow but I notice Sky have gone off on one of their self promotions about an Ocean Dive, ignoring bringing us the news so nothing from them.
Lord Trimble and Lord Lamont have both endorsed the deal this morning, and of course Lord Trimble was very involved in Northern Ireland politics
Boris Johnson is acting the fool again demanding TM gets more out of the EU at the meeting this week and to be honest, if I was advising number 10, I would not hold the vote until after the EU meeting. The reasons are obvious because the EU will have been given the choice of short extension for the deal or a long extension for anything else. The long extension for the EU is causing real controversy, not only with the EU elections, but the idea some EU members may try to impede the UK influence in the EU during the extension, when in fact UK would be a full member with full enforceable rights under ECJ law
I may be all over the place on this but I expect TM attends the EU and lays out her demands while further discussions take place with the DUP and others to firm up the deal and then next week, just a couple of days or so from the 29th, the HOC gets a final vote on MV3 or it is finally lost and we disappear down a period of extreme uncertainty damaging business until the largely remain dominated HOC manage to stop brexit
Personally, I would prefer the first, purely because I do not want further disruption to business but if in the end we remain, it would be the irony of all ironies that the zealot ERG members conspired to finish off their life's dreams.
Corbyn managed to survive 3 Tony Blair manifestos.
If a referendum with remain as an option gets voted through it happens later (if it happens)
Nothing - I was too nervous.
Note. You will receive an additional 25p per week on attaining 80 on your birthday in November
The ERG are a cancer, they need removing from the Tories before they can win another election/
Maybe he can be won around now he won't stand again but if even he is ruling it out where are the Conservative votes coming from?
I don't expect the DUP to vote for it either. You can't get 100% of Labour MPs either. Over 90% but there will be hold outs into double figures, more than there are Tories who will vote for it.
Edit: The only way I see it happening is people pushed there by desperation and not enough are there.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1107571105743687681
It is rather pathetic that Brexiteers who claim to be democratic are terrified of allowing the plebs to vote again. They clearly don't believe in democracy, or anything close to it.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D10BEiaWkAAYZHw.jpg
Keir Starmer is working on this at the moment.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/remainernow?src=hash
A grand jury in Washington, D.C., issued a broad subpoena dated March 11 to at least one person involved in the 737 MAX’s development, seeking related documents, including correspondence, emails and other messages, one of these people said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/faas-737-max-approval-is-probed-11552868400
But, hey, at least the Tory membership aren't anti-semites.
The voters generally seem far more sanguine about No Deal than the MPs. But the MPs will never allow that to be asked, given how the initial Referendum was a poke in the eye to the establishment. And the EU won't allow any extension that allows No Deal to be an outcome. So the membership don't have an outlet for No Deal. The Refusenik ERG-ers don't have an outlet for No Deal. Why is No Deal even still a thing?
Either way the point is to adopt a position that can only become policy if there is a pre-Brexit GE and Labour win it.
Otherwise, make sure that May and the Tories own the Brexit outcome, be it the May Deal, No Deal, Revoke or REF2.
And yet they think they have the moral high round. Sickening, really.
This is why you test:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-47607676
If the ERG switch, not to say Lab will switch en masse (@NickPalmer had it right right from the start at around six Lab rebels) but it will be easier, and also more difficult not to.
My remain hat may be biasing things but my head tells me it isn't a bad way to go tactically. It does also buy us the good faith of remain Labour MPs to play the game.
The U.K. has a higher standard of animal welfare rules
trolls - including Russian bots in some cases - have fueled [sic] dangerous crusades like the anti-vaxxer movement that has made measles a public health threat in the US.
So why won't Parliament just tell the electorate to shut up? They make the rules and they can do what they want.
They'd like to, but they daren't. It would expose their frailty. They promised to do something but many had their fingers firmly crossed behind their back. Now they're in the headmaster's study like the small boys they are. "It was 'im, sir."
They could challenge the electorate if they're so powerful … Who rules the country? See how far they get. Instead they fart around in a desperate attempt to use up time until they can go back and get the right answer to their referendum.
The sad thing is the transparency of it all.
Seems crackers to me.
Repeating the question because you didn't like the answer even before the original decision has been enacted is undemocratic and will always be undemocratic whether you know your side is going to win or not.
And the idea that a second referendum, even if it is won by Leave again, will restore faith in British democracy is just laughable. It will just prove the old adage that they will keep asking the same question again for as long as they can until we give them the answer they want.
However if Varadkar had deweaponised the back stop in September\ October last year he could have called an election and in all probability won a majoity in the Dail. Now he will be lucky to remain the largest party and is on for a hammering if Brexit turns sour.
I will be furious if we leave with no deal and sad if we leave with a deal which has been bludgeoned through and has no real consent behind it, not least because it makes more likely that May will stay on and she is the last person who should be in charge of thFTA negotiations. If she goes God knows who will replace her, probably someone even worse.
The whole thing is a national embarrassment.
True it doesn’t go as far as define the question (as a rodent said, that’s another story) but asks the brexiteers is only option to hold their nose and vote for the obnoxious?
Esther McVey admits she will have to hold her nose. So politics 2019 is same as was 1478? if you are on a rack being branded with hot irons for long enough, you will eventually admit you are a witch? Brexiteer James Gray, North Wiltshire has called the deal obnoxious and yet must switch his vote for it.
If anyone feels the sweat of having no brexit on their mind it’s because May and her ministers keep putting it there as a mantra. But the actual problem going forward is to sign into law a bad deal, an obnoxious deal and it’s vassalage - hang a grievance around the neck of the Conservative Party that will burn bright in elections long after the architect is a baroness, and blaming you for making a mess of her legacy.
Vassalage quite logically is where we are in and under EU with a say, but move from in with opt outs and some influence, to out with opt ins - like Norway, we end up less in though without influence over what we are still part of or aligned to. Rule takers no longer rule shapers. Such horrendous end point comes when someone tries brexit not just for 52% but the 48 as well, tries to straddle both sides to give something to everyone, a compromise to bring the country back together. Yet doing so in their own sweet ignorance, actually making things worse.
My argument is simple, if it comes to this, or has already reached this, how is Leave going to stop vassalage or any bad deal other than completing direct democracy process, putting a bad deal back to the people, explaining to voters exactly why it is the very bad deal? The Velociraptor that is Farage is clearly up for that. But the ERG, like the great plodding diplodocus is still chewing the cud trying to work it out.
What makes you think voting into law something obnoxious is your only option and can turn out well, James etc?
hope alls well
have to say your boys did a cracking job at Twickenham, shame they were pipped at the end
Adam Afriyie (Windsor)
Lucy Allan (Telford)
Steve Baker (Wycombe)
Crispin Blunt (Reigate)
Peter Bone (Wellingborough)
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire)
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West)
Christopher Chope (Christchurch)
Richard Drax (South Dorset)
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East)
Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford)
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil)
Chris Green (Bolton West)
Philip Hollobone (Kettering)
Adam Holloway (Gravesham)
Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire)
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood)
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip)
David Jones (Clwyd West)
Julian Lewis (New Forest East)
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet)
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall)
Priti Patel (Witham)
Owen Paterson (North Shropshire)
John Redwood (Wokingham)
Andrew Rosindell (Romford)
Henry Smith (Crawley)
Royston Smith (Southampton Itchen)
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South)
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole)
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy)
Justine Greening (Putney)
Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield)
Sam Gyimah (East Surrey)
Joseph Johnson (Orpington)
Phillip Lee (Bracknell)
Notable omissions include Bill Cash, John Baron, Dominic Raab and Bernard Jenkin, all of whom have been quiet recently so far as I can tell.
Doesn't seem too eviscerating.
"Time to bring out the tumbrils"
I'm hearing that more often, and not just from the usual suspects. But MPs are beginning to take fright, even the cloth-eared can't evade the discontent from constituents. They're somewhere between lawyers and child-molesters in opprobrium now. I almost feel sorry for them
I know it is not fashionable but I do have some limited sympathy with MPs. They carry the can whatever happens. Many (most even) genuinely believe the referendum has placed the country in the road to economic disaster. Follow it through, they’re blamed if the disaster happens, don’t follow it through, they’re also blamed for failing to follow the “will of the people”.
Personally I think their duty is to do what they believe to be in the best interests of their constituents and be held accountable for those actions at the next election, whatever the result was in June 2016. I’m old fashioned and legalistic that way, but the modern world demands otherwise, and the sad reality is this is a job they don’t want to lose so they are too fearful to do what they consider correct. That situation is untenable.