If true, that is hugely unfair. He is a civil servant. She is the PM. She should take responsibility. Little wonder she can't create or keep a team if that is how she treats those who work for her.
The point is, he is overseen one negotiation, the outcome of which has been disastrously badly received. He can't be within a hundred miles of the REALLY important negotiations on the trade arrangements.
The corollary of this is that neither can the PM.
It was the PM that oversaw the negotiation, Robins was merely the mouthpiece. If it is true that he is being sacked then that is outrageous and transparently unfair. A fact that will not go unnoticed by other civil servants on whom the government relies.
Indeed. Why would any other senior civil servant volunteer to work for the PM knowing that they will be thrown under the bus to save the politician's skin?
It is not Robbins fault that the PM was unable to persuade her Cabinet, her party or Parliament to vote for her deal. Nor was it any part of the civil service's job to do this which is entirely down to the politicians. May is just destroying another important part of our constitution purely to save her own skin. It is despicable of her.
What is she going to say when the EU asks: What is the long extension for?
YouGov, Survation and Opinium have all shown a swing back towards Labour in the last few days (though still significant leads for the Tories in all but Survation!). Wonder if that's a reaction to latest news events or the TIG effect wearing off. Would be interesting to get a few more polls where TIG are explicitly mentioned as an option.
So you gov have asked essentially the same question on a second referendum twice - and got radically different answers?
Call it a public vote on the deal and its supported by 50 to 36 per cent
Call it a second referendum to decide whether we leave or remain in the EU and it is opposed by 52 to 38 per cent.
So we can categorically state according to you gov the public clearly support a people's vote but are also strongly opposed to a second referendum on leaving the EU!
Of course Olly Robbins might have requested to be removed from any future negotiations. In fact I'd be amazed if he hadn't.
We certainly need good and experienced trade negotiators to work for the UK if / when we do finally leave and start negotiating an FTA.
How likely is it that the sorts of people with such experience will want to work for a government which is so dysfunctional and which treats its staff in the way that, first, Sir Ivan Rogers, and now Robbins (and doubtless others) have been and are being treated?
Also hearing from a Lib Dem insider that their leadership contest may not be as simple as everybody expects..a certain Mr Brake looks as though he is going to throw his hat in the ring
Also hearing from a Lib Dem insider that their leadership contest may not be as simple as everybody expects..a certain Mr Brake looks as though he is going to throw his hat in the ring
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 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. )
Thanks Charles for a thoughtful and convincingly argued response 🙂
Although I am not saying you are wrong, nor that you clearly state it should have been set up as a two referendum approach to start with, that is though a fair conclusion for us to come to listening to what you are saying? A one off unspecific advisory ref has created more of a mess and division to resolve than there was to start with? We are now in a mess and need to do something about it. My piece suggests something, your response doesn’t?
I agree introducing a second ref not just this point but at any future point does indeed change the rules of this process, but suggest as an improvement rule change and to solve the problems caused by weaker rules in the first place, not simply to agitate and losers to overturn a result.
The division between leavers in parliament and the country, holding nose to support obnoxious deal, suggests what did the winners actually win? If we stick to original rules Where is the protection for voters voting for ‘a leave” and then getting some sows ear of a change to satisfy politicians vested interests?
We do have the opportunity to be smarter after the event and correct mistakes of the past, on which basis I suggest change those rules to create stronger process.
Here’s the key bit for yourself and Richard Tyndall articulate naysayers to what I suggest here. Not to confuse what I am suggesting with something with remain on the ballot. Remain on the ballot, a re run such on basis of have you changed mind, is a completely different ref under completely different process. This process now cannot have remain on further ballots. The worst thing of all now is fudge two such different beasts and process as Kier Starmer and Labour Remain are pushing.
This is the Leaver not Remainer case for a second referendum, the improvement just to this process Cameron started, it doesn’t go on and on with voting and referenda for ever. Voters answer we want leave show me a plan for doing so, and reject plan till the point a vote accepts plan. That’s how it should have been set up to start with, it builds in way out of damaging impasse.
Now do we agree? Such process can drain the lake, bring peace to the disquiet lands.
About 18 months too late. He was the brains behind the two massive defeats on the deal he brought to Parliament. Name any other organisation than the Civil Service where you would still be in a job after such an unholy failure to perform.
It's not the Civil Service's job to get Parliamentary approval, it's the Executive's. If you want government by Civil Service then fine, but until that happy day it's the Executive's job.
Also hearing from a Lib Dem insider that their leadership contest may not be as simple as everybody expects..a certain Mr Brake looks as though he is going to throw his hat in the ring
Also hearing from a Lib Dem insider that their leadership contest may not be as simple as everybody expects..a certain Mr Brake looks as though he is going to throw his hat in the ring
Who?
Tom Brake, Brexit spokesperson.
I hope their is a contested election. Coronations rarely work out well.
I nearly misread that article for a second - BBC London journos assessed there were two causes of support for Scottish independence 'the Scots are chippy and 'Alex Salmond's WILY'
Of course Olly Robbins might have requested to be removed from any future negotiations. In fact I'd be amazed if he hadn't.
We certainly need good and experienced trade negotiators to work for the UK if / when we do finally leave and start negotiating an FTA.
How likely is it that the sorts of people with such experience will want to work for a government which is so dysfunctional and which treats its staff in the way that, first, Sir Ivan Rogers, and now Robbins (and doubtless others) have been and are being treated?
Hard to disagree with that. The ousting of Sir Ivan Roger in particular was a big blunder.
Also hearing from a Lib Dem insider that their leadership contest may not be as simple as everybody expects..a certain Mr Brake looks as though he is going to throw his hat in the ring
Who?
Tom Brake, Brexit spokesperson.
I hope their is a contested election. Coronations rarely work out well.
He’s certainly raised his public profile through being LD Brexit spokesman.
About 18 months too late. He was the brains behind the two massive defeats on the deal he brought to Parliament. Name any other organisation than the Civil Service where you would still be in a job after such an unholy failure to perform.
It's not the Civil Service's job to get Parliamentary approval, it's the Executive's. If you want government by Civil Service then fine, but until that happy day it's the Executive's job.
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 think its interesting how many of them are in constituencies south of London.
And how few are from Leave strongholds in the Midlands and North.
Remembering what RN said about the Wealdon Conservatives last night I wonder if in safe Conservative constituencies in the South Brexit is now more an issue of principle and political purity.
Whereas in the Midlands and North Brexit was always a practical issue.
And considering those seem to now be the 3 options available nor should it be. More rational than other MPs putting their own fictional deals into the mix.
Wow, the resort to Ad Hominem. If only you knew ... but I'll keep my powder dry.
I envisage a more informed debate and vote in which various options, perhaps with AV - STV - is in place.
So not a repeat. At all.
Mind you, not that this would be a bad thing anyway. Your argument is like saying that because Clem Attlee won a landslide in 1945 we should still have a massive Labour majority. Part of the art of democracy is enabling litmus tests of public mood. Clearly much has altered in the last three years.
To be frank, your intransigence about offering the deal back to the public demonstrates to me that you've lost the argument and, with it, the public.
Ad hominem in response to Ad hominem. So you have no cause to moan.
And no, again you show you idiocy. When we elect MPs they go into office. The result of the election is respected. We then have a system whereby after a period of time we re-elect them or not.
What you are saying is that if, for example, a few more people had voted for Labour MPs at the last election as a means of limiting May's majority (as lots of people seem to claim was the reason) and we had happened to get a Corbyn majority, we should have immediately had another election before he took office because we hadn't actually wanted Corbyn to win.
Of course that is not how the system does or should work. If the public are asked a question in a vote they have every right to expect that the result of that vote will be respected. Otherwise how are they to believe that democracy has any value at all?
Except the system for electing MPs does allow for recall votes in some circumstances...
If sufficient people feel that their leave vote was a result of being lied to, and they deeply regret it, then one might make a case that forcing them to 'respect' the result of that vote is equally toxic to their view of democracy.
Nope. There is no recall mechanism for an MP just because the electorate didn't like the result of the election or thought they had been lied to. And certainly none that would be enacted before the MP had taken their seat.
The analogy is not a perfect one - but your comparison of enacting a fundamental and irreversible change to the UK with an MP taking their seat is even less so.
Best wishes to OKC, with the thought that many MPs need an operation on their spine to fit a new one...
So what happens now? Despite a whole weekend of pressure it seems clear that May cannot win MV3 so won't call it - yet. She'll go to Yerp who will offer her some outrageous extension of 2-4 years. Tory and Labour parties will announce their Euro elections strategies, which will make Tory ERG loons foam at the mouth even more than normal She'll then come back to the Commons this time next week.
What are the votes that get called? Does she risk MV3 then as "my deal or we don't leave?" As ERG loons think her plan to leave the EU means we don't leave the EU, why would they vote for it? With hard Brexit happening at the end of the week anyway. Do MPs accept or not the proposal for a multi-year extension? What are the chances that by the end of next week nothing has been passed by the Commons and May faces the choices of accepting no deal or revoking...?
Utterly delusional. "If Britain leaves the European Union as planned on 29 March" . . . do the maths, that if is not going to happen!
At least I say I'm OK with Remain or an extension over May's deal. These guys are just insane.
It is really staggering that people can be elected to parliament and yet be sooo incredibly stupid. There really ought to be IQ and aptitude tests. After all companies use them and so do the civil service as part of selection criteria. Maybe Corbyn will not want it done retrospectively tho!!
It's possible for someone to be highly intelligent and also to subordinate their intelligence to self-interest, passion, pique, and peer pressure.
Indeed. A minority of them on both sides of the house are just plain old thickos though. It isn't good enough.
Well, the House ought to be representative of the Nation. Or so we are told!
Yes indeed. There are at least half the voting electorate (or about 37% of the total) that think we have had enough of experts. However, if I need a hip operation I think I might want to be sure the surgeon knows what she/he is doing. I'd also prefer MPs to have a reasonable ability to pass a logic test!
I am going into hospital on Thursday for an operation on my spine, and I have been telling myself that the surgeon’s done thousands of op’s, probably 100’s like this one, and anyway he won’t be working alone. See also my comment on Peter Bone's education.
If true, that is hugely unfair. He is a civil servant. She is the PM. She should take responsibility. Little wonder she can't create or keep a team if that is how she treats those who work for her.
The point is, he is overseen one negotiation, the outcome of which has been disastrously badly received. He can't be within a hundred miles of the REALLY important negotiations on the trade arrangements.
The corollary of this is that neither can the PM.
It was the PM that oversaw the negotiation, Robins was merely the mouthpiece. If it is true that he is being sacked then that is outrageous and transparently unfair. A fact that will not go unnoticed by other civil servants on whom the government relies.
Indeed. Why would any other senior civil servant volunteer to work for the PM knowing that they will be thrown under the bus to save the politician's skin?
It is not Robbins fault that the PM was unable to persuade her Cabinet, her party or Parliament to vote for her deal. Nor was it any part of the civil service's job to do this which is entirely down to the politicians. May is just destroying another important part of our constitution purely to save her own skin. It is despicable of her.
What is she going to say when the EU asks: What is the long extension for?
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 think its interesting how many of them are in constituencies south of London.
And how few are from Leave strongholds in the Midlands and North.
Remembering what RN said about the Wealdon Conservatives last night I wonder if in safe Conservative constituencies in the South Brexit is now more an issue of principle and political purity.
Whereas in the Midlands and North Brexit was always a practical issue.
It's the case that you pick and pick until you pick shit.
If true, that is hugely unfair. He is a civil servant. She is the PM. She should take responsibility. Little wonder she can't create or keep a team if that is how she treats those who work for her.
The point is, he is overseen one negotiation, the outcome of which has been disastrously badly received. He can't be within a hundred miles of the REALLY important negotiations on the trade arrangements.
The corollary of this is that neither can the PM.
It was the PM that oversaw the negotiation, Robins was merely the mouthpiece. If it is true that he is being sacked then that is outrageous and transparently unfair. A fact that will not go unnoticed by other civil servants on whom the government relies.
Indeed. Why would any other senior civil servant volunteer to work for the PM knowing that they will be thrown under the bus to save the politician's skin?
It is not Robbins fault that the PM was unable to persuade her Cabinet, her party or Parliament to vote for her deal. Nor was it any part of the civil service's job to do this which is entirely down to the politicians. May is just destroying another important part of our constitution purely to save her own skin. It is despicable of her.
What is she going to say when the EU asks: What is the long extension for?
Yes it is [partially] his fault.
Robbins knew that the deal he was negotiating was desperately unpopular. He knew that he was undermining the Brexit Secretaries who resigned in protest. Yet he ploughed on regardless.
Yes May should carry the can. But that doesn't justify Robbins' failures.
And I assume he's not being sacked in the case of being made unemployed. He'll be redeployed elsewhere I imagine. Like a cabinet reshuffle. Which seems appropriate.
we can now call in the GFA need for parity of esteem and make 12 July a national holiday too
I'm sure a holiday in the middle if July would be more popular than one in the middle of March!
Im still trying to follow the logic of making Paddys day a UK wide holiday but not for George, Andy or Taffy. Seems odd.
Its already a holiday in Northern Ireland and the Scots get St Andrews (end of November) but nothing for the English (late April) or Welsh (1 March).
I suspect holidays in warmer weather might be more popular.....could take a leaf out of the former Soviet Union's book and celebrate the end of WWII on May 9th - already a public holiday in the Channel Islands...
Scots do not get St Andrews day as a holiday, usual whining from southerners spouting lies as ever about how they are hard done by rather than coddled at the expense of the rest of us..
Says here they do - 30 November (or 2 December if 30 November falls on a weekend). Are you actually Scottish?
Yes you turnip and given I live in Scotland and do not know anyone who gets it as a holiday , I am a bit of an expert. May be a few coddled public service workers get it but not the majority of workers for certain.
Fair enough.
Apologies for being rude to you.
Not at all - if we can't have robust exchanges of opinion on here then where?
Malcolm is my type of thug. We have this arrangement whereby we are no ruder to each other on site than we would be in person. Since we are both pretty abrasive in person, this allows plenty of scope for scrapping.
Theresa May should be throwing herself to the wolves before she throws a civil servant to them. Shabby behaviour.
We saw it with Rudd and Windrush.
May has form, she lays down her friends for her (political) life...
Be careful who you kick on your way up, because they will kick you twice as hard on your way down.
May only survived last December because the deadline was imminent and MPs were desperate to avoid a No Deal Brexiteer taking over. With No Deal removed as an option May serves no more purpose. The second there is a ratified deal or a long extension she will be gone.
Stepping back and trying to put a bit of perspective - the 2016 vote was not really decisive. It wouldn't have been if it had been 52:48 the other way. A second vote was always going to be necessary with opinion split so evenly. And we need another one after that if the second vote isn't decisive. Basically we are stuck with this until opinion shifts decisively in one direction or the other.
BMW is leaving it a bit late to turn up and save Brexit.
What's the latest betting on when they're going to intervene?
When the alternative is No Deal. Which MPs have chosen to remove as an option.
When are MPs going to have the meaningful vote to actually amend the secondary legislation to delay Brexit beyond 29 March. Technically leaving on 29 March is still the legal position until this is done. There are only a few sitting days left and it needs to be agreed by the Lords too.
If true, that is hugely unfair. He is a civil servant. She is the PM. She should take responsibility. Little wonder she can't create or keep a team if that is how she treats those who work for her.
The point is, he is overseen one negotiation, the outcome of which has been disastrously badly received. He can't be within a hundred miles of the REALLY important negotiations on the trade arrangements.
The corollary of this is that neither can the PM.
It was the PM that oversaw the negotiation, Robins was merely the mouthpiece. If it is true that he is being sacked then that is outrageous and transparently unfair. A fact that will not go unnoticed by other civil servants on whom the government relies.
Indeed. Why would any other senior civil servant volunteer to work for the PM knowing that they will be thrown under the bus to save the politician's skin?
The money's good and it looks great on your CV. Permanent Secretaries are SCS Pay Grade 4, so he'll be getting around £150-£250k pa. If he's been there long enough he'll still be on a final salary pension (withdrawn to new entrants after 2005). Plus if you're a Civil Servant you go where you're put, not where you want.
Theresa May should be throwing herself to the wolves before she throws a civil servant to them. Shabby behaviour.
We saw it with Rudd and Windrush.
May has form, she lays down her friends for her (political) life...
Be careful who you kick on your way up, because they will kick you twice as hard on your way down.
May only survived last December because the deadline was imminent and MPs were desperate to avoid a No Deal Brexiteer taking over. With No Deal removed as an option May serves no more purpose. The second there is a ratified deal or a long extension she will be gone.
"Now do we agree? Such process can drain the lake, bring peace to the disquiet lands."
It would be nice if it were possible: as Tommy Cooper said … "Just like that."
A possible referendum based on a two options for leaving would seem equitable, because it assumes the first vote and builds on it. Like retrospectively making it a run off between Leave and Remain and then going on to the details. What sort of leave? And if Remain had won, asking what sort of Remain, given the option of going on to full unification is likely.
To see Remain lose and then bring it in for a second chance against only one variety of Leave is what the Civil service would call 'brave'.
Unfortunately, most Leavers would see it as a' fix'. But then it would be, wouldn't it?
Stepping back and trying to put a bit of perspective - the 2016 vote was not really decisive. It wouldn't have been if it had been 52:48 the other way. A second vote was always going to be necessary with opinion split so evenly. And we need another one after that if the second vote isn't decisive. Basically we are stuck with this until opinion shifts decisively in one direction or the other.
Exactly. In some ways perhaps the question we should be asking, to take the heat out of the debate, is not about what future relationship we want, but about where we want to park ourselves while we think about it.
YouGov, Survation and Opinium have all shown a swing back towards Labour in the last few days (though still significant leads for the Tories in all but Survation!). Wonder if that's a reaction to latest news events or the TIG effect wearing off. Would be interesting to get a few more polls where TIG are explicitly mentioned as an option.
So you gov have asked essentially the same question on a second referendum twice - and got radically different answers?
Call it a public vote on the deal and its supported by 50 to 36 per cent
Call it a second referendum to decide whether we leave or remain in the EU and it is opposed by 52 to 38 per cent.
So we can categorically state according to you gov the public clearly support a people's vote but are also strongly opposed to a second referendum on leaving the EU!
The available conclusion would be that the public support a public vote, following the decision to leave in the last public vote, on whether to move forward with their first decision by accepting the Deal, or leaving with No Deal.
Wow, the resort to Ad Hominem. If only you knew ... but I'll keep my powder dry.
I envisage a more informed debate and vote in which various options, perhaps with AV - STV - is in place.
So not a repeat. At all.
Mind you, not that this would be a bad thing anyway. Your argument is like saying that because Clem Attlee won a landslide in 1945 we should still have a massive Labour majority. Part of the art of democracy is enabling litmus tests of public mood. Clearly much has altered in the last three years.
To be frank, your intransigence about offering the deal back to the public demonstrates to me that you've lost the argument and, with it, the public.
Ad hominem in response to Ad hominem. So you have no cause to moan.
And no, again you show you idiocy. When we elect MPs they go into office. The result of the election is respected. We then have a system whereby after a period of time we re-elect them or not.
What you are saying is that if, for example, a few more people had voted for Labour MPs at the last election as a means of limiting May's majority (as lots of people seem to claim was the reason) and we had happened to get a Corbyn majority, we should have immediately had another election before he took office because we hadn't actually wanted Corbyn to win.
Of course that is not how the system does or should work. If the public are asked a question in a vote they have every right to expect that the result of that vote will be respected. Otherwise how are they to believe that democracy has any value at all?
Except the system for electing MPs does allow for recall votes in some circumstances...
If sufficient people feel that their leave vote was a result of being lied to, and they deeply regret it, then one might make a case that forcing them to 'respect' the result of that vote is equally toxic to their view of democracy.
Nope. There is no recall mechanism for an MP just because the electorate didn't like the result of the election or thought they had been lied to. And certainly none that would be enacted before the MP had taken their seat.
The analogy is not a perfect one - but your comparison of enacting a fundamental and irreversible change to the UK with an MP taking their seat is even less so.
Depends on whether you consider a Corbyn Government (which is what I actually referenced) a fundamental and irreversible change. To my mind it would do far more damage than Brexit so the comparison is apt.
Theresa May should be throwing herself to the wolves before she throws a civil servant to them. Shabby behaviour.
We saw it with Rudd and Windrush.
May has form, she lays down her friends for her (political) life...
Be careful who you kick on your way up, because they will kick you twice as hard on your way down.
May only survived last December because the deadline was imminent and MPs were desperate to avoid a No Deal Brexiteer taking over. With No Deal removed as an option May serves no more purpose. The second there is a ratified deal or a long extension she will be gone.
Most PMs who've departed haven't gone because of formal challenges. Cameron and Blair never faced formal challenges.
Last time it was exclusively the ERG saying she should go and that still came to a considerable portion of the party. Now some formerly loyal more Remain-oriented MPs are saying it too.
If the Cabinet say to her time is up then she will realistically have to go.
BMW is leaving it a bit late to turn up and save Brexit.
What's the latest betting on when they're going to intervene?
When the alternative is No Deal. Which MPs have chosen to remove as an option.
This is how it's going to be isn't it - shoulda woulda coulda from Leavers. If only it had been done properly....
Very similar to socialists, in fact.
And of course if we were to crash out without a deal, the inevitable disastrous consequences would be blamed on the Quisling government and saboteur civil servants bringing us the wrong kind of No Deal.
BMW is leaving it a bit late to turn up and save Brexit.
What's the latest betting on when they're going to intervene?
When the alternative is No Deal. Which MPs have chosen to remove as an option.
This is how it's going to be isn't it - shoulda woulda coulda from Leavers. If only it had been done properly....
Very similar to socialists, in fact.
Of course, you expect anything else.
The difference is that socialists have implemented socialism and its been a failure, whereas Brexit was implemented by Remainers. Putting Robbins and May in charge of Brexit is like putting Fred Goodwin and Jeffrey Skilling in charge of socialism.
Thanks Charles for a thoughtful and convincingly argued response 🙂
Although I am not saying you are wrong, nor that you clearly state it should have been set up as a two referendum approach to start with, that is though a fair conclusion for us to come to listening to what you are saying? A one off unspecific advisory ref has created more of a mess and division to resolve than there was to start with? We are now in a mess and need to do something about it. My piece suggests something, your response doesn’t?
I agree introducing a second ref not just this point but at any future point does indeed change the rules of this process, but suggest as an improvement rule change and to solve the problems caused by weaker rules in the first place, not simply to agitate and losers to overturn a result.
The division between leavers in parliament and the country, holding nose to support obnoxious deal, suggests what did the winners actually win? If we stick to original rules Where is the protection for voters voting for ‘a leave” and then getting some sows ear of a change to satisfy politicians vested interests?
We do have the opportunity to be smarter after the event and correct mistakes of the past, on which basis I suggest change those rules to create stronger process.
Here’s the key bit for yourself and Richard Tyndall articulate naysayers to what I suggest here. Not to confuse what I am suggesting with something with remain on the ballot. Remain on the ballot, a re run such on basis of have you changed mind, is a completely different ref under completely different process. This process now cannot have remain on further ballots. The worst thing of all now is fudge two such different beasts and process as Kier Starmer and Labour Remain are pushing.
This is the Leaver not Remainer case for a second referendum, the improvement just to this process Cameron started, it doesn’t go on and on with voting and referenda for ever. Voters answer we want leave show me a plan for doing so, and reject plan till the point a vote accepts plan. That’s how it should have been set up to start with, it builds in way out of damaging impasse.
Now do we agree? Such process can drain the lake, bring peace to the disquiet lands.
I would agree entirely that a question of what form of Brexit we have which does not revisit the Remain/Leave question would be absolutely fine, indeed desirable. That does not seek to reverse the previous decision before it has been enacted but only build on and refine the decision.
It’s disastrous. I would honestly rather we revoked the Article 50 notice than have another 2 years of complete uncertainty and investment decisions deferred or redirected on that basis. The Transition period will be difficult enough but 2 more years of membership with all of the costs and none of the benefits would be an even greater deriliction of duty than we have had from our political class to date.
Theresa May should be throwing herself to the wolves before she throws a civil servant to them. Shabby behaviour.
We saw it with Rudd and Windrush.
May has form, she lays down her friends for her (political) life...
Be careful who you kick on your way up, because they will kick you twice as hard on your way down.
May only survived last December because the deadline was imminent and MPs were desperate to avoid a No Deal Brexiteer taking over. With No Deal removed as an option May serves no more purpose. The second there is a ratified deal or a long extension she will be gone.
Most PMs who've departed haven't gone because of formal challenges. Cameron and Blair never faced formal challenges.
Last time it was exclusively the ERG saying she should go and that still came to a considerable portion of the party. Now some formerly loyal more Remain-oriented MPs are saying it too.
If the Cabinet say to her time is up then she will realistically have to go.
Thatcher is the only modern PM forced out by a formal challenge, and even then she could have held on had she pushed it to a second vote. But the Cabinet withdrew support and she had to go.
Peston reporting he's heard 9 month delay in the pipework.
So it's definitely not nine months then...
Serious question: has he ever been right? He's like an imperfect clone of Ambrose Evans Pritchard: same tendancy towards catastrophising but without the thesaurus and historical allusions...
Thanks Charles for a thoughtful and convincingly argued response 🙂
Although I am not saying you are wrong, nor that you clearly state it should have been set up as a two referendum approach to start with, that is though a fair conclusion for us to come to listening to what you are saying? A one off unspecific advisory ref has created more of a mess and division to resolve than there was to start with? We are now in a mess and need to do something about it. My piece suggests something, your response doesn’t?
I agree introducing a second ref not just this point but at any future point does indeed change the rules of this process, but suggest as an improvement rule change and to solve the problems caused by weaker rules in the first place, not simply to agitate and losers to overturn a result.
The division between leavers in parliament and the country, holding nose to support obnoxious deal, suggests what did the winners actually win? If we stick to original rules Where is the protection for voters voting for ‘a leave” and then getting some sows ear of a change to satisfy politicians vested interests?
We do have the opportunity to be smarter after the event and correct mistakes of the past, on which basis I suggest change those rules to create stronger process.
Here’s the key bit for yourself and Richard Tyndall articulate naysayers to what I suggest here. Not to confuse what I am suggesting with something with remain on the ballot. Remain on the ballot, a re run such on basis of have you changed mind, is a completely different ref under completely different process. This process now cannot have remain on further ballots. The worst thing of all now is fudge two such different beasts and process as Kier Starmer and Labour Remain are pushing.
This is the Leaver not Remainer case for a second referendum, the improvement just to this process Cameron started, it doesn’t go on and on with voting and referenda for ever. Voters answer we want leave show me a plan for doing so, and reject plan till the point a vote accepts plan. That’s how it should have been set up to start with, it builds in way out of damaging impasse.
Now do we agree? Such process can drain the lake, bring peace to the disquiet lands.
I would agree entirely that a question of what form of Brexit we have which does not revisit the Remain/Leave question would be absolutely fine, indeed desirable. That does not seek to reverse the previous decision before it has been enacted but only build on and refine the decision.
Then Dots case for a leaver referendum has been made.
BMW is leaving it a bit late to turn up and save Brexit.
What's the latest betting on when they're going to intervene?
When the alternative is No Deal. Which MPs have chosen to remove as an option.
This is how it's going to be isn't it - shoulda woulda coulda from Leavers. If only it had been done properly....
Very similar to socialists, in fact.
And of course if we were to crash out without a deal, the inevitable disastrous consequences would be blamed on the Quisling government and saboteur civil servants bringing us the wrong kind of No Deal.
Listening to McVey on Pienaar yesterday made me retch. Your example was precisely her line.
BMW is leaving it a bit late to turn up and save Brexit.
What's the latest betting on when they're going to intervene?
When the alternative is No Deal. Which MPs have chosen to remove as an option.
This is how it's going to be isn't it - shoulda woulda coulda from Leavers. If only it had been done properly....
Very similar to socialists, in fact.
Of course, you expect anything else.
The difference is that socialists have implemented socialism and its been a failure, whereas Brexit was implemented by Remainers. Putting Robbins and May in charge of Brexit is like putting Fred Goodwin and Jeffrey Skilling in charge of socialism.
You were a Remainer too, so that rules you out. Probably the only people in parliament with the right credentials were Bill Cash and Jeremy Corbyn.
we can now call in the GFA need for parity of esteem and make 12 July a national holiday too
I'm sure a holiday in the middle if July would be more popular than one in the middle of March!
Im still trying to follow the logic of making Paddys day a UK wide holiday but not for George, Andy or Taffy. Seems odd.
Its already a holiday in Northern Ireland and the Scots get St Andrews (end of November) but nothing for the English (late April) or Welsh (1 March).
I suspect holidays in warmer weather might be more popular.....could take a leaf out of the former Soviet Union's book and celebrate the end of WWII on May 9th - already a public holiday in the Channel Islands...
Scots do not get St Andrews day as a holiday, usual whining from southerners spouting lies as ever about how they are hard done by rather than coddled at the expense of the rest of us..
Says here they do - 30 November (or 2 December if 30 November falls on a weekend). Are you actually Scottish?
Yes you turnip and given I live in Scotland and do not know anyone who gets it as a holiday , I am a bit of an expert. May be a few coddled public service workers get it but not the majority of workers for certain.
Fair enough.
Apologies for being rude to you.
Not at all - if we can't have robust exchanges of opinion on here then where?
Malcolm is my type of thug. We have this arrangement whereby we are no ruder to each other on site than we would be in person. Since we are both pretty abrasive in person, this allows plenty of scope for scrapping.
Long may it continue.
Well said Peter, too many snowflakes about nowadays.
Peston reporting he's heard 9 month delay in the pipework.
So it's definitely not nine months then...
Serious question: has he ever been right? He's like an imperfect clone of Ambrose Evans Pritchard: same tendancy towards catastrophising but without the thesaurus and historical allusions...
He has one of the best business scoops ever on Northern Rock. And yes, he is very often right. He has a punt from time to time and so what? He is a proper journalist ––– far, far better and more entertaining than the anodyne message-carrier that is Laura K, a woman who couldn't find a scoop in a digger factory.
On our friend timmo's "report from a LD insider" (ok) that Tom Brake may stand in the leadership election, fine. I helped in a very small way to get Tom into Parliament in 1997 and he's survived five Conservative attempts to unseat him. He would be a valuable addition to the race and I would certainly like to hear what he has to say.
For now, though, we watch the incoherent floundering of May and what remains of her Government. The rabbit out the hat would be the DUP either supporting or at least abstaining in MV3 which would help May significantly but it seems there is a core of 25-30 ERG (and other) Conservatives which effectively mean May is struggling.
So will the EU grant May a long extension? One option might be she would have to revoke A50 now and perhaps in 6-12 months re-start the process with a clearer sense of what we want and what the EU will accept which might mean A50 (2) can be completed in less than 24 months. This is the Clarke/Tusk option.
I can't see the EU granting a long extension without something from the UK and I don't know what conditions might be such that May finds them unacceptable. Forcing a second referendum might be seen to be trampling all over Parliamentary sovereignty.
Taking an EU summit to 28/3 seems wholly unnecessary brinkmanship - if we have to leave without a Deal, so be it otherwise let's take our time, reflect and start the process again in a few months with a much clearer idea of what we want.
Comments
It is not Robbins fault that the PM was unable to persuade her Cabinet, her party or Parliament to vote for her deal. Nor was it any part of the civil service's job to do this which is entirely down to the politicians. May is just destroying another important part of our constitution purely to save her own skin. It is despicable of her.
What is she going to say when the EU asks: What is the long extension for?
Call it a public vote on the deal and its supported by 50 to 36 per cent
Call it a second referendum to decide whether we leave or remain in the EU and it is opposed by 52 to 38 per cent.
So we can categorically state according to you gov the public clearly support a people's vote but are also strongly opposed to a second referendum on leaving the EU!
How likely is it that the sorts of people with such experience will want to work for a government which is so dysfunctional and which treats its staff in the way that, first, Sir Ivan Rogers, and now Robbins (and doubtless others) have been and are being treated?
She is seriously delusional. She fails to acknowledge the fact that she lost her appeal.
She is going to lose her job as MP
She is going to be stripped of the right to be a solicitor
All because of a speeding ticket.
She is a waste of space and a stain on pubic life.
Come on people of Peterborough - seize the chance to send her packing.
"We can't put it to a public vote unless we have a deal that can get though Parliament and the EU"
Ummm, that's exactly what we did last time...
Although I am not saying you are wrong, nor that you clearly state it should have been set up as a two referendum approach to start with, that is though a fair conclusion for us to come to listening to what you are saying? A one off unspecific advisory ref has created more of a mess and division to resolve than there was to start with? We are now in a mess and need to do something about it. My piece suggests something, your response doesn’t?
I agree introducing a second ref not just this point but at any future point does indeed change the rules of this process, but suggest as an improvement rule change and to solve the problems caused by weaker rules in the first place, not simply to agitate and losers to overturn a result.
The division between leavers in parliament and the country, holding nose to support obnoxious deal, suggests what did the winners actually win? If we stick to original rules Where is the protection for voters voting for ‘a leave” and then getting some sows ear of a change to satisfy politicians vested interests?
We do have the opportunity to be smarter after the event and correct mistakes of the past, on which basis I suggest change those rules to create stronger process.
Here’s the key bit for yourself and Richard Tyndall articulate naysayers to what I suggest here. Not to confuse what I am suggesting with something with remain on the ballot. Remain on the ballot, a re run such on basis of have you changed mind, is a completely different ref under completely different process. This process now cannot have remain on further ballots. The worst thing of all now is fudge two such different beasts and process as Kier Starmer and Labour Remain are pushing.
This is the Leaver not Remainer case for a second referendum, the improvement just to this process Cameron started, it doesn’t go on and on with voting and referenda for ever. Voters answer we want leave show me a plan for doing so, and reject plan till the point a vote accepts plan. That’s how it should have been set up to start with, it builds in way out of damaging impasse.
Now do we agree? Such process can drain the lake, bring peace to the disquiet lands.
I hope their is a contested election. Coronations rarely work out well.
Whereas in the Midlands and North Brexit was always a practical issue.
And considering those seem to now be the 3 options available nor should it be. More rational than other MPs putting their own fictional deals into the mix.
So what happens now? Despite a whole weekend of pressure it seems clear that May cannot win MV3 so won't call it - yet.
She'll go to Yerp who will offer her some outrageous extension of 2-4 years.
Tory and Labour parties will announce their Euro elections strategies, which will make Tory ERG loons foam at the mouth even more than normal
She'll then come back to the Commons this time next week.
What are the votes that get called? Does she risk MV3 then as "my deal or we don't leave?" As ERG loons think her plan to leave the EU means we don't leave the EU, why would they vote for it? With hard Brexit happening at the end of the week anyway. Do MPs accept or not the proposal for a multi-year extension? What are the chances that by the end of next week nothing has been passed by the Commons and May faces the choices of accepting no deal or revoking...?
May has form, she lays down her friends for her (political) life...
What's the latest betting on when they're going to intervene?
Robbins knew that the deal he was negotiating was desperately unpopular. He knew that he was undermining the Brexit Secretaries who resigned in protest. Yet he ploughed on regardless.
Yes May should carry the can. But that doesn't justify Robbins' failures.
And I assume he's not being sacked in the case of being made unemployed. He'll be redeployed elsewhere I imagine. Like a cabinet reshuffle. Which seems appropriate.
Long may it continue.
May only survived last December because the deadline was imminent and MPs were desperate to avoid a No Deal Brexiteer taking over. With No Deal removed as an option May serves no more purpose. The second there is a ratified deal or a long extension she will be gone.
For once May, grow a spine and face them down.
Olly was the best tipster:
https://twitter.com/Sime0nStylites/status/1107610899743936512?s=19
"Now do we agree? Such process can drain the lake, bring peace to the disquiet lands."
It would be nice if it were possible: as Tommy Cooper said … "Just like that."
A possible referendum based on a two options for leaving would seem equitable, because it assumes the first vote and builds on it. Like retrospectively making it a run off between Leave and Remain and then going on to the details. What sort of leave? And if Remain had won, asking what sort of Remain, given the option of going on to full unification is likely.
To see Remain lose and then bring it in for a second chance against only one variety of Leave is what the Civil service would call 'brave'.
Unfortunately, most Leavers would see it as a' fix'. But then it would be, wouldn't it?
Very similar to socialists, in fact.
Last time it was exclusively the ERG saying she should go and that still came to a considerable portion of the party. Now some formerly loyal more Remain-oriented MPs are saying it too.
If the Cabinet say to her time is up then she will realistically have to go.
The difference is that socialists have implemented socialism and its been a failure, whereas Brexit was implemented by Remainers. Putting Robbins and May in charge of Brexit is like putting Fred Goodwin and Jeffrey Skilling in charge of socialism.
Funny that. December. Where have I heard that date mentioned before in recent discussions?
I thought Michael Gove said we held them all in 2016 looks like Failing Grayling was charged with delivery.
You couldn't make it up, as the playwright James Graham says.
Serious question: has he ever been right? He's like an imperfect clone of Ambrose Evans Pritchard: same tendancy towards catastrophising but without the thesaurus and historical allusions...
It’s an option.
Thanks 🙃
No more cajoling. Take no prisoners.
Vote for my deal on Wednesday or I will take Brexit off for two years.
On our friend timmo's "report from a LD insider" (ok) that Tom Brake may stand in the leadership election, fine. I helped in a very small way to get Tom into Parliament in 1997 and he's survived five Conservative attempts to unseat him. He would be a valuable addition to the race and I would certainly like to hear what he has to say.
For now, though, we watch the incoherent floundering of May and what remains of her Government. The rabbit out the hat would be the DUP either supporting or at least abstaining in MV3 which would help May significantly but it seems there is a core of 25-30 ERG (and other) Conservatives which effectively mean May is struggling.
So will the EU grant May a long extension? One option might be she would have to revoke A50 now and perhaps in 6-12 months re-start the process with a clearer sense of what we want and what the EU will accept which might mean A50 (2) can be completed in less than 24 months. This is the Clarke/Tusk option.
I can't see the EU granting a long extension without something from the UK and I don't know what conditions might be such that May finds them unacceptable. Forcing a second referendum might be seen to be trampling all over Parliamentary sovereignty.
Taking an EU summit to 28/3 seems wholly unnecessary brinkmanship - if we have to leave without a Deal, so be it otherwise let's take our time, reflect and start the process again in a few months with a much clearer idea of what we want.