another question: if TM does apply for a long extension does parliament have to sign it off and if so the ERG and DUP could collude with labour to VONC the government before HOC has chance to sign it off?
Good point . But Labour won’t no confidence until the extension has been agreed . Even in a dissolved parliament the cabinet are still there and so is the PM.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
That's not unreasonable. Referenda carry a great deal more moral weight than Parliamentary resolutions do.
So the more important a decision is, the harder it should be to reconsider it?
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
The people have voted. MPs are not the people.
I see no basis for repeatedly bringing the WA back to Parliament once it has been voted on, absent any change to the WA itself. It's bullying.
And, even more importantly, an agreement which is bludgeoned through in this way has no real consent. It will be undermined by those who don't really want it the moment after it goes through. The EU know this; they can see the sorts of games both Tories and Labour have been playing and they will take this into account during the transition period - when I fully expect them to make strenuous efforts to persuade industries to relocate to the EU in view of the political climate in Britain - and in relation to the FTA negotiations where they will do everything possible to nail down Britain in a way to prevent us competing with the EU, whether this is on the basis of the Tories' Singapore-on-Thames vision or Corbyn's autarkic socialist vision.
Far better either to get people's consent to it or to revoke Article 50 and think hard about what we really want as a country before taking such important decisions.
Exactly. The idea that passing the WA by a handful of votes could resolve the issue is absurd. An agreement rammed through in that way could never endure for long. I very much doubt that the legislation required to give effect to it could be passed.
question: once article 50 is extended is there any legal way for the government to leave the EU before the end of the extension? or are we then at the behest of the EU
Probably in the same way it was at the behest of the EU before. If a treaty is concluded, we’ll leave. That requires both parties to agree.
if we extend then a new pm decides to go no deal can we unilaterally leave before extension end date?
Not unilaterally. The 'no deal' cliff edge would be fixed at the new A50 date.
On your other question, the date change can be made via a statutory instrument so I don't think there's any way the ERG can veto it.
why not unilaterally? we are a sovereign nation aren't we?
It’s a treaty. Can’t just decide not to follow it.
In the same way you can not pay back a debt. It isn’t consequence free and damages the terms by which you can embark on new credit.
There was pressure from the EU but there was a terrific amount of cheering from the leave side when she did so. The amount of abuse that the Supreme Court got as a result of Gina Miller's application arose as a result of a fear of delay.
Groups like Spiked were organising protests demanding the invocation of Article 50 even before Theresa May took office.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
That's not unreasonable. Referenda carry a great deal more moral weight than Parliamentary resolutions do.
Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.
In which case, the politicians should never hold referenda. Never make someone a promise if you're worried they might hold you to it.
Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of leaving the EU, it's important to establish who runs the UK. The people or the MPs - selected from usually a choice of one or two candidates in the great majority of constituencies. Themselves selected by a small partisan group of one or two parties.
I look forward to this debate, but I suspect the MPs won't. This self-aggrandisement has gone on long enough.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
The people have voted. MPs are not the people.
But why does the anti-democratic principle that you are not allowed to reconsider your own decision apply to the people, but not to MPs?
Especially when MPs have a specific rule against it, which is being blatantly ignored.
Oh, I will laugh so much if Bercow rules MV3 out of order.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
That's not unreasonable. Referenda carry a great deal more moral weight than Parliamentary resolutions do.
Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.
In which case, the politicians should never hold referenda. Never make someone a promise if you're worried they might hold you to it.
Yeah but, come on, we know the original vote was deeply flawed and the country has moved on.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
That's not unreasonable. Referenda carry a great deal more moral weight than Parliamentary resolutions do.
Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.
In which case, the politicians should never hold referenda. Never make someone a promise if you're worried they might hold you to it.
Yeah but, come on, we know the original vote was deeply flawed and the country has moved on.
What that means is, a decision was taken you don't agree with. It's fair enough that you'd want to overturn it, but don't claim any moral high ground.
"Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.".
Now you're being naughty. You know it was National parliament sovereignty versus EU sovereignty, I don't remember offering to give up my vote. As far as I'm concerned, we, the people, are in overall charge. Shall we have a referendum on it?
another question: if TM does apply for a long extension does parliament have to sign it off and if so the ERG and DUP could collude with labour to VONC the government before HOC has chance to sign it off?
I don't think Parliament has to sign off on an extension, last week's votes authorized requesting either a short or long extension depending on the outcome of MV3.
To change the exit date in the EUWA would require a Ministerial order which would need to be confirmed by both houses, but as I argued last thread, until the relevant parts of the EUWA that repeal the ECs Act etc are commenced I don't think that actually has to be changed if an extension is granted.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
That's not unreasonable. Referenda carry a great deal more moral weight than Parliamentary resolutions do.
Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.
In which case, the politicians should never hold referenda. Never make someone a promise if you're worried they might hold you to it.
100%. This sort of plebiscite should never be part of the constitution without the ground rules being established. We have a conflict between the political reality of the referendum and the constitutional settlement of parliamentary sovereignty. This constitution was not designed to be democratic, the Commons was designed to be representative of the country in the narrowest sense, counterbalanced by the Peers and the monarch, but the latter two's power has withered, and the franchise has expanded, without constitutional law keeping up more generally. But designing a constitution, like all political problems, takes more attention than we are able to give it these days in our era of instant gratification.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
That's not unreasonable. Referenda carry a great deal more moral weight than Parliamentary resolutions do.
Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliament's refusing to sign off, in large part because it thinks the deal doesn't restore nearly enough sovereignty.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
That's not unreasonable. Referenda carry a great deal more moral weight than Parliamentary resolutions do.
Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliament's refusing to sign off, in large part because it thinks the deal doesn't restore nearly enough sovereignty.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
That's not unreasonable. Referenda carry a great deal more moral weight than Parliamentary resolutions do.
Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.
In which case, the politicians should never hold referenda. Never make someone a promise if you're worried they might hold you to it.
Yeah but, come on, we know the original vote was deeply flawed and the country has moved on.
That is the sort of meaningless statement that tends to emanate from people who never accepted the referendum result in the first place.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
The people have voted. MPs are not the people.
But why does the anti-democratic principle that you are not allowed to reconsider your own decision apply to the people, but not to MPs?
We are allowed to reconsider our decision. Once its been implemented.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
That's not unreasonable. Referenda carry a great deal more moral weight than Parliamentary resolutions do.
Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.
In which case, the politicians should never hold referenda. Never make someone a promise if you're worried they might hold you to it.
Yeah but, come on, we know the original vote was deeply flawed and the country has moved on.
That is the sort of meaningless statement that tends to emanate from people who never accepted the referendum result in the first place.
And rightfully so. The public is nowhere near informed enough to make a decision of this magnitude. That’s what we pay MPs and civil servents for.
to agree an extension all 27 countries of the EU have to agree to it. Is that a dead cert?
Both Andrew Neil and James Forsyth, both of whom are I suspect sympathetic to Brexit, are adamant that the EU will not want to carry the blame for a no-deal outcome. So good as a dead cert.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
The people have voted. MPs are not the people.
But why does the anti-democratic principle that you are not allowed to reconsider your own decision apply to the people, but not to MPs?
We are allowed to reconsider our decision. Once its been implemented.
But why does the anti-democratic principle that you have to implement your first decision before being allowed to reconsider it apply to the people, but not to MPs?
I like the idea that if you start down a road which you soon realise leads to a dead end, you have a moral duty to go all the way to the end before you're allowed to turn round.
"Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.".
Now you're being naughty. You know it was National parliament sovereignty versus EU sovereignty, I don't remember offering to give up my vote. As far as I'm concerned, we, the people, are in overall charge. Shall we have a referendum on it?
We have general elections. Between them MPs decide.
But if we're going to use referenda instead then I don't see why we shouldn't have a referendum now.
It seems to me that those who invoke the Will of the People only do it when this mysterious Will accords with what those invoking it want to do anyway. If the People showed signs of wanting something different e.g having a vote or possibly even Remaining then their Will is of no concern whatsoever to those who normally worship the People's Will.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
That's not unreasonable. Referenda carry a great deal more moral weight than Parliamentary resolutions do.
Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.
In which case, the politicians should never hold referenda. Never make someone a promise if you're worried they might hold you to it.
100%. This sort of plebiscite should never be part of the constitution without the ground rules being established. We have a conflict between the political reality of the referendum and the constitutional settlement of parliamentary sovereignty. This constitution was not designed to be democratic, the Commons was designed to be representative of the country in the narrowest sense, counterbalanced by the Peers and the monarch, but the latter two's power has withered, and the franchise has expanded, without constitutional law keeping up more generally. But designing a constitution, like all political problems, takes more attention than we are able to give it these days in our era of instant gratification.
I think as part of the aftermath of this whole fiasco we need legislation setting out that referendums of constitutional import must be so designated and the terms by which their results can be applied. I think the 40% of the electorate voting for change stipulation added the 1979 devolution referendums would be a good start, even though if it had been made applicable to all subsequent referendums, some things that I strongly agree with such as Welsh devolution would not have happened.
There are very few other countries that allow constitutional changes to be applied by a single-vote majority, and those that do, such as Ireland, require the electorate to vote on a fully-thought out and legislated proposal.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
I am amazed you of all people would make such a lazy argument laden with such false equivalence. May’s tactic in doing that is very poor, but the procedural actions of a parliamentary assembly are in no way comparable to running massive nationwide polls over and over.
I support a second vote and that sort of comparison is just terrible. It’s so clearly wrong to compare the two for anything other than a cheap gag it undermines the actually good reasons to have another vote.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
The people have voted. MPs are not the people.
But why does the anti-democratic principle that you are not allowed to reconsider your own decision apply to the people, but not to MPs?
We are allowed to reconsider our decision. Once its been implemented.
Why "once it has been implemented"? Where is the sense in that?
Putting it another way, what is your answer to this:
Thought experiment.
20 years in the future global warming looks ten times as urgent and frightening a problem as it does now. Also, the problems with thorium reactors seem to have been ironed out. They look safe and cheap. However, there is lots of opposition to nuclear power and the government decides to hold a referendum as to whether to convert the whole country (except existing renewables) to thorium energy. Thorium wins 52:48.
Three years later nobody can decide how to finance the conversion or who to give the work to, the estimated budget has risen tenfold, and new research shows that for pregnant women, living within 50 miles of a thorium reactor has precisely the same effect as thalidomide.
Is it antidemocratic to have a second referendum at this stage, or are we obliged to convert the country to thorium as a precondition for having one?
"Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.".
Now you're being naughty. You know it was National parliament sovereignty versus EU sovereignty, I don't remember offering to give up my vote. As far as I'm concerned, we, the people, are in overall charge. Shall we have a referendum on it?
We have general elections. Between them MPs decide.
But if we're going to use referenda instead then I don't see why we shouldn't have a referendum now.
It seems to me that those who invoke the Will of the People only do it when this mysterious Will accords with what those invoking it want to do anyway. If the People showed signs of wanting something different e.g having a vote or possibly even Remaining then their Will is of no concern whatsoever to those who normally worship the People's Will.
Doesn't the reverse apply, though?
People who now demand a fresh referendum never wanted the first, and would not be demanding one if they were sure they would lose.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
That's not unreasonable. Referenda carry a great deal more moral weight than Parliamentary resolutions do.
Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.
In which case, the politicians should never hold referenda. Never make someone a promise if you're worried they might hold you to it.
Yeah but, come on, we know the original vote was deeply flawed and the country has moved on.
That is the sort of meaningless statement that tends to emanate from people who never accepted the referendum result in the first place.
Sigh. Of course it's not meaningless.
1. Leave fed people a pack of lies and used dodgy finance and tech.
2. The binary choice was absurd
3. No one had made any preparations for Leave and no one had a clue what it actually meant (hence now)
4. The three years since have proven the total incompetence and downright destructiveness of Brexit.
We have every right to demand a new vote. This time properly informed and debated and without the stupidity of an In or Out. If 'Leave' is on the ballot it needs to be spelled out exactly what type.
Brexit is over. But I'm prepared to let it go to the people. What do Brexiteers fear from this? Lol.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
That's not unreasonable. Referenda carry a great deal more moral weight than Parliamentary resolutions do.
Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.
In which case, the politicians should never hold referenda. Never make someone a promise if you're worried they might hold you to it.
100%. This sort of plebiscite should never be part of the constitution without the ground rules being established. We have a conflict between the political reality of the referendum and the constitutional settlement of parliamentary sovereignty. This constitution was not designed to be democratic, the Commons was designed to be representative of the country in the narrowest sense, counterbalanced by the Peers and the monarch, but the latter two's power has withered, and the franchise has expanded, without constitutional law keeping up more generally. But designing a constitution, like all political problems, takes more attention than we are able to give it these days in our era of instant gratification.
I think as part of the aftermath of this whole fiasco we need legislation setting out that referendums of constitutional import must be so designated and the terms by which their results can be applied. I think the 40% of the electorate voting for change stipulation added the 1979 devolution referendums would be a good start, even though if it had been made applicable to all subsequent referendums, some things that I strongly agree with such as Welsh devolution would not have happened.
There are very few other countries that allow constitutional changes to be applied by a single-vote majority, and those that do, such as Ireland, require the electorate to vote on a fully-thought out and legislated proposal.
The effect of adding the 40% threshold in Scotland was poisonous in the long run, as cunning plans so often are.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
That's not unreasonable. Referenda carry a great deal more moral weight than Parliamentary resolutions do.
Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.
In which case, the politicians should never hold referenda. Never make someone a promise if you're worried they might hold you to it.
Yeah but, come on, we know the original vote was deeply flawed and the country has moved on.
That is the sort of meaningless statement that tends to emanate from people who never accepted the referendum result in the first place.
Sigh. Of course it's not meaningless.
1. Leave fed people a pack of lies and used dodgy finance and tech.
2. The binary choice was absurd
3. No one had made any preparations for Leave and no one had a clue what it actually meant (hence now)
4. The three years since have proven the total incompetence and downright destructiveness of Brexit.
We have every right to demand a new vote. This time properly informed and debated and without the stupidity of an In or Out. If 'Leave' is on the ballot it needs to be spelled out exactly what type.
Brexit is over. But I'm prepared to let it go to the people. What do Brexiteers fear from this? Lol.
Why bother with a fresh vote, since you are determined that Brexit should never be implemented anyway?
On topic, people have overestimated how much support the WA will get at every turn. Not worth betting on it yet.
I wouldn't bet against it not being brought to the House, and Brexiteers complaining of betrayal because they'd changed their minds and wanted to vote for it.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
That's not unreasonable. Referenda carry a great deal more moral weight than Parliamentary resolutions do.
Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.
In which case, the politicians should never hold referenda. Never make someone a promise if you're worried they might hold you to it.
Yeah but, come on, we know the original vote was deeply flawed and the country has moved on.
That is the sort of meaningless statement that tends to emanate from people who never accepted the referendum result in the first place.
Sigh. Of course it's not meaningless.
1. Leave fed people a pack of lies and used dodgy finance and tech.
2. The binary choice was absurd
3. No one had made any preparations for Leave and no one had a clue what it actually meant (hence now)
4. The three years since have proven the total incompetence and downright destructiveness of Brexit.
We have every right to demand a new vote. This time properly informed and debated and without the stupidity of an In or Out. If 'Leave' is on the ballot it needs to be spelled out exactly what type.
Brexit is over. But I'm prepared to let it go to the people. What do Brexiteers fear from this? Lol.
Why bother with a fresh vote, since you are determined that Brexit should never be implemented anyway?
"But I'm prepared to let it go to the people. What do Brexiteers fear from this?"
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
That's not unreasonable. Referenda carry a great deal more moral weight than Parliamentary resolutions do.
Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.
In which case, the politicians should never hold referenda. Never make someone a promise if you're worried they might hold you to it.
I think as part of the aftermath of this whole fiasco we need legislation setting out that referendums of constitutional import must be so designated and the terms by which their results can be applied. I think the 40% of the electorate voting for change stipulation added the 1979 devolution referendums would be a good start, even though if it had been made applicable to all subsequent referendums, some things that I strongly agree with such as Welsh devolution would not have happened.
There are very few other countries that allow constitutional changes to be applied by a single-vote majority, and those that do, such as Ireland, require the electorate to vote on a fully-thought out and legislated proposal.
I think the question should have made reference to Parliament e.g "Should the United Kingdom leave the EU on terms to be decided by Parliament" or, better still, a proposed form of future relationship should have been put forward on a yes/no basis ("Do you agree that the United Kingdom should apply to join EFTA? or "Should the United Kingdom leave the EU and seek an agreement with it on the terms proposed by ....etc.?"). Neither of those would have got past the Electoral Commission but you get the drift.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
That's not unreasonable. Referenda carry a great deal more moral weight than Parliamentary resolutions do.
Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.
In which case, the politicians should never hold referenda. Never make someone a promise if you're worried they might hold you to it.
Yeah but, come on, we know the original vote was deeply flawed and the country has moved on.
That is the sort of meaningless statement that tends to emanate from people who never accepted the referendum result in the first place.
Sigh. Of course it's not meaningless.
1. Leave fed people a pack of lies and used dodgy finance and tech.
2. The binary choice was absurd
3. No one had made any preparations for Leave and no one had a clue what it actually meant (hence now)
4. The three years since have proven the total incompetence and downright destructiveness of Brexit.
We have every right to demand a new vote. This time properly informed and debated and without the stupidity of an In or Out. If 'Leave' is on the ballot it needs to be spelled out exactly what type.
Brexit is over. But I'm prepared to let it go to the people. What do Brexiteers fear from this? Lol.
Why bother with a fresh vote, since you are determined that Brexit should never be implemented anyway?
If there were a public vote between ratification of the WA and revocation of Article 50, I don't know anyone who would quibble with ratifying the WA if it won.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
That's not unreasonable. Referenda carry a great deal more moral weight than Parliamentary resolutions do.
Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.
In which case, the politicians should never hold referenda. Never make someone a promise if you're worried they might hold you to it.
Yeah but, come on, we know the original vote was deeply flawed and the country has moved on.
That is the sort of meaningless statement that tends to emanate from people who never accepted the referendum result in the first place.
Sigh. Of course it's not meaningless.
1. Leave fed people a pack of lies and used dodgy finance and tech.
2. The binary choice was absurd
3. No one had made any preparations for Leave and no one had a clue what it actually meant (hence now)
4. The three years since have proven the total incompetence and downright destructiveness of Brexit.
We have every right to demand a new vote. This time properly informed and debated and without the stupidity of an In or Out. If 'Leave' is on the ballot it needs to be spelled out exactly what type.
Brexit is over. But I'm prepared to let it go to the people. What do Brexiteers fear from this? Lol.
Why bother with a fresh vote, since you are determined that Brexit should never be implemented anyway?
"But I'm prepared to let it go to the people. What do Brexiteers fear from this?"
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
That's not unreasonable. Referenda carry a great deal more moral weight than Parliamentary resolutions do.
Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.
In which case, the politicians should never hold referenda. Never make someone a promise if you're worried they might hold you to it.
Yeah but, come on, we know the original vote was deeply flawed and the country has moved on.
That is the sort of meaningless statement that tends to emanate from people who never accepted the referendum result in the first place.
Sigh. Of course it's not meaningless.
1. Leave fed people a pack of lies and used dodgy finance and tech.
2. The binary choice was absurd
3. No one had made any preparations for Leave and no one had a clue what it actually meant (hence now)
4. The three years since have proven the total incompetence and downright destructiveness of Brexit.
We have every right to demand a new vote. This time properly informed and debated and without the stupidity of an In or Out. If 'Leave' is on the ballot it needs to be spelled out exactly what type.
Brexit is over. But I'm prepared to let it go to the people. What do Brexiteers fear from this? Lol.
Why bother with a fresh vote, since you are determined that Brexit should never be implemented anyway?
If there were a public vote between ratification of the WA and revocation of Article 50, I don't know anyone who would quibble with ratifying the WA if it won.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
That's not unreasonable. Referenda carry a great deal more moral weight than Parliamentary resolutions do.
Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.
In which case, the politicians should never hold referenda. Never make someone a promise if you're worried they might hold you to it.
Yeah but, come on, we know the original vote was deeply flawed and the country has moved on.
That is the sort of meaningless statement that tends to emanate from people who never accepted the referendum result in the first place.
Sigh. Of course it's not meaningless.
1. Leave fed people a pack of lies and used dodgy finance and tech.
2. The binary choice was absurd
3. No one had made any preparations for Leave and no one had a clue what it actually meant (hence now)
4. The three years since have proven the total incompetence and downright destructiveness of Brexit.
We have every right to demand a new vote. This time properly informed and debated and without the stupidity of an In or Out. If 'Leave' is on the ballot it needs to be spelled out exactly what type.
Brexit is over. But I'm prepared to let it go to the people. What do Brexiteers fear from this? Lol.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
The people have voted. MPs are not the people.
But why does the anti-democratic principle that you are not allowed to reconsider your own decision apply to the people, but not to MPs?
We are allowed to reconsider our decision. Once its been implemented.
Why "once it has been implemented"? Where is the sense in that?
Putting it another way, what is your answer to this:
Thought experiment.
20 years in the future global warming looks ten times as urgent and frightening a problem as it does now. Also, the problems with thorium reactors seem to have been ironed out. They look safe and cheap. However, there is lots of opposition to nuclear power and the government decides to hold a referendum as to whether to convert the whole country (except existing renewables) to thorium energy. Thorium wins 52:48.
Three years later nobody can decide how to finance the conversion or who to give the work to, the estimated budget has risen tenfold, and new research shows that for pregnant women, living within 50 miles of a thorium reactor has precisely the same effect as thalidomide.
Is it antidemocratic to have a second referendum at this stage, or are we obliged to convert the country to thorium as a precondition for having one?
There have been many pathetic "analogies" mooted here during the Brexit arguments, but this one is just patently fucking ridiculous.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
That's not unreasonable. Referenda carry a great deal more moral weight than Parliamentary resolutions do.
Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.
In which case, the politicians should never hold referenda. Never make someone a promise if you're worried they might hold you to it.
Yeah but, come on, we know the original vote was deeply flawed and the country has moved on.
That is the sort of meaningless statement that tends to emanate from people who never accepted the referendum result in the first place.
Sigh. Of course it's not meaningless.
1. Leave fed people a pack of lies and used dodgy finance and tech.
2. The binary choice was absurd
3. No one had made any preparations for Leave and no one had a clue what it actually meant (hence now)
4. The three years since have proven the total incompetence and downright destructiveness of Brexit.
We have every right to demand a new vote. This time properly informed and debated and without the stupidity of an In or Out. If 'Leave' is on the ballot it needs to be spelled out exactly what type.
Brexit is over. But I'm prepared to let it go to the people. What do Brexiteers fear from this? Lol.
Why bother with a fresh vote, since you are determined that Brexit should never be implemented anyway?
"But I'm prepared to let it go to the people. What do Brexiteers fear from this?"
?????
When did Lisbon go to a public vote? Nice? Maastricht?
Die-hard Remainer zealots new found desire to get a public vote before the last vote has even been enacted is rank hypocrisy.
I like the idea that if you start down a road which you soon realise leads to a dead end, you have a moral duty to go all the way to the end before you're allowed to turn round.
It's more like the idea that if you start down a road that leads to the edge of a cliff, you have a moral duty to fall to the bottom of the cliff before you're allowed to turn around.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
The people have voted. MPs are not the people.
But why does the anti-democratic principle that you are not allowed to reconsider your own decision apply to the people, but not to MPs?
We are allowed to reconsider our decision. Once its been implemented.
Why "once it has been implemented"? Where is the sense in that?
Putting it another way, what is your answer to this:
Thought experiment.
20 years in the future global warming looks ten times as urgent and frightening a problem as it does now. Also, the problems with thorium reactors seem to have been ironed out. They look safe and cheap. However, there is lots of opposition to nuclear power and the government decides to hold a referendum as to whether to convert the whole country (except existing renewables) to thorium energy. Thorium wins 52:48.
Three years later nobody can decide how to finance the conversion or who to give the work to, the estimated budget has risen tenfold, and new research shows that for pregnant women, living within 50 miles of a thorium reactor has precisely the same effect as thalidomide.
Is it antidemocratic to have a second referendum at this stage, or are we obliged to convert the country to thorium as a precondition for having one?
If MPs consider thorium to be like thalidomide then it would be utterly irresponsible to have another referendum. MPs should overrule it and revoke it unilaterally and then say "yes I did this, what do you think" next General Election.
Sky suggesting Bercow may say there can only be one further MV and that is why MV will not happen this week
That would actually be a pretty decent and fair response from him. Brexiteers may or may not like it, but's it's quite even handed all things considered.
Sky suggesting Bercow may say there can only be one further MV and that is why MV will not happen this week
That would actually be a pretty decent and fair response from him. Brexiteers may or may not like it, but's it's quite even handed all things considered.
Caution needed maybe as it is speculation at present
"Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.".
Now you're being naughty. You know it was National parliament sovereignty versus EU sovereignty, I don't remember offering to give up my vote. As far as I'm concerned, we, the people, are in overall charge. Shall we have a referendum on it?
We have general elections. Between them MPs decide.
But if we're going to use referenda instead then I don't see why we shouldn't have a referendum now.
It seems to me that those who invoke the Will of the People only do it when this mysterious Will accords with what those invoking it want to do anyway. If the People showed signs of wanting something different e.g having a vote or possibly even Remaining then their Will is of no concern whatsoever to those who normally worship the People's Will.
Doesn't the reverse apply, though?
People who now demand a fresh referendum never wanted the first, and would not be demanding one if they were sure they would lose.
True.
It does not apply to me though.
I think we need a new referendum because a WA bludgeoned through Parliament has no real consent, there is some evidence that people may have changed their mind and we now know what we did not know in 2016. We should not be making such an important change without the people's full consent. I don't think we have this and scraping through a Parliamentary vote won't give it either.
If it were up to me I would revoke Art 50 and have government and Parliament do the hard thinking needed about what sort of relationship with Europe Britain wants to have - as per my various thread headers on the topic. Fat chance of that. So a referendum is second best.
What we are doing now is very sub-optimal indeed and will likely make things very much worse. A pause, a deep breath and some calm thinking is needed. Not a decision made in a panic by a PM and a party concerned chiefly about their own survival than the long-term interests of the country.
Team Sky are set to announce a new sponsor - owned by Britain's richest man Sir Jim Ratcliffe.
The broadcaster said in December that it would end its decade-long commitment at the end of 2019, during which time Team Sky have won eight Grand Tours.
The team will be renamed Team Ineos - after the chemicals giant that billionaire Ratcliffe owns.
.... and new research shows that for pregnant women, living within 50 miles of a thorium reactor has precisely the same effect as thalidomide....
If this research was accurate, I would not hold a second referendum, I would immediately cancel the implementation.
But Brexit is NOT going to cause pregnant mothers to give birth to children with limbs missing/deformed so please go back and come up with a better example.
Then the WA is dead. May requests a long A50 extension to negotiate something different, probably not by her and possibly after a GE. Or she simply revokes A50 altogether.
It would actually be quite funny if The Speaker rules out MV3! He's actually totally entitled to do so but, wow, won't there be fireworks?!
Surely he can't pre-emptively rule it out before it's been brought to Parliament?
I don't see why not. Historically it was the clerks that would refuse to accept business that fell foul of the stipulation, it didn't even get as far as the Speaker.
One thing is for certain is, it won't be about when he is leaving.
More's the pity
The sooner he is out of Parliament, the better. He has done so much damage to the Speakership that it may never recover.
Whatever happens in the next ten days with Brexit, over the next few months I think we're going to have:
A New PM/New Con Leader A New COTE A New Cabinet A New Government (General Election) A New LOTO A New Lib-Dem Leader A New Speaker TIG And Brexit Party MPs (including Nigel Farage)
"Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.".
Now you're being naughty. You know it was National parliament sovereignty versus EU sovereignty, I don't remember offering to give up my vote. As far as I'm concerned, we, the people, are in overall charge. Shall we have a referendum on it?
We have general elections. Between them MPs decide.
But if we're going to use referenda instead then I don't see why we shouldn't have a referendum now.
It seems to me that those who invoke the Will of the People only do it when this mysterious Will accords with what those invoking it want to do anyway. If the People showed signs of wanting something different e.g having a vote or possibly even Remaining then their Will is of no concern whatsoever to those who normally worship the People's Will.
Doesn't the reverse apply, though?
People who now demand a fresh referendum never wanted the first, and would not be demanding one if they were sure they would lose.
True.
It does not apply to me though.
I think we need a new referendum because a WA bludgeoned through Parliament has no real consent, there is some evidence that people may have changed their mind and we now know what we did not know in 2016. We should not be making such an important change without the people's full consent. I don't think we have this and scraping through a Parliamentary vote won't give it either.
If it were up to me I would revoke Art 50 and have government and Parliament do the hard thinking needed about what sort of relationship with Europe Britain wants to have - as per my various thread headers on the topic. Fat chance of that. So a referendum is second best.
What we are doing now is very sub-optimal indeed and will likely make things very much worse. A pause, a deep breath and some calm thinking is needed. Not a decision made in a panic by a PM and a party concerned chiefly about their own survival than the long-term interests of the country.
Another good post from Ms Cyclefree. Mrs M is fiddling about with procedure and repeated requests to Parliament backed by either threats or bribes. It's disgraceful, and brings the whole of Parliament into contempt.
question: once article 50 is extended is there any legal way for the government to leave the EU before the end of the extension? or are we then at the behest of the EU
Probably in the same way it was at the behest of the EU before. If a treaty is concluded, we’ll leave. That requires both parties to agree.
if we extend then a new pm decides to go no deal can we unilaterally leave before extension end date?
Not unilaterally. The 'no deal' cliff edge would be fixed at the new A50 date.
On your other question, the date change can be made via a statutory instrument so I don't think there's any way the ERG can veto it.
why not unilaterally? we are a sovereign nation aren't we?
It’s a treaty. Can’t just decide not to follow it.
As far as understood things you can revoke a treaty as a sovereign nation if you believe the other party is not acting in good faith. At the end of the what are they going to do to stop us?
What would it achieve for the government to declare 'no deal' while the UK was still in the EU according to EU and UK law? It would just make them look even less credible.
couldn't we just repeal the 1972 European communities act that took us in , in the first place?
Yes, that would cause us to instantly leave the EU. (Albeit, we should also probably repeal all the major primary EU related legislaton, such as the European Economic Area act of 1993.)
"Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.".
Now you're being naughty. You know it was National parliament sovereignty versus EU sovereignty, I don't remember offering to give up my vote. As far as I'm concerned, we, the people, are in overall charge. Shall we have a referendum on it?
We have general elections. Between them MPs decide.
But if we're going to use referenda instead then I don't see why we shouldn't have a referendum now.
It seems to me that those who invoke the Will of the People only do it when this mysterious Will accords with what those invoking it want to do anyway. If the People showed signs of wanting something different e.g having a vote or possibly even Remaining then their Will is of no concern whatsoever to those who normally worship the People's Will.
Doesn't the reverse apply, though?
People who now demand a fresh referendum never wanted the first, and would not be demanding one if they were sure they would lose.
True.
It does not apply to me though.
I think we need a new referendum because a WA bludgeoned through Parliament has no real consent, there is some evidence that people may have changed their mind and we now know what we did not know in 2016. We should not be making such an important change without the people's full consent. I don't think we have this and scraping through a Parliamentary vote won't give it either.
If it were up to me I would revoke Art 50 and have government and Parliament do the hard thinking needed about what sort of relationship with Europe Britain wants to have - as per my various thread headers on the topic. Fat chance of that. So a referendum is second best.
What we are doing now is very sub-optimal indeed and will likely make things very much worse. A pause, a deep breath and some calm thinking is needed. Not a decision made in a panic by a PM and a party concerned chiefly about their own survival than the long-term interests of the country.
Another good post from Ms Cyclefree. Mrs M is fiddling about with procedure and repeated requests to Parliament backed by either threats or bribes. It's disgraceful, and brings the whole of Parliament into contempt.
to agree an extension all 27 countries of the EU have to agree to it. Is that a dead cert?
As near as damn it. Why?
Because meetings of the European Council happen in a room, and enormous pressure can be put onto people to get into line. There's no need for primary legislation at a country level, so no opportunity for grandstanding.
If you've ever been on a company board, you'll know that all decisions are unanimous - even when there were huge arguments about what to do. This would be the same.
(Furthermore, the EU doesn't want to open the can of worms where we withdraw our Article 50 notification on Friday, only to resubmit in on Monday.)
question: once article 50 is extended is there any legal way for the government to leave the EU before the end of the extension? or are we then at the behest of the EU
Probably in the same way it was at the behest of the EU before. If a treaty is concluded, we’ll leave. That requires both parties to agree.
if we extend then a new pm decides to go no deal can we unilaterally leave before extension end date?
Not unilaterally. The 'no deal' cliff edge would be fixed at the new A50 date.
On your other question, the date change can be made via a statutory instrument so I don't think there's any way the ERG can veto it.
why not unilaterally? we are a sovereign nation aren't we?
It’s a treaty. Can’t just decide not to follow it.
As far as understood things you can revoke a treaty as a sovereign nation if you believe the other party is not acting in good faith. At the end of the what are they going to do to stop us?
What would it achieve for the government to declare 'no deal' while the UK was still in the EU according to EU and UK law? It would just make them look even less credible.
couldn't we just repeal the 1972 European communities act that took us in , in the first place?
Yes, that would cause us to instantly leave the EU. (Albeit, we should also probably repeal all the major primary EU related legislaton, such as the European Economic Area act of 1993.)
That wouldn't take us out of the EU, because we have ratified the EU treaties. It would simply leave us in breach of those treaties.
May repeatedly bringing her deal to Parliament for a vote despite it having been heavily defeated twice, once on the original version and once on the renegotiated one, is democracy in action, despite it looking very much like the EU's hated habit of making people vote again and again until they get the right answer.
The voters being asked their opinion on the proposed WA versus the alternatives is an affront to democracy.
Have I got this right?
The people have voted. MPs are not the people.
But why does the anti-democratic principle that you are not allowed to reconsider your own decision apply to the people, but not to MPs?
We are allowed to reconsider our decision. Once its been implemented.
Why "once it has been implemented"? Where is the sense in that?
Putting it another way, what is your answer to this:
Thought experiment.
20 years in the future global warming looks ten times as urgent and frightening a problem as it does now. Also, the problems with thorium reactors seem to have been ironed out. They look safe and cheap. However, there is lots of opposition to nuclear power and the government decides to hold a referendum as to whether to convert the whole country (except existing renewables) to thorium energy. Thorium wins 52:48.
Three years later nobody can decide how to finance the conversion or who to give the work to, the estimated budget has risen tenfold, and new research shows that for pregnant women, living within 50 miles of a thorium reactor has precisely the same effect as thalidomide.
Is it antidemocratic to have a second referendum at this stage, or are we obliged to convert the country to thorium as a precondition for having one?
Referenda should be for reserved matters (“the rules of the game”) only, not policy decisions
Comments
https://twitter.com/spikedonline/status/752864287639691264
I look forward to this debate, but I suspect the MPs won't. This self-aggrandisement has gone on long enough.
Oh, I will laugh so much if Bercow rules MV3 out of order.
"Not in a Parliamentary democracy when one of the arguments made during the referendum was to restore Parliamentary sovereignty.".
Now you're being naughty. You know it was National parliament sovereignty versus EU sovereignty, I don't remember offering to give up my vote. As far as I'm concerned, we, the people, are in overall charge. Shall we have a referendum on it?
To change the exit date in the EUWA would require a Ministerial order which would need to be confirmed by both houses, but as I argued last thread, until the relevant parts of the EUWA that repeal the ECs Act etc are commenced I don't think that actually has to be changed if an extension is granted.
But if we're going to use referenda instead then I don't see why we shouldn't have a referendum now.
It seems to me that those who invoke the Will of the People only do it when this mysterious Will accords with what those invoking it want to do anyway. If the People showed signs of wanting something different e.g having a vote or possibly even Remaining then their Will is of no concern whatsoever to those who normally worship the People's Will.
There are very few other countries that allow constitutional changes to be applied by a single-vote majority, and those that do, such as Ireland, require the electorate to vote on a fully-thought out and legislated proposal.
I support a second vote and that sort of comparison is just terrible. It’s so clearly wrong to compare the two for anything other than a cheap gag it undermines the actually good reasons to have another vote.
Putting it another way, what is your answer to this:
Thought experiment.
20 years in the future global warming looks ten times as urgent and frightening a problem as it does now. Also, the problems with thorium reactors seem to have been ironed out. They look safe and cheap. However, there is lots of opposition to nuclear power and the government decides to hold a referendum as to whether to convert the whole country (except existing renewables) to thorium energy. Thorium wins 52:48.
Three years later nobody can decide how to finance the conversion or who to give the work to, the estimated budget has risen tenfold, and new research shows that for pregnant women, living within 50 miles of a thorium reactor has precisely the same effect as thalidomide.
Is it antidemocratic to have a second referendum at this stage, or are we obliged to convert the country to thorium as a precondition for having one?
People who now demand a fresh referendum never wanted the first, and would not be demanding one if they were sure they would lose.
1. Leave fed people a pack of lies and used dodgy finance and tech.
2. The binary choice was absurd
3. No one had made any preparations for Leave and no one had a clue what it actually meant (hence now)
4. The three years since have proven the total incompetence and downright destructiveness of Brexit.
We have every right to demand a new vote. This time properly informed and debated and without the stupidity of an In or Out. If 'Leave' is on the ballot it needs to be spelled out exactly what type.
Brexit is over. But I'm prepared to let it go to the people. What do Brexiteers fear from this? Lol.
I wonder?
?????
Hmm what if Bercow puts a kibosh on MV3??
Die-hard Remainer zealots new found desire to get a public vote before the last vote has even been enacted is rank hypocrisy.
Of course that's not the case here.
It does not apply to me though.
I think we need a new referendum because a WA bludgeoned through Parliament has no real consent, there is some evidence that people may have changed their mind and we now know what we did not know in 2016. We should not be making such an important change without the people's full consent. I don't think we have this and scraping through a Parliamentary vote won't give it either.
If it were up to me I would revoke Art 50 and have government and Parliament do the hard thinking needed about what sort of relationship with Europe Britain wants to have - as per my various thread headers on the topic. Fat chance of that. So a referendum is second best.
What we are doing now is very sub-optimal indeed and will likely make things very much worse. A pause, a deep breath and some calm thinking is needed. Not a decision made in a panic by a PM and a party concerned chiefly about their own survival than the long-term interests of the country.
Lol!
But Brexit is NOT going to cause pregnant mothers to give birth to children with limbs missing/deformed so please go back and come up with a better example.
The sooner he is out of Parliament, the better. He has done so much damage to the Speakership that it may never recover.
It becomes extension.. Or NO DEAL in just over 10 days time.
A New PM/New Con Leader
A New COTE
A New Cabinet
A New Government (General Election)
A New LOTO
A New Lib-Dem Leader
A New Speaker
TIG And Brexit Party MPs (including Nigel Farage)
Certainly won't be dull.
Because meetings of the European Council happen in a room, and enormous pressure can be put onto people to get into line. There's no need for primary legislation at a country level, so no opportunity for grandstanding.
If you've ever been on a company board, you'll know that all decisions are unanimous - even when there were huge arguments about what to do. This would be the same.
(Furthermore, the EU doesn't want to open the can of worms where we withdraw our Article 50 notification on Friday, only to resubmit in on Monday.)
Is the vote being held tomorrow, or has our fearless vacillator elected to postpone the defeat?
You know what would allow a MV3? A change to the deal.
You know what would allow MV3 to be won? A change to the deal.
Are you listening Barnier? Time to change the deal!
Oh wow .... oh wow ... oh wow ...