The Tories need a caretaker leader with some authority that does not stem from a Brexit faction . I don’t know if it would work in 2019, but Hague is probably best placed to rise above all factions. In the HoC they should go for Clarke, but obviously won’t. Gove is just about viable, maybe.
Yes ignoring 17.4 million voters who were told this vote is going to be final if we vote leave we leave - is going to do wonders for our cohesive society . Civil unrest here we come
Those 17.4 million will be even more put out by the consequences of a no deal Brexit. And they won't blame themselves.
No deal brexit will not be the Armageddon that’s been claimed . There will be some short term disruption but the uk economy will adapt and become stronger over the medium long term . It will be so funny seeing the excuses that will come out when the fallout isn’t as bad as claimed from WTO brexit and we make it work to our advantage .
Why should we believe Leavers that say No Deal Brexit will be fine when said Brexiteers said No Deal was just Project Fear?
Because that was before a Remainer came in and sabotaged No Deal. Remainers May and Robbins will be gone from this very shortly.
Yeah, if only we had competent Leavers like DNSR Fox, Davis, Boris, Dominic 'I never knew Calais was this close to the UK' Raab, and Chris Grayling in charge of Brexit.
Exactly. Because no-one can possibly prove it either way leavers who dismiss the whole sorry mess by telling us it would have been fine with a leaver in charge are really really beginning to p*ss me off. It's the sort of delusional attitude that led us to where we are now. There is zero indication that any of the leading leaders would have been anything but useless. Gove might have done OK but would certainly have been reclassified as an enemy of the people months ago.
Gove has become the blank slate of Leave negotiations. His record at Education suggests he'd start a fight in a phone box rather than negotiate, and allow free rein to his prejudices over expert advice and inconvenient facts. Unlike, erm, OK you've got me there.
- Approaching three in five British adults agree that MPs are delaying the vote in order to thwart Brexit (56%), while only 16% disagree with this statement. In fact, four in five 2016 Leave voters agree with this statement (82%), as do two in five Remain voters (39%).
- Over four in ten British adults agree that the Government seems to be in favour of remaining in the EU and has set out to thwart Brexit from the beginning (44%). In fact, seven in ten 2016 Leave voters agree with this statement (70%), as do one quarter of Remain voters (23%).
When the government so wilfully disregards its own mandate and even its own word, Parliament must find a way to find its voice.
The government's mandate is to leave the EU. Parliament is the one wilfully disregarding that.
Parliament instructed it to seek a long delay if the meaningful vote were not passed by now. The Deputy Prime Minister averred the same last week. Or do Leavers now hold Parliament in contempt along with every other civic institution?
MP's currently have a favorability rating of 5%, so the answer is plain.
Yes, the nihilism of Leavers has been mortally successful.
As has the mendacity of Remainers.
Plus the general incompetence and sleaze.
My remedy would be to ban anyone who has a twatter account from being a politician.
"Britain may be about to learn what being a vassal state really means."
Bollocks.
Bollocks in what particular sense?
Fact - at this moment in time the UK has no control over its future economic and security relationships with the EU, and thereby with the rest of the world. We are entirely dependent on the goodwill of 27 other nations, any of whom could deny our elected leader her principle objective.
“Siri - show me what a vassal state looks like.”
The UK is requesting an emergency (temporary) extension to an organisation it wishes to leave, which is no doubt exasperated by it. That is very different to a vassal state which is where a state is dictated to by its superiors.
Brexit means we do have more immediate control over trade, regulation and immigration within the UK, and it also means at the same time that we have less influence within a neighbouring bigger player of which we used to be a member of the same. Sometimes that'll work out in our favour, sometimes it won't, and that's the trade off.
It's not what a vassal state means. Such phrases are sheer journalistic hyperbole, and rather cliched ones at that. And i'm getting rather tired of them.
It is not journalistic hyperbole. It is hyperbole used repeatedly - and apparently intended to be taken seriously - by the head of the ERG, Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Hyperbolic nonsense: yes. But when we are dependant on the decisions of 27 other states to get enough time to pass our own legislation, we are not in control.
As Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson talked about the UK becoming a vassal state.
When the government so wilfully disregards its own mandate and even its own word, Parliament must find a way to find its voice.
The government's mandate is to leave the EU. Parliament is the one wilfully disregarding that.
Parliament instructed it to seek a long delay if the meaningful vote were not passed by now. The Deputy Prime Minister averred the same last week. Or do Leavers now hold Parliament in contempt along with every other civic institution?
Don't know about Leavers in general but I do yes. The way Parliament has acted in recent months has been contemptible.
If Parliament wants to take no deal off the table it can back the deal. If it doesn't we can exit without a deal. Time to make a bloody choice.
Thus it ends. Those seeking Parliamentary sovereignty originally now seek to destroy it.
No, no, no, no, no.
You misunderstood what we sought. I don't seek Parliamentary sovereignty because I think this current crop of MPs is perfect.
I seek Parliamentary sovereignty because if ever our current crop of MPs are bad then we can kick the bastards out at the next election.
I seek sovereignty for the people at elections.
Then you will have no objection to this Parliament finding ways to hold this government to account when it wilfully disregards the instructions given to it.
Since the government is trying to find ways to honour the instruction given to it by the people and this Parliament is not, yes I do object.
So you do want the government to ignore Parliament? So you do want to destroy Parliamentary sovereignty?
Make your mind up. The principle is not contingent on whether you like Parliament’s instructions.
When parliament ignores the will of the people expressed in a referendum given by parliament then parliament is in contempt of the people . This parliament needs to be dissolved and a new parliament needs to be elected by the people to carry out there clear instructions given in 2016
I still don't see what advantage an extension is to anyone but those who have never accepted the referendum result and have been working to delay it as long as possible. For them it is the longer the better, and the more uncertainty the better.
I've now doubt the EU is annoyed with the UK. If nothing else, it will lose a large source of income which will need to be replaced. I don't see a long queue of volunteers to replace it.
With the EU, you should always use the maxim … "It's not it is reality.
As you can see, this criticism apples to both sides. but trying to re-rum the referendum will solve nothing. Getting a few people together to march in support to show you really, really, like your side doesn't prove anything. It reminds me of the old football chant in the home end. "Stand up, stand up, if you like City." It makes them feel better but doesn't do anything.
Vent your bile by all means, but isn't time some of you accepted the nation's democratic decision?.
I think it is wrong and discourteous to accuse cyclefree of "venting bile", and anyway you are strawmanning. There are plenty of people who accepted the referendum result and gave Leave more than a fair chance to implement it, and now consider that Leave has failed. You say "those who have *never* accepted the referendum result" because you think that gives you a get out of jail free card in that you can entirely ignore them as howwid anti-democrats. It doesn't work.
The irony is that 3 years ago I was tending towards Leave for many of the same reasons as @rcs1000. When Leave won, contrary to my expectations, I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and expected, naively I realise, that they had a plan. It is the behaviour of Leavers over the last two and a half years which has turned me into a Remainer.
and you think remainers have a plan for remaining ?
No. But that is why we need a Pause while we think about what our European strategy should be - as I have repeatedly bored on in comments below the line and headers above it.
I see precious little evidence that an extension will give you the strategy you would want without some major change in the make up of Parliament probably via a GE and I dont yet see an appetitie for that.
Parliament is both blocked internally and at odds with its own electorate. Imo there is no more chance of developing a common view in 12 months time than there is in 12 days time,
Neither Leave or Remain has a plan for the coming 9 days let alone the medium to long term.
When parliament ignores the will of the people expressed in a referendum given by parliament then parliament is in contempt of the people . This parliament needs to be dissolved and a new parliament needs to be elected by the people to carry out there clear instructions given in 2016
What if the people elect a parliament who promise NOT to implement the "clear instructions given in 2016" ?
There is a very vivid description in PPRUNE of the challenges faced after take off facing the Lion & Ethiopian pilots:
Second: For all the arm-chair Monday morning QB's who are saying: "Oh, they should have recognized it immediately and disconnected the trim:"
(1) Just after takeoff there is a lot going on with trim, power, configuration changes, and as noted above, the darn speed trim is always moving that trim wheel in seemingly random directions to the point that experienced NG pilots would treat its movement as background noise and normal ops. Movement of the trim wheel in awkward amounts and directions would not immediately trigger a memory item response of disconnecting the servos. No way.
(2) The pilots could very reasonably not have noticed the stab trim movement. Movement of the stab trim on the 737 is indicated by very loud clacking as the wheel rotates. On the -200 it was almost shockingly loud. On the NG, much less so. HOWEVER, the 737 cockpit is NOISY. It's one reason I am happy to not be flying it any more. The ergonomics are ridiculous. Especially at high speeds at low altitudes. With the wind noise, they may not have heard the trim wheel moving. The only other way to know it was moving would be yoke feel and to actually look at the trim setting on the center pedestal, which requires looking down and away from the windows and the instruments in a 'leans'-inducing head move. On the 717, for example, Ms. Douglas chimes in with an audible "Stablizer Motion" warning. There is no such indication on the 737.
(3) The fact that they were at high power and high speed tells me the stick shaker was activated. With that massive vibrator between your legs, alternating blue sky and brown out the window, your eye balls bouncing up and down in their sockets as the plane lurches up and down in positive and negative G's, it would have been a miracle if one of the pilots calmly reached down, flicked off the stab servo cutout switches, folded out the trim handle, and started grinding the wheel in the direction of normalcy. These pilots said over the radio that they had "unreliable airspeed". So they did not even know which instruments to rest their eyes on for reliable info. Their eyes were all over the cockpit looking for reliable info, the plane is all over the place like a wild boar in a blanket not behaving in any rational way.
The extra pair of eyes may easily have saved the day.
Good description of the 737. Having once played around in a simulator for that aircraft, the one thing that you remember that you weren't expecting is the constant sound of the trim wheels doing their thing. youtube.com/watch?v=jYwzaOOAwkk
She announced a short delay to appease the headbangers and is now assessing the backlash from EVERYONE else...
When will she stop appeasing these nutters? Whatever she does isn't enough. Never ever. Not a single time. We have gone from we don't want to be in the SM to we don't care if every supermarket and SME in Britain is shuttered.
She learns nothing.
How on earth did she pass exams and get into Oxford?
Another bad advert for the supposed rigours of Oxford, unfortunately, like Hannan.
Hang on, she got a 2:2
Hannan is an ass but he's very bright. Not fair to compare the two at all.
Not just bright, he got a double first apparently ;-)
To be fair to him, that means a distinction in prelims or a first in mods (1st year) and a first in finals. It's not an outrageous claim. What is fairly gauche is announcing the fact to the world.
Double First certainly sounds more impressive than did quite well in first year exams that no other university even mentions. Another dodge to look out for is a claim to have got the top first in their year (in one subject in one college where the only other two students, sorry, undergraduates, got themselves some sort of a life).
When the government so wilfully disregards its own mandate and even its own word, Parliament must find a way to find its voice.
The government's mandate is to leave the EU. Parliament is the one wilfully disregarding that.
Parliament instructed it to seek a long delay if the meaningful vote were not passed by now. The Deputy Prime Minister averred the same last week. Or do Leavers now hold Parliament in contempt along with every other civic institution?
MP's currently have a favorability rating of 5%, so the answer is plain.
Yes, the nihilism of Leavers has been mortally successful.
I rather think MPs have brought this on themselves
Starting with the expenses scandal 10 years ago its been all downhill ever since
I think it started with Bernie Ecclestone affair, and the renewed sense that politicians could get away with a whole new class of corruption if the press felt they were "the good guys".
It was obvious at the time they had no plan. I mean there was Vote Leave and Leave.EU for a start. Cameron designed the referendum so that they didn’t need one, and because it was status quo versus ethereal concept we would all dutifully vote for remain. I know I voted for remain as I didn’t think the short term financial uncertainty was worth the trouble.
I voted Leave for a number of reasons but my assumption or presumption was once the vote had been taken there would be a second national debate about what kind of relationship we wanted with the EU once we left which would touch on the question of our own identity and place in the world.
The problem was because of the rancorous nature of the Referendum debate (and of course the horrible murder of Jo Cox) many people didn't want to or couldn't face a second period of debate and introspection. They wanted to get on with their lives, get ready for their summer holidays, enjoy the sport, do almost anything other than consider the consequence of the vote and what it meant.
In essence, the public abdicated to May (once she became PM) the responsibility for making Brexit happen. May saw herself as a unifying figure bringing everything within both the Conservative Party and the Union. Her response to the British public was essentially "trust me, I'll sort it out" and the public initially liked that.
My was popular because she was doing all the heavy lifting, the thinking and the talking so the public could forget about it. Within politics and in order to keep the Conservative Party united (which had been one of the main reasons for having the referendum in the first place), the debate was internalised within the Conservative Party and this became an even stronger priority after the 2017 GE when May found herself at the mercy of the factions.
As the Spiegel article so accurately pointed out, May is a creature of the Party - indeed, the Party and the Union matter to her more than almost anything else and to be the PM who lost one or both would be the ultimate tragedy so everything that has happened since 23/6/16 has been predicated on holding together the sack of cats known as the Conservative Party and the Union.
Henry IV supposedly claimed Paris was worth a mass. He forsook his own religious birthright to keep France united and at peace. Is the unity of the Conservative Party worth us all going over the edge? As HYUFD pointed out when I raised this with him, the Conservative Party spent the better part of a quarter of a century in opposition in the mid 19th Century but returned to power in time.
Macron made french companies pay out over 1 billion Euros to their employees at end of last year as a special bonus in his attempt to buy off the gilets jaunes
and you think remainers have a plan for remaining ?
No. But that is why we need a Pause while we think about what our European strategy should be - as I have repeatedly bored on in comments below the line and headers above it.
I see precious little evidence that an extension will give you the strategy you would want without some major change in the make up of Parliament probably via a GE and I dont yet see an appetitie for that.
Parliament is both blocked internally and at odds with its own electorate. Imo there is no more chance of developing a common view in 12 months time than there is in 12 days time,
Neither Leave or Remain has a plan for the coming 9 days let alone the medium to long term.
That is why there must be a commission rather than hoping for a coherent view to emerge by chance. A general election might well produce a majority for one course or another but probably not a plausible path to a desirable end state.
Honestly, I don't understand the logic in not asking for a delay up to December 2020. It gives us the most flexibility in coming up with a resolution to the impasse between MPs and the public vote, either new MPs or a new public vote. A short delay does nothing.
When parliament ignores the will of the people expressed in a referendum given by parliament then parliament is in contempt of the people . This parliament needs to be dissolved and a new parliament needs to be elected by the people to carry out there clear instructions given in 2016
That's not how it works though. It might be how you think it *should* work (and that's a perfectly respectable opinion), but it isn't.
You'd have to wait for the next GE and support a party that intended to transform our system from a parliamentary democracy into some kind of plebiscite-driven thing.
It was obvious at the time they had no plan. I mean there was Vote Leave and Leave.EU for a start. Cameron designed the referendum so that they didn’t need one, and because it was status quo versus ethereal concept we would all dutifully vote for remain. I know I voted for remain as I didn’t think the short term financial uncertainty was worth the trouble.
I voted Leave for a number of reasons but my assumption or presumption was once the vote had been taken there would be a second national debate about what kind of relationship we wanted with the EU once we left which would touch on the question of our own identity and place in the world.
The problem was because of the rancorous nature of the Referendum debate (and of course the horrible murder of Jo Cox) many people didn't want to or couldn't face a second period of debate and introspection. They wanted to get on with their lives, get ready for their summer holidays, enjoy the sport, do almost anything other than consider the consequence of the vote and what it meant.
In essence, the public abdicated to May (once she became PM) the responsibility for making Brexit happen. May saw herself as a unifying figure bringing everything within both the Conservative Party and the Union. Her response to the British public was essentially "trust me, I'll sort it out" and the public initially liked that.
My was popular because she was doing all the heavy lifting, the thinking and the talking so the public could forget about it. Within politics and in order to keep the Conservative Party united (which had been one of the main reasons for having the referendum in the first place), the debate was internalised within the Conservative Party and this became an even stronger priority after the 2017 GE when May found herself at the mercy of the factions.
As the Spiegel article so accurately pointed out, May is a creature of the Party - indeed, the Party and the Union matter to her more than almost anything else and to be the PM who lost one or both would be the ultimate tragedy so everything that has happened since 23/6/16 has been predicated on holding together the sack of cats known as the Conservative Party and the Union.
Henry IV supposedly claimed Paris was worth a mass. He forsook his own religious birthright to keep France united and at peace. Is the unity of the Conservative Party worth us all going over the edge? As HYUFD pointed out when I raised this with him, the Conservative Party spent the better part of a quarter of a century in opposition in the mid 19th Century but returned to power in time.
One oddity was that the Conservatives had (technically) a majority up till 1857, but couldn't form a government.
When the government so wilfully disregards its own mandate and even its own word, Parliament must find a way to find its voice.
The government's mandate is to leave the EU. Parliament is the one wilfully disregarding that.
Parliament instructed it to seek a long delay if the meaningful vote were not passed by now. The Deputy Prime Minister averred the same last week. Or do Leavers now hold Parliament in contempt along with every other civic institution?
Don't know about Leavers in general but I do yes. The way Parliament has acted in recent months has been contemptible.
If Parliament wants to take no deal off the table it can back the deal. If it doesn't we can exit without a deal. Time to make a bloody choice.
Thus it ends. Those seeking Parliamentary sovereignty originally now seek to destroy it.
No, no, no, no, no.
You misunderstood what we sought. I don't seek Parliamentary sovereignty because I think this current crop of MPs is perfect.
I seek Parliamentary sovereignty because if ever our current crop of MPs are bad then we can kick the bastards out at the next election.
I seek sovereignty for the people at elections.
Then you will have no objection to this Parliament finding ways to hold this government to account when it wilfully disregards the instructions given to it.
Since the government is trying to find ways to honour the instruction given to it by the people and this Parliament is not, yes I do object.
So you do want the government to ignore Parliament? So you do want to destroy Parliamentary sovereignty?
Make your mind up. The principle is not contingent on whether you like Parliament’s instructions.
There's a hierarchy here.
If we don't like what Parliament does we can get rid of Parliament, but have to wait until the next election.
If Parliament doesn't like what the Government does, then it can get rid of the Government - and trigger a new election.
If the Government ignores Parliament then Parliament can No Confidence the Government.
When the government so wilfully disregards its own mandate and even its own word, Parliament must find a way to find its voice.
The government's mandate is to leave the EU. Parliament is the one wilfully disregarding that.
Parliament instructed it to seek a long delay if the meaningful vote were not passed by now. The Deputy Prime Minister averred the same last week. Or do Leavers now hold Parliament in contempt along with every other civic institution?
Don't know about Leavers in general but I do yes. The way Parliament has acted in recent months has been contemptible.
If Parliament wants to take no deal off the table it can back the deal. If it doesn't we can exit without a deal. Time to make a bloody choice.
Thus it ends. Those seeking Parliamentary sovereignty originally now seek to destroy it.
No, no, no, no, no.
You misunderstood what we sought. I don't seek Parliamentary sovereignty because I think this current crop of MPs is perfect.
I seek Parliamentary sovereignty because if ever our current crop of MPs are bad then we can kick the bastards out at the next election.
I seek sovereignty for the people at elections.
Then you will have no objection to this Parliament finding ways to hold this government to account when it wilfully disregards the instructions given to it.
Since the government is trying to find ways to honour the instruction given to it by the people and this Parliament is not, yes I do object.
So you do want the government to ignore Parliament? So you do want to destroy Parliamentary sovereignty?
Make your mind up. The principle is not contingent on whether you like Parliament’s instructions.
When parliament ignores the will of the people expressed in a referendum given by parliament then parliament is in contempt of the people . This parliament needs to be dissolved and a new parliament needs to be elected by the people to carry out there clear instructions given in 2016
The last general election took place in 2017. Democracy did not stop in 2016.
When the government so wilfully disregards its own mandate and even its own word, Parliament must find a way to find its voice.
The government's mandate is to leave the EU. Parliament is the one wilfully disregarding that.
Parliament instructed it to seek a long delay if the meaningful vote were not passed by now. The Deputy Prime Minister averred the same last week. Or do Leavers now hold Parliament in contempt along with every other civic institution?
No, no, no, no, no.
You misunderstood what we sought. I don't seek Parliamentary sovereignty because I think this current crop of MPs is perfect.
I seek Parliamentary sovereignty because if ever our current crop of MPs are bad then we can kick the bastards out at the next election.
I seek sovereignty for the people at elections.
Then you will have no objection to this Parliament finding ways to hold this government to account when it wilfully disregards the instructions given to it.
Since the government is trying to find ways to honour the instruction given to it by the people and this Parliament is not, yes I do object.
So you do want the government to ignore Parliament? So you do want to destroy Parliamentary sovereignty?
Make your mind up. The principle is not contingent on whether you like Parliament’s instructions.
When parliament ignores the will of the people expressed in a referendum given by parliament then parliament is in contempt of the people . This parliament needs to be dissolved and a new parliament needs to be elected by the people to carry out there clear instructions given in 2016
The last general election took place in 2017. Democracy did not stop in 2016.
Yes and in 2017 both main parties who took 80% of the vote promised to enact the 2016 result. They have both failed to honour the people’s instructions they promised to in the manifestos
I still don't see what advantage an extension is to anyone but those who have never accepted the referendum result and have been working to delay it as long as possible. For them it is the longer the better, and the more uncertainty the better.
I've now doubt the EU is annoyed with the UK. If nothing else, it will lose a large source of income which will need to be replaced. I don't see a long queue of volunteers to replace it.
With the EU, you should always use the maxim … "It's not personal, it's business." They aren't our enemies, but neither are they our bosom buddies unless our interests coincide. These interests do coincide at times, but not always.
Unfortunately, for some politicians, the union is a political project, a statement of their projections for the future. yet, they get exceedingly annoyed with others who don't share their wishes. Like fans of a football team, they thus see few of the faults. I'm sure Huddersfield fans and Fulham fans will follow their team just as strongly when they are relegated this season, and dislike the successful teams. Discovering that half of the Fulham electorate support Manchester United goes down like a cup of cold sick, but it is reality.
As you can see, this criticism apples to both sides. but trying to re-rum the referendum will solve nothing. Getting a few people together to march in support to show you really, really, like your side doesn't prove anything. It reminds me of the old football chant in the home end. "Stand up, stand up, if you like City." It makes them feel better but doesn't do anything.
Vent your bile by all means, but isn't time some of you accepted the nation's democratic decision?.
I think it is wrong and discourteous to accuse cyclefree of "venting bile", and anyway you are strawmanning. There are plenty of people who accepted the referendum result and gave Leave more than a fair chance to implement it, and now consider that Leave has failed. You say "those who have *never* accepted the referendum result" because you think that gives you a get out of jail free card in that you can entirely ignore them as howwid anti-democrats. It doesn't work.
The irony is that 3 years ago I was tending towards Leave for many of the same reasons as @rcs1000. When Leave won, contrary to my expectations, I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and expected, naively I realise, that they had a plan. It is the behaviour of Leavers over the last two and a half years which has turned me into a Remainer.
It's hard not to have some sympathy with that.
But, all your reasoning - and that of Robert - for leaving in the first place is still there.
The EU has learnt nothing from the process either.
She announced a short delay to appease the headbangers and is now assessing the backlash from EVERYONE else...
When will she stop appeasing these nutters? Whatever she does isn't enough. Never ever. Not a single time. We have gone from we don't want to be in the SM to we don't care if every supermarket and SME in Britain is shuttered.
She learns nothing.
How on earth did she pass exams and get into Oxford?
Another bad advert for the supposed rigours of Oxford, unfortunately, like Hannan.
Hang on, she got a 2:2
Hannan is an ass but he's very bright. Not fair to compare the two at all.
Not just bright, he got a double first apparently ;-)
To be fair to him, that means a distinction in prelims or a first in mods (1st year) and a first in finals. It's not an outrageous claim. What is fairly gauche is announcing the fact to the world.
Double First certainly sounds more impressive than did quite well in first year exams that no other university even mentions. Another dodge to look out for is a claim to have got the top first in their year (in one subject in one college where the only other two students, sorry, undergraduates, got themselves some sort of a life).
Those of us who went there don't pay much attention to that sort of thing, though we do enjoy a laugh at the chippiness it engenders in those who didn't.
Then you will have no objection to this Parliament finding ways to hold this government to account when it wilfully disregards the instructions given to it.
Since the government is trying to find ways to honour the instruction given to it by the people and this Parliament is not, yes I do object.
So you do want the government to ignore Parliament? So you do want to destroy Parliamentary sovereignty?
Make your mind up. The principle is not contingent on whether you like Parliament’s instructions.
When parliament ignores the will of the people expressed in a referendum given by parliament then parliament is in contempt of the people . This parliament needs to be dissolved and a new parliament needs to be elected by the people to carry out there clear instructions given in 2016
The last general election took place in 2017. Democracy did not stop in 2016.
Yes and in 2017 both main parties who took 80% of the vote promised to enact the 2016 result. They have both failed to honour the people’s instructions they promised to in the manifestos
Theresa May sought a mandate to crush the saboteurs. After careful reflection the public decided not to give her that. With opposition to the referendum result now consistently ahead of Leave, I’m very doubtful that a fresh election would produce the result you crave. You have to deal with the world as it is, not as you would wish it to be.
That's still quite possible. But a factual question as I've genuinely lost track. There was a suggestion that the Government would be allowing indicative votes in the next few days. Is that going to happen?
(Usual disclaimers around week being a long time in politics, anything can happen if people bend the rules, EU does stuff at 11th hour etc)
Seems to me it would be from a rather limited field if so. If the current trajectory of asking for and getting a short extension is followed, most of the more exotic plans around which MPs might coalesce can't happen.
I guess if the short extension is granted, they may have a week or two to send another letter saying "sorry, TM didn't mean it, and can we do the EP election thing and keep the show on the road while we do X" - but that requires positive action from the HoC at a level some orders of magnitude greater than they've shown so far (up to and including a VONC/men in grey suits getting rid.
In any case, I suspect the short extension will be contingent on Deal passing before next Friday (or it's just a faffing extension).. so any change of plan would need to happen and get EU buy-in before then.
and you think remainers have a plan for remaining ?
No. But that is why we need a Pause while we think about what our European strategy should be - as I have repeatedly bored on in comments below the line and headers above it.
I see precious little evidence that an extension will give you the strategy you would want without some major change in the make up of Parliament probably via a GE and I dont yet see an appetitie for that.
Parliament is both blocked internally and at odds with its own electorate. Imo there is no more chance of developing a common view in 12 months time than there is in 12 days time,
Neither Leave or Remain has a plan for the coming 9 days let alone the medium to long term.
That is why there must be a commission rather than hoping for a coherent view to emerge by chance. A general election might well produce a majority for one course or another but probably not a plausible path to a desirable end state.
And what will a commission achieve ? Commissions are currently establisment code for looking like doing something while actually doing nothing.
I voted Leave because I dont trust UK politicians over Europe. I trust Juncker and co more because they say upfront what their aims are and are totally clear about it - its ever closer Union. UK MPs pretending it isnt while hoping to finesse us in to the Union without consulting the electorate has been the norm for the last 2 decades. Current shenanigans in the HoC simply highlight the truth of the matter.
Anyone get the sense that things are 'finally' coming to a head, and somethings gotta give?
Indeed, things have moved a little since last week. The inability of the Government to put MV3 to Parliament at this time has caused a chain reaction of events.
The problem now is the Government seems to be utterly paralysed - Cabinet looks hopelessly split between those advocating no extension and those wanting a long extension. May is therefore paralysed as well and will go cap in hand to the EU to see what they will offer her and what conditions will be attached.
The more overt manifestations of No Deal preparation will also serve to concentrate minds but as some have pointed out, more than half the Conservative Parliamentary Party voted for No Deal or rather voted against an extension to A50. May is therefore dependent on other parties to keep any form of strategy on track.
I'm now of the view we need to revoke the current A50 process, take 6 months to agree what we want among ourselves and then go back to the EU with a new A50 process and re-commence negotiations. Revocation would in effect be a clean slate - if in the meantime we held a GE or there was some other political convulsion and a new Government was in place to restart A50 that would mean different lines and possibly a WA which could be negotiated quickly and command a majority in the Commons.
and you think remainers have a plan for remaining ?
No. But that is why we need a Pause while we think about what our European strategy should be - as I have repeatedly bored on in comments below the line and headers above it.
I see precious little evidence that an extension will give you the strategy you would want without some major change in the make up of Parliament probably via a GE and I dont yet see an appetitie for that.
Parliament is both blocked internally and at odds with its own electorate. Imo there is no more chance of developing a common view in 12 months time than there is in 12 days time,
Neither Leave or Remain has a plan for the coming 9 days let alone the medium to long term.
That is why there must be a commission rather than hoping for a coherent view to emerge by chance. A general election might well produce a majority for one course or another but probably not a plausible path to a desirable end state.
And what will a commission achieve ? Commissions are currently establisment code for looking like doing something while actually doing nothing.
I voted Leave because I dont trust UK politicians over Europe. I trust Juncker and co more because they say upfront what their aims are and are totally clear about it - its ever closer Union. UK MPs pretending it isnt while hoping to finesse us in to the Union without consulting the electorate has been the norm for the last 2 decades. Current shenanigans in the HoC simply highlight the truth of the matter.
Then you will have no objection to this Parliament finding ways to hold this government to account when it wilfully disregards the instructions given to it.
Since the government is trying to find ways to honour the instruction given to it by the people and this Parliament is not, yes I do object.
So you do want the government to ignore Parliament? So you do want to destroy Parliamentary sovereignty?
Make your mind up. The principle is not contingent on whether you like Parliament’s instructions.
When parliament ignores the will of the people expressed in a referendum given by parliament then parliament is in contempt of the people . This parliament needs to be dissolved and a new parliament needs to be elected by the people to carry out there clear instructions given in 2016
The last general election took place in 2017. Democracy did not stop in 2016.
Yes and in 2017 both main parties who took 80% of the vote promised to enact the 2016 result. They have both failed to honour the people’s instructions they promised to in the manifestos
Theresa May sought a mandate to crush the saboteurs. After careful reflection the public decided not to give her that. With opposition to the referendum result now consistently ahead of Leave, I’m very doubtful that a fresh election would produce the result you crave. You have to deal with the world as it is, not as you would wish it to be.
So be it. If Parliament isn't happy with the Government it retains the ability to VONC the government and we go to an election.
When the government so wilfully disregards its own mandate and even its own word, Parliament must find a way to find its voice.
The government's mandate is to leave the EU. Parliament is the one wilfully disregarding that.
Parliament instructed it to seek a long delay if the meaningful vote were not passed by now. The Deputy Prime Minister averred the same last week. Or do Leavers now hold Parliament in contempt along with every other civic institution?
MP's currently have a favorability rating of 5%, so the answer is plain.
Yes, the nihilism of Leavers has been mortally successful.
I rather think MPs have brought this on themselves
Starting with the expenses scandal 10 years ago its been all downhill ever since
I think it started with Bernie Ecclestone affair, and the renewed sense that politicians could get away with a whole new class of corruption if the press felt they were "the good guys".
That is not the right distinction. Ecclestone was a different class of corruption but in the sense that it did not involve personal enrichment of MPs, as opposed to, for instance, cash for questions that preceded it and expenses that followed. Millionaire donors had been around almost forever, especially on the Tory side, without exciting comment let alone revolution.
Morning. I think the government now has to table no confidence in the speaker. Regardless of result it needs to be shown they no longer support him in his position or believe him to be impartial Thus should be announced and moved once the delay is secured
This may already have been said, but it seems to me that Theresa May is deliberately asking for something she knows the EU won't grant. Look at it from their point of view: a short extension, with nothing to indicate that parliament will use the extra time to come to its senses, will simply mean that the entire psychodrama is repeated over the next few weeks. In addition, a short extension potentially closes off the opportunity of ever resolving things, because if we don't take part in the European elections, granting a further extension - for a GE or referendum, for example - becomes very problematic. In any case the EU have repeatedly and firmly made the point that any extension must have a specific purpose, which is reasonable enough.
The PM must know this. In fact, last week she said it explicitly: "The house must understand and accept that if it is not willing to support a deal in the coming days and as it is not willing to support leaving without a deal on 29 March, it is suggesting that there will need to be a much longer extension to article 50. Such an extension would undoubtedly require the United Kingdom to hold European Union elections in May 2019.”
However, because of threats and splits within the party, she can't be seen to ask for a longer extension. Much better to let the EU force it on her, or (more likely) give her the option of either a short extension if the deal is approved by parliament in the next few days, or a long extension if it isn't. She can then try to tame her headbangers with the threat of 'my deal or Brexit really is dead.'
If that is her thinking, it's a gamble which very probably won't work out. But what other choices does she have?
and you think remainers have a plan for remaining ?
No. But that is why we need a Pause while we think about what our European strategy should be - as I have repeatedly bored on in comments below the line and headers above it.
I see precious little evidence that an extension will give you the strategy you would want without some major change in the make up of Parliament probably via a GE and I dont yet see an appetitie for that.
Parliament is both blocked internally and at odds with its own electorate. Imo there is no more chance of developing a common view in 12 months time than there is in 12 days time,
Neither Leave or Remain has a plan for the coming 9 days let alone the medium to long term.
That is why there must be a commission rather than hoping for a coherent view to emerge by chance. A general election might well produce a majority for one course or another but probably not a plausible path to a desirable end state.
And what will a commission achieve ? Commissions are currently establisment code for looking like doing something while actually doing nothing.
I voted Leave because I dont trust UK politicians over Europe. I trust Juncker and co more because they say upfront what their aims are and are totally clear about it - its ever closer Union. UK MPs pretending it isnt while hoping to finesse us in to the Union without consulting the electorate has been the norm for the last 2 decades. Current shenanigans in the HoC simply highlight the truth of the matter.
A commission would establish a reified Brexit as opposed to 15 million distinct unicorns. It would establish what would be the consequences of Norway or Canada or WTO, with or without any of the pluses MPs like to add to their own favoured variants. JRM tells us Britain would be hundreds of billions of pounds better off. He may be right. Where is this nirvana and how do we get from here to there? That's the point of the commission. Otherwise we'd be voting on the basis of, as David Davis told us, Germany acting illegally in order to sign a deal with Britain.
Morning. I think the government now has to table no confidence in the speaker. Regardless of result it needs to be shown they no longer support him in his position or believe him to be impartial Thus should be announced and moved once the delay is secured
Why? There is an easy and quick way around his year 1604 ruling, but requires a vote in HoC. As the people who wont vote for MV3 wont vote for MV3 to be put, then Bercow is not the block.
This may already have been said, but it seems to me that Theresa May is deliberately asking for something she knows the EU won't grant. Look at it from their point of view: a short extension, with nothing to indicate that parliament will use the extra time to come to its senses, will simply mean that the entire psychodrama is repeated over the next few weeks. In addition, a short extension potentially closes off the opportunity of ever resolving things, because if we don't take part in the European elections, granting a further extension - for a GE or referendum, for example - becomes very problematic. In any case the EU have repeatedly and firmly made the point that any extension must have a specific purpose, which is reasonable enough.
The PM must know this. In fact, last week she said it explicitly: "The house must understand and accept that if it is not willing to support a deal in the coming days and as it is not willing to support leaving without a deal on 29 March, it is suggesting that there will need to be a much longer extension to article 50. Such an extension would undoubtedly require the United Kingdom to hold European Union elections in May 2019.”
However, because of threats and splits within the party, she can't be seen to ask for a longer extension. Much better to let the EU force it on her, or (more likely) give her the option of either a short extension if the deal is approved by parliament in the next few days, or a long extension if it isn't. She can then try to tame her headbangers with the threat of 'my deal or Brexit really is dead.'
If that is her thinking, it's a gamble which very probably won't work out. But what other choices does she have?
It's not her thinking - which was as you say. She was turned over in cabinet
Comments
- Over four in ten British adults agree that the Government seems to be in favour of remaining in the EU and has set out to thwart Brexit from the beginning (44%). In fact, seven in ten 2016 Leave voters agree with this statement (70%), as do one quarter of Remain voters (23%).
https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/leave-means-leave-brexit-poll-march-2019/
Plus the general incompetence and sleaze.
My remedy would be to ban anyone who has a twatter account from being a politician.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/17/boris-johnson-breaks-ranks-with-brexit-vassal-state-warning
Parliament is both blocked internally and at odds with its own electorate. Imo there is no more chance of developing a common view in 12 months time than there is in 12 days time,
Neither Leave or Remain has a plan for the coming 9 days let alone the medium to long term.
youtube.com/watch?v=jYwzaOOAwkk
The problem was because of the rancorous nature of the Referendum debate (and of course the horrible murder of Jo Cox) many people didn't want to or couldn't face a second period of debate and introspection. They wanted to get on with their lives, get ready for their summer holidays, enjoy the sport, do almost anything other than consider the consequence of the vote and what it meant.
In essence, the public abdicated to May (once she became PM) the responsibility for making Brexit happen. May saw herself as a unifying figure bringing everything within both the Conservative Party and the Union. Her response to the British public was essentially "trust me, I'll sort it out" and the public initially liked that.
My was popular because she was doing all the heavy lifting, the thinking and the talking so the public could forget about it. Within politics and in order to keep the Conservative Party united (which had been one of the main reasons for having the referendum in the first place), the debate was internalised within the Conservative Party and this became an even stronger priority after the 2017 GE when May found herself at the mercy of the factions.
As the Spiegel article so accurately pointed out, May is a creature of the Party - indeed, the Party and the Union matter to her more than almost anything else and to be the PM who lost one or both would be the ultimate tragedy so everything that has happened since 23/6/16 has been predicated on holding together the sack of cats known as the Conservative Party and the Union.
Henry IV supposedly claimed Paris was worth a mass. He forsook his own religious birthright to keep France united and at peace. Is the unity of the Conservative Party worth us all going over the edge? As HYUFD pointed out when I raised this with him, the Conservative Party spent the better part of a quarter of a century in opposition in the mid 19th Century but returned to power in time.
Macron made french companies pay out over 1 billion Euros to their employees at end of last year as a special bonus in his attempt to buy off the gilets jaunes
http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2019/03/20/20002-20190320ARTFIG00033-prime-macron-les-salaries-ont-recu-plus-d-un-milliard-d-euros.php
Agree extension to 30th June but no re-negotiation on the deal and if the deal is not signed, no deal happens on the 30th June
That should concentrate minds
You'd have to wait for the next GE and support a party that intended to transform our system from a parliamentary democracy into some kind of plebiscite-driven thing.
You might have a long wait.
If we don't like what Parliament does we can get rid of Parliament, but have to wait until the next election.
If Parliament doesn't like what the Government does, then it can get rid of the Government - and trigger a new election.
If the Government ignores Parliament then Parliament can No Confidence the Government.
(Please don’t lob any turnips at me Malcolm, I love you really.)
If you read Steve Baker's twitter feed today, his fan club are comparing him to Churchill.
When the government so wilfully disregards its own mandate and even its own word, Parliament must find a way to find its voice.
The government's mandate is to leave the EU. Parliament is the one wilfully disregarding that.
Parliament instructed it to seek a long delay if the meaningful vote were not passed by now. The Deputy Prime Minister averred the same last week. Or do Leavers now hold Parliament in contempt along with every other civic institution?
No, no, no, no, no.
You misunderstood what we sought. I don't seek Parliamentary sovereignty because I think this current crop of MPs is perfect.
I seek Parliamentary sovereignty because if ever our current crop of MPs are bad then we can kick the bastards out at the next election.
I seek sovereignty for the people at elections.
Then you will have no objection to this Parliament finding ways to hold this government to account when it wilfully disregards the instructions given to it.
Since the government is trying to find ways to honour the instruction given to it by the people and this Parliament is not, yes I do object.
So you do want the government to ignore Parliament? So you do want to destroy Parliamentary sovereignty?
Make your mind up. The principle is not contingent on whether you like Parliament’s instructions.
When parliament ignores the will of the people expressed in a referendum given by parliament then parliament is in contempt of the people . This parliament needs to be dissolved and a new parliament needs to be elected by the people to carry out there clear instructions given in 2016
The last general election took place in 2017. Democracy did not stop in 2016.
Yes and in 2017 both main parties who took 80% of the vote promised to enact the 2016 result. They have both failed to honour the people’s instructions they promised to in the manifestos
Not yet. Mp's still believe that compromise is for their opponents.
https://twitter.com/jrmaidment/status/1108312457456558080
But, all your reasoning - and that of Robert - for leaving in the first place is still there.
The EU has learnt nothing from the process either.
(Usual disclaimers around week being a long time in politics, anything can happen if people bend the rules, EU does stuff at 11th hour etc)
Seems to me it would be from a rather limited field if so. If the current trajectory of asking for and getting a short extension is followed, most of the more exotic plans around which MPs might coalesce can't happen.
I guess if the short extension is granted, they may have a week or two to send another letter saying "sorry, TM didn't mean it, and can we do the EP election thing and keep the show on the road while we do X" - but that requires positive action from the HoC at a level some orders of magnitude greater than they've shown so far (up to and including a VONC/men in grey suits getting rid.
In any case, I suspect the short extension will be contingent on Deal passing before next Friday (or it's just a faffing extension).. so any change of plan would need to happen and get EU buy-in before then.
I voted Leave because I dont trust UK politicians over Europe. I trust Juncker and co more because they say upfront what their aims are and are totally clear about it - its ever closer Union. UK MPs pretending it isnt while hoping to finesse us in to the Union without consulting the electorate has been the norm for the last 2 decades. Current shenanigans in the HoC simply highlight the truth of the matter.
The problem now is the Government seems to be utterly paralysed - Cabinet looks hopelessly split between those advocating no extension and those wanting a long extension. May is therefore paralysed as well and will go cap in hand to the EU to see what they will offer her and what conditions will be attached.
The more overt manifestations of No Deal preparation will also serve to concentrate minds but as some have pointed out, more than half the Conservative Parliamentary Party voted for No Deal or rather voted against an extension to A50. May is therefore dependent on other parties to keep any form of strategy on track.
I'm now of the view we need to revoke the current A50 process, take 6 months to agree what we want among ourselves and then go back to the EU with a new A50 process and re-commence negotiations. Revocation would in effect be a clean slate - if in the meantime we held a GE or there was some other political convulsion and a new Government was in place to restart A50 that would mean different lines and possibly a WA which could be negotiated quickly and command a majority in the Commons.
Looking back at last week's votes, wasn't seeking a long extension predicated upon MV3 having been held and lost?
I think the government now has to table no confidence in the speaker. Regardless of result it needs to be shown they no longer support him in his position or believe him to be impartial
Thus should be announced and moved once the delay is secured
They are facilitating no deal!!!
The PM must know this. In fact, last week she said it explicitly: "The house must understand and accept that if it is not willing to support a deal in the coming days and as it is not willing to support leaving without a deal on 29 March, it is suggesting that there will need to be a much longer extension to article 50. Such an extension would undoubtedly require the United Kingdom to hold European Union elections in May 2019.”
However, because of threats and splits within the party, she can't be seen to ask for a longer extension. Much better to let the EU force it on her, or (more likely) give her the option of either a short extension if the deal is approved by parliament in the next few days, or a long extension if it isn't. She can then try to tame her headbangers with the threat of 'my deal or Brexit really is dead.'
If that is her thinking, it's a gamble which very probably won't work out. But what other choices does she have?
Oh you mean he did too well at GE2017
What has GE2017 got to do with this?
https://twitter.com/jameserothwell/status/1108316101908279297?s=21
Open your eyes
And if Brexit goes well and we don't go back cap in hand?