Re : the petition, we really need someone who's good with figures and data - I think a user with Hamilton in their name was on the other day - to see how much it r;eally is slowing down. It still seems to be managing about a million a day, which is I what I mistakenly thought it was doing last week, but a numbers brain may be able to shed some light on the data.
If it looks like a big number and acts like a big number then maybe it is a big number---as opposed (I understand) to the to the "anti revoke" petition.
"Ultimately the British constitution is a one-line document: if you have a parliamentary majority, you can do what you want. If MPs can cohere around an alternative plan they could appoint one of their number to negotiate with the EU, or even send a letter revoking Article 50 from the House of Commons rather than from the executive if they so desire."
Yes. In 1688 they resolved the house into a committee, temporarily expelled some trouble makers, deposed the king and offered the throne to a Dutchman. I think they did all that in one sitting.
Re the petition, we really need someone who's good with figures and data - I think a user with Hamilton in their name was on the other day - to see how much it really is slowing down. It still seems to be managing about a million a day, which is I what I mistakenly thought it was doing last week, but a numbers brain may be able to shed some light on the data.
Hover over AVERAGE: 289 PER MINUTE and it gives you hourly and daily equivalents. I think it was about 600 per minute yesterday afternoon, in which case the rate has halved. I also think it's a bit academic - it has already produced all the impact it is going to have.
I'm not sure about that. If it defies expectations of a set limit, it may exceed its original impact.
If May tries to go for a long extension followed by a GE campaign which she makes about getting a majority to deliver Brexit, I think it would be a disaster for the Tories.
Can anyone map out the scenario that isn't at least potentially a disaster for the Tories? They should have thought of that before pulling the pin from the grenade.
There isn't one.
Voting through the WA would not be a disaster for the Tories. I doubt if a softer Brexit would hurt them much.
No Deal would hurt them; Revoke would hurt even more.
The trouble is that so many Tory MPs have trashed the deal and party activists have swallowed the nonsense wholesale, so if they now go ahead and reluctantly implement it it will be seen by many Tory voters and activists as at best a humiliating climbdown and more likely as a disgraceful act of betrayal.
It didn't need to be like that, but that is the logical consequence of the behaviour of many Tory MPs since November.
I still find this the most amazing* aspect of the process: the vehemence and size of the Tory opposition to the Deal last autumn. Hedging their bets with a “it’s not great, but we’ll look at it” would let them wiggle now. But having marched their supporters up the hill, they look in the Facebook comments like traitors if they back it, or look like traitors if they risk no Brexit by continuing to vote against.
(*Well, one of. Amid stiff competition)
It’s odd because hitherto, and I think both Sean Fear and I said this, it was surprising how relatively straightforward a time the Government had in enabling its Brexit legislation.
Cash having a go at arguing A50 can't be postponed without a vote of parliament. Lidington promises him a letter, and says government already has consequential legislation in hand but that EU Council decision holds the field. Reminds Cash that Parliament voted for an extension. And tells Hoey that UK law has to align with EU law.
If May tries to go for a long extension followed by a GE campaign which she makes about getting a majority to deliver Brexit, I think it would be a disaster for the Tories.
Can anyone map out the scenario that isn't at least potentially a disaster for the Tories? They should have thought of that before pulling the pin from the grenade.
There isn't one.
Voting through the WA would not be a disaster for the Tories. I doubt if a softer Brexit would hurt them much.
No Deal would hurt them; Revoke would hurt even more.
The trouble is that so many Tory MPs have trashed the deal and party activists have swallowed the nonsense wholesale, so if they now go ahead and reluctantly implement it it will be seen by many Tory voters and activists as at best a humiliating climbdown and more likely as a disgraceful act of betrayal.
It didn't need to be like that, but that is the logical consequence of the behaviour of many Tory MPs since November.
I still find this the most amazing* aspect of the process: the vehemence and size of the Tory opposition to the Deal last autumn. Hedging their bets with a “it’s not great, but we’ll look at it” would let them wiggle now. But having marched their supporters up the hill, they look in the Facebook comments like traitors if they back it, or look like traitors if they risk no Brexit by continuing to vote against.
(*Well, one of. Amid stiff competition)
Yes, I too was surprised. I think the government plan expected a sizable amount of internal opposition, but there was so much, so vicious, and it spiralled and just ruined any chance of anyone else being persuaded to back it.
Surely common market 2.0 is the only way now out of the conundrum we are in . It retains the benefits of EU membership and gives back control over agriculture and fishing and keeps us out of the political union . I know we have to compromise on freedom of labour but we do retain some get out in freedom of movement as I understand it . Does it have any chance ?
Had this been part of the thinking of the government in the aftermath of the referendum, I think it would have stood a good chance, because it would have been a moderate compromise. However, in the past two years since the "Citizen of Nowhere" speech, the derision thrown at Remainers, coupled with the growing sense that the Leave campaign was a Russian funded con trick, has galvanized opposition to any kind of Leave without a second referendum.
Meanwhile the inflexible incompetence of Theresa May has led to a backlash against the whole idea, and not merely from people who voted Remain last time. The problem Leavers now have is that it is not just the House of Commons that opposes "Hard/Clean" Brexit: the majority of the country does too,
So perhaps such a compromise might emerge, but I think not without another vote.
Re the petition, we really need someone who's good with figures and data - I think a user with Hamilton in their name was on the other day - to see how much it really is slowing down. It still seems to be managing about a million a day, which is I what I mistakenly thought it was doing last week, but a numbers brain may be able to shed some light on the data.
Hover over AVERAGE: 289 PER MINUTE and it gives you hourly and daily equivalents. I think it was about 600 per minute yesterday afternoon, in which case the rate has halved. I also think it's a bit academic - it has already produced all the impact it is going to have.
You'd expect it to follow a sigmoid curve - build slowly, accelerate to a very fast pace and then slow down. You could probably get a pretty good prediction of the final figure if you could track the numbers so far.
"Ultimately the British constitution is a one-line document: if you have a parliamentary majority, you can do what you want. If MPs can cohere around an alternative plan they could appoint one of their number to negotiate with the EU, or even send a letter revoking Article 50 from the House of Commons rather than from the executive if they so desire."
In shorthand probably no. What it misses out is that there is debate as to whether revocation can be done by anyone other than the PM as part of Royal Prerogative. Effectively what he is saying is they would need to choose a new PM. And as we have seen that is something MPs on all sides are keen to avoid.
Lidington telling Beckett her amendment means revocation or, only if EU agrees, a very long extension.
Well that won't scare half the Commons. Any sign those who might fear it believe it, and if they will take action to stop it or rather just start wailing and smashing their toys in protest (eg causing a GE) even though it helps no one?
Re the petition, we really need someone who's good with figures and data - I think a user with Hamilton in their name was on the other day - to see how much it really is slowing down. It still seems to be managing about a million a day, which is I what I mistakenly thought it was doing last week, but a numbers brain may be able to shed some light on the data.
Hover over AVERAGE: 289 PER MINUTE and it gives you hourly and daily equivalents. I think it was about 600 per minute yesterday afternoon, in which case the rate has halved. I also think it's a bit academic - it has already produced all the impact it is going to have.
You'd expect it to follow a sigmoid curve - build slowly, accelerate to a very fast pace and then slow down. You could probably get a pretty good prediction of the final figure if you could track the numbers so far.
If it's still adding a million a day, however - I'm very interested to see if it reaches 6 million by tomorrow - that decline to a stasis position is surely going to take a long time.
I suppose it depends on the rate of decline - which is where we need our data expert ; or better access to what the data is.
Ludicrous hyperbole from Crispin Blunt, is he on poppers again?
One would not have thought he was a loon until fairly recently, though. I remember when Cameron was desperate to support him against his constituency association.
That's probably the saddest thing about Brexit for me.
Rational and moderate Tory MPs who I respected have gone all mad on Brexit.
I think any outcome other than May’s Deal and a slow transition crushes the Tories at the next election, whenever it is.
Why do you think they wouldn't get crushed under that outcome? The transition would just entail endless fractious trade negotiations, against a backdrop of the No Dealers saying it's a disaster because Brexit was betrayed, and Remainers saying it's a disaster because they didn't give people the option of revocation.
Polling show it’s a compromise that most voters could live with as their 2nd choice.
I don't think most people realise that if it goes through, politics will still be dominated by Brexit for the foreseeable future.
That applies to revocation as well.
You are just as fanatical as Steve Baker and Mark Francois, just on the exact opposite side and with more creativity and intelligence.
I don't think it is like that, much as our love of symmetry leads us to want it to be true. If we revoke, where does that leave Brexit as a project? How do you go about campaigning for it? It wasn't exactly an easy sell last time. You might just about get away with it if there is no second referendum and you can say that you are fulfilling the 2016 result. But that is a diminishing asset. Speaking personally I no longer regard the result of that referendum as valid. Others may be more indulgent, but ultimately the time will come when it carries no power at all. I don't think anyone used the 1976 result to argue against Labour's manifesto commitment in 1983. So lets give it 6 years max.
And if there is another referendum there is very little chance of leave winning again. How many of their arguments still stand up? Precious few. And as we saw last Saturday, there is now a really determined opposition.
If we don't get Brexit now it is off the agenda. For ever.
Is Starmer just going to make political points or actually try and do something constructive. The front benches actual legal EU exit positions are a fag paper apart ffsake.
Is Starmer just going to make political points or actually try and do something constructive. The front benches actual legal EU exit positions are a fag paper apart ffsake.
If they truly are that close, then Theresa doesn't have to move very far...
If Mrs May's deal is really bad, it's perfectly rational to prefer to stay in the European Union for a few more years until a better deal becomes available.
FFS, just have a second referendum and have done with it.
At the end of it, maybe everyone would be so bored and exhausted that they'd give up and accept the result. I don't think another referendum would mean "unity", as such, but there's surely a good chance it would mean resignation on the part of most of those on the losing side (except the most extreme).
If Mrs May's deal is really bad, it's perfectly rational to prefer to stay in the European Union for a few more years until a better deal becomes available.
No it isn't, parliament is not going to restart the clock and spend another 2 years on this, it's not rational to pretend otherwise. The question is is it so bad remaining is better (for leavers - obviously continuity remainers would say any deal is worse than remaining)
FFS, just have a second referendum and have done with it.
At the end of it, maybe everyone would be so bored and exhausted that they'd give up and accept the result. I don't think another referendum would mean "unity", as such, but there's surely a good chance it would mean resignation on the part of most of those on the losing side (except the most extreme).
The danger with a second referendum is that it's likely the results in each area would become more polarised, with Remain areas becoming more Remain and Leave areas becoming more Leave. I'm not sure what the overall result would be.
Hope no one backed him win the Dem nomination/Presidency in 2020.
I keep having a double take when the Guardian refers to Stormy Daniels as a porn actor, thinking I must have missed a key episode of the story. Then I realise they mean actress.
That’s one job where I do think that gender differentiation is helpful
FFS, just have a second referendum and have done with it.
At the end of it, maybe everyone would be so bored and exhausted that they'd give up and accept the result. I don't think another referendum would mean "unity", as such, but there's surely a good chance it would mean resignation on the part of most of those on the losing side (except the most extreme).
The danger with a second referendum is that it's likely the results in each area would become more polarised, with Remain areas becoming more Remain and Leave areas becoming more Leave. I'm not sure what the overall result would be.
Any referendum with Remain on the ballot should result in anarchy
Hope no one backed him win the Dem nomination/Presidency in 2020.
I keep having a double take when the Guardian refers to Stormy Daniels as a porn actor, thinking I must have missed a key episode of the story. Then I realise they mean actress.
That’s one job where I do think that gender differentiation is helpful
I get confused between Stormy Daniels and Stormzy.
On the facts as disclosed, slightly surprised that the Nike lawyers didn’t report Avenetti to his bar licensing authority. There’s agressive litigation behaviour and there’s extortion.
Starmer is mostly lawyer's waffle; Owen Smith's intervention nails the key question of whether Lidington's commitments can be trusted if Letwin doesn't pass.
Starmer is a decent and intelligent guy, hamstrung by his party preventing him saying anything of worth. You wouldn't think our country's future hung in the balance.
FFS, just have a second referendum and have done with it.
At the end of it, maybe everyone would be so bored and exhausted that they'd give up and accept the result. I don't think another referendum would mean "unity", as such, but there's surely a good chance it would mean resignation on the part of most of those on the losing side (except the most extreme).
The danger with a second referendum is that it's likely the results in each area would become more polarised, with Remain areas becoming more Remain and Leave areas becoming more Leave. I'm not sure what the overall result would be.
What do you base that on? Survation showed in its constituency level poll that the biggest switchers to Remain were the WWC in Wales, Northwest etc. It is the proseperous shire Leaver demographic that is more solid:
If May tries to go for a long extension followed by a GE campaign which she makes about getting a majority to deliver Brexit, I think it would be a disaster for the Tories.
Can anyone map out the scenario that isn't at least potentially a disaster for the Tories? They should have thought of that before pulling the pin from the grenade.
If the HoC takes control and goes for something that is in direct contrast to her government's policy, a GE is the only option.
FFS, just have a second referendum and have done with it.
At the end of it, maybe everyone would be so bored and exhausted that they'd give up and accept the result. I don't think another referendum would mean "unity", as such, but there's surely a good chance it would mean resignation on the part of most of those on the losing side (except the most extreme).
The danger with a second referendum is that it's likely the results in each area would become more polarised, with Remain areas becoming more Remain and Leave areas becoming more Leave. I'm not sure what the overall result would be.
What do you base that on? Survation showed in its constituency level poll that the biggest switchers to Remain were the WWC in Wales, Northwest etc. It is the proseperous shire Leaver demographic that is more solid:
Yeah, and it also showed the increase in support for Remain being lower than average in the very Remainy areas (though that could be a ceiling effect).
Richmond and the City of London(!!) were projected to be the only places where Leave would score more than in 2016.
If May tries to go for a long extension followed by a GE campaign which she makes about getting a majority to deliver Brexit, I think it would be a disaster for the Tories.
Can anyone map out the scenario that isn't at least potentially a disaster for the Tories? They should have thought of that before pulling the pin from the grenade.
If the HoC takes control and goes for something that is in direct contrast to her government's policy, a GE is the only option.
The HoC can’t do that
They have to fire the government
Or the government steps up and runs with what the House comes up with. Assuming it does.
If May tries to go for a long extension followed by a GE campaign which she makes about getting a majority to deliver Brexit, I think it would be a disaster for the Tories.
Can anyone map out the scenario that isn't at least potentially a disaster for the Tories? They should have thought of that before pulling the pin from the grenade.
If the HoC takes control and goes for something that is in direct contrast to her government's policy, a GE is the only option.
The HoC can’t do that
They have to fire the government
Or the government steps up and runs with what the House comes up with. Assuming it does.
They won’t do that on principle
The precedent would be awful for future good governance
If Mrs May's deal is really bad, it's perfectly rational to prefer to stay in the European Union for a few more years until a better deal becomes available.
No it isn't, parliament is not going to restart the clock and spend another 2 years on this, it's not rational to pretend otherwise. The question is is it so bad remaining is better (for leavers - obviously continuity remainers would say any deal is worse than remaining)
It's better to Remain with influence than have a Deal where we're told what to do by the EU without any input. That's true even for strong Leave supporters.
If May tries to go for a long extension followed by a GE campaign which she makes about getting a majority to deliver Brexit, I think it would be a disaster for the Tories.
Can anyone map out the scenario that isn't at least potentially a disaster for the Tories? They should have thought of that before pulling the pin from the grenade.
If the HoC takes control and goes for something that is in direct contrast to her government's policy, a GE is the only option.
The HoC can’t do that
They have to fire the government
Or the government steps up and runs with what the House comes up with. Assuming it does.
They won’t do that on principle
The precedent would be awful for future good governance
Good governance went out the window some time back.
This thread has been
EXTENDED
but not here.
Letwin sounds a little nervous at the import of his speech.
If May tries to go for a long extension followed by a GE campaign which she makes about getting a majority to deliver Brexit, I think it would be a disaster for the Tories.
Can anyone map out the scenario that isn't at least potentially a disaster for the Tories? They should have thought of that before pulling the pin from the grenade.
If the HoC takes control and goes for something that is in direct contrast to her government's policy, a GE is the only option.
The HoC can’t do that
They have to fire the government
Or the government steps up and runs with what the House comes up with. Assuming it does.
They won’t do that on principle
The precedent would be awful for future good governance
What precedent? A minority government can always be controlled with the threat of a VONC. This is the same thing really.
If May tries to go for a long extension followed by a GE campaign which she makes about getting a majority to deliver Brexit, I think it would be a disaster for the Tories.
Can anyone map out the scenario that isn't at least potentially a disaster for the Tories? They should have thought of that before pulling the pin from the grenade.
If the HoC takes control and goes for something that is in direct contrast to her government's policy, a GE is the only option.
The HoC can’t do that
They have to fire the government
May this afternoon effectively said the Commons having voted against No Deal if it continued to oppose her Deal the only alternative would be a lengthy extension and contesting the EU elections.
Hence Crispin Blunt called it 'the greatest capitulation of a British Governmemt since the fall of Singapore'
Comments
Meanwhile the inflexible incompetence of Theresa May has led to a backlash against the whole idea, and not merely from people who voted Remain last time. The problem Leavers now have is that it is not just the House of Commons that opposes "Hard/Clean" Brexit: the majority of the country does too,
So perhaps such a compromise might emerge, but I think not without another vote.
I suppose it depends on the rate of decline - which is where we need our data expert ; or better access to what the data is.
Meanwhile Clarke challenges Labour on whipping the indicative votes.
Too little too late.
Sounds like he's taking recent developments in his stride...
I guess an actual charge might be an hindrance?
At the end of it, maybe everyone would be so bored and exhausted that they'd give up and accept the result. I don't think another referendum would mean "unity", as such, but there's surely a good chance it would mean resignation on the part of most of those on the losing side (except the most extreme).
Starmer is a decent and intelligent guy, hamstrung by his party preventing him saying anything of worth. You wouldn't think our country's future hung in the balance.
https://www.survation.com/what-does-the-british-public-now-think-about-brexit/
They have to fire the government
Richmond and the City of London(!!) were projected to be the only places where Leave would score more than in 2016.
The precedent would be awful for future good governance
Sweet Jesus
This thread has been
EXTENDED
but not here.Letwin sounds a little nervous at the import of his speech.
NEW THREAD
Hence Crispin Blunt called it 'the greatest capitulation of a British Governmemt since the fall of Singapore'