Goldsmith looks pretty dead and buried. In fairness he did well to win back the seat after throwing it away in the first place.
Even assuming
1) All signatures are unique 2) All signatures are eligible voters 3) All signatures are really in this constituency 4) All signatures would vote based on this
The number signing is still fewer than the number of Lib Dem votes in 2017, or by definition the number of Goldsmith votes in 2017
I assume that none of those points are entirely true, nor do I assume that everyone who supports or opposes something will sign an online petition about it. I'm taking the view that assuming a reasonably large number of the signatures can be taken as genuine it is still a very large chunk of voters in his constituency, and the number of people who back something will likely be higher than the number who state it publicly.
So your premise that the number of petition signatures is less than the number of votes he got, in counter to the idea it is significant, is fatuous and irrelevant because who would expect it to be? The question is whether there is enough of an indication from it as a demonstration of strength of feeling on this issue to think he is in trouble. There might be disagreement on that, but he has a very small majority, and whatever the actual numbers signing it is clearly a large number.
And yet more and more seem to think it is a great idea. What am I missing? What do they expect to happen that will ensure or even make most likely that the current impasse will be resolved that way?
Well if you are Labour, a GE must be plan A because that is the only route to power.
As regards solving Brexit, a snap GE before we leave might do that if there is a clear result, or at least it might remove the pernicious blocking power of the DUP. But then again, as you say, it might very well not. In which case, waste of time, or worse, just creates more delay and confusion.
Which is why I think the more likely outcome is that the WA is passed, and we leave, and THEN we have a GE to decide on what the Future Relationship will be and who will be running with it. So that will be a Brexit election, yes, but not purely a Brexit election. I think that is the most reasonable option from here and, even now, I trust that MPs will get there.
Going to reach six million sometime this evening, I think.. now running at about a million/ per 36 hours.
The largest percentage of signatures in a Leave voting constituency is currently 14.9% in Devon Central.
I think it's a safe bet that the Lib Dems will pick up a few seats in the SW at the next GE.
Adding latest Ipsos, ComRes and Opinium polls to the EMA puts Tories on 36.9% and Labour on 34.3%.
Con 311 Lab 255 LD 22 UKIP 0 Green 1 SNP 40 NI 18
Tories 15 short of a majority.
Tories gain Canterbury.from Labour and lose Cheadle, Cheltenham, Devon N, Lewes, Richmond Park, St Albans and St Ives to the LibDems.
Mmm. That gives the lie to a GE as the obvious way out.
A GE would produce a more remainey parliament than we already have.Prominent Brexiters such as Johnson and IDS would be quite likely to lose their seats due to tactical voting by remainers. The fact the Tories are apparently considering such a course is a measure of their desperation now that they realise the full depth of their predicament.
Johnson no, Uxbridge voted Leave, IDS maybe but Chingford was pretty close and only a narrow Remain
Goldsmith looks pretty dead and buried. In fairness he did well to win back the seat after throwing it away in the first place.
That list is fascinating, and gives the lie to the idea the petition will be ignored. Many MPs who have acquiesced in the Brexit farce have majorities roughly equal or less than the number of people that have signed, including Rees-Mogg! Fertile ground for anti-Brexit candidates
Yes - it seems to have reached Leicestershire. The organisers seemed to have tried to address the problem of lower numbers by adding bigger flags than to start with.
3. So perhaps this points to an scenario where we ratify the WA, avoid the immediate cliff-edge, and then hold a GE to figure out what to try to do next. That would effectively nullify the 'indicative vote' of the current parliament, and replace it with... what? It's hard to see the Conservative Party campaigning on a platform of a softer Brexit than Theresa May was trying to implement. Labour probably would, but on current polling don't look likely to get a mandate to implement it - another hung parliament, and a repeat of the current squabbles, looks likely.
Yes, this one.
GE in Sept/Oct post Leave. Cons (Canada+) vs Lab (Norway+).
Cons under Gove or Hunt. They win handsomely.
As a Corbynista (sort of) I really hope it does not pan out like this, but I fear it will.
Canada plus is not an option as it needs a backstop and given how poorly Gove and Hunt poll Corbyn could well beat either
Goldsmith looks pretty dead and buried. In fairness he did well to win back the seat after throwing it away in the first place.
Even assuming
1) All signatures are unique 2) All signatures are eligible voters 3) All signatures are really in this constituency 4) All signatures would vote based on this
The number signing is still fewer than the number of Lib Dem votes in 2017, or by definition the number of Goldsmith votes in 2017
I assume that none of those points are entirely true, nor do I assume that everyone who supports or opposes something will sign an online petition about it. I'm taking the view that assuming a reasonably large number of the signatures can be taken as genuine it is still a very large chunk of voters in his constituency, and the number of people who back something will likely be higher than the number who state it publicly.
So your premise that the number of petition signatures is less than the number of votes he got, in counter to the idea it is significant, is fatuous and irrelevant because who would expect it to be? The question is whether there is enough of an indication from it as a demonstration of strength of feeling on this issue to think he is in trouble. There might be disagreement on that, but he has a very small majority, and whatever the actual numbers signing it is clearly a large number.
Sure, but Goldsmith made no secret of his pro-Brexit views in 2017, and still won back a constituency that voted 70% Remain.
Goldsmith looks pretty dead and buried. In fairness he did well to win back the seat after throwing it away in the first place.
Even assuming
1) All signatures are unique 2) All signatures are eligible voters 3) All signatures are really in this constituency 4) All signatures would vote based on this
The number signing is still fewer than the number of Lib Dem votes in 2017, or by definition the number of Goldsmith votes in 2017
I assume that none of those points are entirely true, nor do I assume that everyone who supports or opposes something will sign an online petition about it. I'm taking the view that assuming a reasonably large number of the signatures can be taken as genuine it is still a very large chunk of voters in his constituency, and the number of people who back something will likely be higher than the number who state it publicly.
So your premise that the number of petition signatures is less than the number of votes he got, in counter to the idea it is significant, is fatuous and irrelevant because who would expect it to be? The question is whether there is enough of an indication from it as a demonstration of strength of feeling on this issue to think he is in trouble. There might be disagreement on that, but he has a very small majority, and whatever the actual numbers signing it is clearly a large number.
I agree that a considerable chunk of the constituency care passionately about this. I think we already knew this from his losing the by-election and the Liberal Democrats getting over 28k votes in 2017.
I don't agree that the number should be less than the number of votes, not when this is a cheap and quick piece of virtue signalling, not when there is a concerted effort to get signatures there and not when its possible to get fake, duplicate or illegitimate signatures there too.
I agree he's in trouble, he's in trouble because his majority is only 45 and the Liberal Democrats got 45.1% of the vote in 2017. This petition says little we didn't already know.
Goldsmith looks pretty dead and buried. In fairness he did well to win back the seat after throwing it away in the first place.
Even assuming
1) All signatures are unique 2) All signatures are eligible voters 3) All signatures are really in this constituency 4) All signatures would vote based on this
The number signing is still fewer than the number of Lib Dem votes in 2017, or by definition the number of Goldsmith votes in 2017
I assume that none of those points are entirely true, nor do I assume that everyone who supports or opposes something will sign an online petition about it. I'm taking the view that assuming a reasonably large number of the signatures can be taken as genuine it is still a very large chunk of voters in his constituency, and the number of people who back something will likely be higher than the number who state it publicly.
So your premise that the number of petition signatures is less than the number of votes he got, in counter to the idea it is significant, is fatuous and irrelevant because who would expect it to be? The question is whether there is enough of an indication from it as a demonstration of strength of feeling on this issue to think he is in trouble. There might be disagreement on that, but he has a very small majority, and whatever the actual numbers signing it is clearly a large number.
Sure, but Goldsmith made no secret of his pro-Brexit views in 2017, and still won back a constituency that voted 70% Remain.
To be fair to anyone from the ERG who are belatedly coming around to the idea of potentially backing the MV late after rejecting it before, they are to be fair not the only ones at all in this Parliament who have been holding out for their own preferred option.
I for a long time wanted another option, but I accept that is no longer a possibility.
It is utterly insane that this Wednesday, no more than 2 days before we were scheduled to have left, Parliament is looking at taking indicative votes on SEVEN plus potential options.
Our whole system right now is farcical not just a few people.
"Parliament". From the old French "parle", meaning "to talk". It's not "Decisionment".
As other people have pointed out, the legislature are trying to do the job of the executive and through their personal shortcomings the MPs are miserably failing. They should have been constrained to act within their competence. Once the courts decided that only Parliament had the power to remove rights, they should have been asked one simple question ("should the British people lose the rights that they have solely by virtue of the UK being in the EU?") and then left to their own devices, to do whatever it is they do all day. But giving the job of making a decision to 650 people who prefer debate to decision and blaming instead of action was wrong.
I'm struck by how in all the talk about when (and if) TM will bring her Deal back for MV3, there is not a mention of Bercow's ruling last week that she could not do so unless it was substantially different to the one defeated at MV2.
It's like he made his big splash, and everyone got excited about it, and now his ruling has been totally forgotten. It is just assumed that he can be ignored. Odd. He must be bristling.
Her goose is almost cooked, lucky for her Record and labour are picking up the tab.
One to bookmark, methinks.
Has he explained the purpose of the reference to homosexuality in his tweet? The suggestion seems to be that if his father had "embraced his homosexuality" then Mr Mundell would not exist. Perhaps it should be explained to this highly unpleasant individual that being homosexual does not automatically mean you will not have children! I think most gay people would regard this tweet as highly offensive.
Top QC enters the fray and explains by telepathy what the person was really thinking.
That will be for the court to decide. The court of public opinion will no doubt conclude that yet another Scottish Nationalist is a nasty unpleasant tosser.
So how would everyone fill out their indicitive ballots ?
6 options I can see that have some sort of support in the house:
Revoke {2nd referendum/People's vote/May's deal subject to ratification by the public} <- All essentially identical Common Market 2.0 May's deal + Corbyn's customs union May's deal No Deal
I'd possibly go
1) Common Market 2.0 2) May's deal 3) May's deal + Corbyn's customs union 4) 2nd Ref 5) No deal 6) Revocation
There's a clear enough dividing line between the top 3 and bottom 3 options for me.</p>
2nd Ref Common Market 2.0 ... May's deal plus CU Revocation May's deal ... ... ... No deal.
Pulpstar - Common Market 2.0 is really May's deal + Common Market 2.0.
So is Corbyn's Customs union. As is ANY variant of leaving with a deal. The WA is signed sealed and agreed and not for reopening. There are a whole bunch of paths we can head down after transition though.
The number of people - the sheer volume of them - who still don't understand this is staggering.
On this thread we've had people saying Norway is better than May's Deal, for example.
That is not strictly true. If MPs reject May's deal, then the EU extension agreement says that the UK will need to leave the EU on 12 April with no deal, or have decided a new plan by then. A further extension is then, of course, dependent on both EU agreement, and our taking part in the EU elections. That is why I'm in favour of Norway - it's effectively off the shelf, so could be done quite quickly, and is very likely to meet with EU agreement.
Apart for that, I fully take your point. The reason I don't think May's deal will fly is not because of its inherent flaws (that I don't personally approve of ending freedom of movement is beside the point), but because of the now total lack of trust in May. The WA, of course, leaves what happens next at the mercy of whichever government is in power to negotiate with the EU over the next two years.
None of this is satisfactory, but we are where we are.
All true, and excellent PB pedantry.
Getting to the position where we agree Norway as the option prior to the 12th, and in sufficient time for the EU to actually grant another extension (and believe we actually mean it), is exceedingly unlikely. Infinitesimal.
Not really, Norway Plus could win the indicative votes by the end of next Monday and then the Commons votes to take part in the EU Parliament elections to renegotiate based on BINO and the EU agrees for a softer Brexit
Her goose is almost cooked, lucky for her Record and labour are picking up the tab.
One to bookmark, methinks.
Has he explained the purpose of the reference to homosexuality in his tweet? The suggestion seems to be that if his father had "embraced his homosexuality" then Mr Mundell would not exist. Perhaps it should be explained to this highly unpleasant individual that being homosexual does not automatically mean you will not have children! I think most gay people would regard this tweet as highly offensive.
Top QC enters the fray and explains by telepathy what the person was really thinking.
That will be for the court to decide. The court of public opinion will no doubt conclude that yet another Scottish Nationalist is a nasty unpleasant tosser.
....sorry I forgot to say "cue the predictable inarticulate volleys of abuse" Sadly I won't see them as I have to go back to work. Keep taking the tablets Malcolm!
Can Jacob Rees-Mogg really be such an absolute, total, complete fucking idiot?
OK don't answer please.
People sending their kids to Eton should think twice
The cream of society, rich and thick
Cameron, Boris, and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Thank heaven our new saviour, Oliver Letwin, went to ... oh, dear!
Eton seems to help people get into positions of power but leave them ill-prepared once they get there, which really is the worst possible outcome for the rest of us.
Apparently David Cameron used to get advice from one of his old teachers at Eton, and at the back of my mind is a vague recollection that Guy Burgess broke off from defecting to Moscow in order to say goodbye to one of his Eton teachers. It is probably just coincidence, though, rather than evidence of widespread Stockholm syndrome.
Can Jacob Rees-Mogg really be such an absolute, total, complete fucking idiot?
OK don't answer please.
People sending their kids to Eton should think twice
The cream of society, rich and thick
Cameron, Boris, and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Thank heaven our new saviour, Oliver Letwin, went to ... oh, dear!
Eton seems to help people get into positions of power but leave them ill-prepared once they get there, which really is the worst possible outcome for the rest of us.
Apparently David Cameron used to get advice from one of his old teachers at Eton, and at the back of my mind is a vague recollection that Guy Burgess broke off from defecting to Moscow in order to say goodbye to one of his Eton teachers. It is probably just coincidence, though, rather than evidence of widespread Stockholm syndrome.
Eton is unique among public schools in its assumption of a path to power. The only school that was historically comparable was Westminster, until the mid-nineteenth century, except with Whigs and Liberals rather than Tories. Had the latter school stayed dominant, the entire history of Britain might have been different.
Her goose is almost cooked, lucky for her Record and labour are picking up the tab.
One to bookmark, methinks.
Has he explained the purpose of the reference to homosexuality in his tweet? The suggestion seems to be that if his father had "embraced his homosexuality" then Mr Mundell would not exist. Perhaps it should be explained to this highly unpleasant individual that being homosexual does not automatically mean you will not have children! I think most gay people would regard this tweet as highly offensive.
Top QC enters the fray and explains by telepathy what the person was really thinking.
That will be for the court to decide. The court of public opinion will no doubt conclude that yet another Scottish Nationalist is a nasty unpleasant tosser.
I'm hopeful Kezia will win, libel should have a higher bar than calling someone homophobic if it is your sincerely held belief. & if Mundell was suing Wings over Bath I'd be supporting the Reverend. Reserve libel/defamation for the most serious matters ta.
Goldsmith looks pretty dead and buried. In fairness he did well to win back the seat after throwing it away in the first place.
Not necessarily. He did win 28,000 votes, and the Conservatives were level-pegging in the seat in the local elections.
The richest spots in London are very remain, and very Tory (Knightsbridge etc)
The poshest voters tend to be Remain voting Tories so no surprise there
A somewhat selective view. Rural southern england and elsewhere was chock full of posh Tory leave voters at the referendum.
Posh Tory Leave voters in the Home Counties are still not as posh as even posher Tory Remain voters in Kensington and Chelsea, Cities of London and Westminster and Richmond Park
'Not really, Norway Plus could win the indicative votes by the end of next Monday and then the Commons votes to take part in the EU Parliament elections to renegotiate based on BINO and the EU agrees for a softer Brexit'
What constitutes 'win'? And how does the 'win' become Government policy and therefore actually get in front of the EU? In my view it's an exercise in futility. Meanwhile in the real world the clock ticks down...
"An anonymous Labour MP has written in the Times about the Brexit process.
They write: "I'm a Labour MP who voted remain, representing a constituency who voted heavily to leave. I'm torn in two.
"I want to be accountable, I want to be involved but I sit uselessly and helplessly trapped in a Commons that is falling to pieces at a time of national crisis.
"I'm one of the 650. We'll all get the blame when the ship sinks, but in truth you might as well have put a dead cat in there instead of me; it would have had as much of a role as I've had in the Brexit discussions.""
I cannot say I feel a great deal of sympathy. I do not belittle the job before them, and the minimal role of many of them on the larger aspects, nor even the pressures of party on what they are expected to do, but being an MP is not meant to be easy in a time of crisis, and every single one of them asked to take on their share of the responsibility for governing this nation. Breaking party lines, approving something previously uncontemplatable, putting it back to the people, and so on and so on, these options will put a lot of pressure on them. But none of them are insurmountable if they grow up and decide something, and hopfully MPs will start doing that soon.
I read that and my immediate response was to the effect of, sometimes you have to stop being a good constituency MP (aka a glorified social worker and local councillor) and step to face national responsibilities. There appears to be something of a struggle with that.
Goldsmith looks pretty dead and buried. In fairness he did well to win back the seat after throwing it away in the first place.
Not necessarily. He did win 28,000 votes, and the Conservatives were level-pegging in the seat in the local elections.
The richest spots in London are very remain, and very Tory (Knightsbridge etc)
The poshest voters tend to be Remain voting Tories so no surprise there
A somewhat selective view. Rural southern england and elsewhere was chock full of posh Tory leave voters at the referendum.
Posh Tory Leave voters in the Home Counties are still not as posh as even posher Tory Remain voters in Kensington and Chelsea, Cities of London and Westminster and Richmond Park
Now we're coming into a cultural values question. Posh Tory leave voters in the countryside consider themselves to be more authentically at the top of the tree, essentially from both a more culturally conservative and more culturally nativist point of view.
Goldsmith looks pretty dead and buried. In fairness he did well to win back the seat after throwing it away in the first place.
Not necessarily. He did win 28,000 votes, and the Conservatives were level-pegging in the seat in the local elections.
The richest spots in London are very remain, and very Tory (Knightsbridge etc)
The poshest voters tend to be Remain voting Tories so no surprise there
A somewhat selective view. Rural southern england and elsewhere was chock full of posh Tory leave voters at the referendum.
Overall, Inner London voted Remain by 72% to 28%. I expect the proportion of Inner London Conservatives who voted Remain was lower than that, but still well above 50%. I expect that upper middle class Conservatives in the Stockbroker Belt mostly voted Remain as well. I expect that in places like Essex or Staffordshire, wealthy Conservatives mostly voted Leave.
Not really, Norway Plus could win the indicative votes by the end of next Monday and then the Commons votes to take part in the EU Parliament elections to renegotiate based on BINO and the EU agrees for a softer Brexit
Except this is a farce. What's going to be renegotiated precisely?
The withdrawal agreement? The EU have already said that even if we go BINO/EEA we will need the withdrawal agreement for a transition. It won't be renegotiated.
The political declaration? This isn't legally binding anyway and if there's an election a new government could seek any other form of long term deal over whatever was agreed in the declaration.
If you believe in BINO then the withdrawal agreement is already a BINO transition.
Can Jacob Rees-Mogg really be such an absolute, total, complete fucking idiot?
OK don't answer please.
People sending their kids to Eton should think twice
The cream of society, rich and thick
Cameron, Boris, and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Thank heaven our new saviour, Oliver Letwin, went to ... oh, dear!
Eton seems to help people get into positions of power but leave them ill-prepared once they get there, which really is the worst possible outcome for the rest of us.
Apparently David Cameron used to get advice from one of his old teachers at Eton, and at the back of my mind is a vague recollection that Guy Burgess broke off from defecting to Moscow in order to say goodbye to one of his Eton teachers. It is probably just coincidence, though, rather than evidence of widespread Stockholm syndrome.
Goldsmith looks pretty dead and buried. In fairness he did well to win back the seat after throwing it away in the first place.
Not necessarily. He did win 28,000 votes, and the Conservatives were level-pegging in the seat in the local elections.
The richest spots in London are very remain, and very Tory (Knightsbridge etc)
The poshest voters tend to be Remain voting Tories so no surprise there
A somewhat selective view. Rural southern england and elsewhere was chock full of posh Tory leave voters at the referendum.
Posh Tory Leave voters in the Home Counties are still not as posh as even posher Tory Remain voters in Kensington and Chelsea, Cities of London and Westminster and Richmond Park
I'm not so sure. There are some fabulous houses and estates in the Home Counties (albeit, some owned by people who also have houses in Inner London).
Goldsmith looks pretty dead and buried. In fairness he did well to win back the seat after throwing it away in the first place.
Not necessarily. He did win 28,000 votes, and the Conservatives were level-pegging in the seat in the local elections.
The richest spots in London are very remain, and very Tory (Knightsbridge etc)
The poshest voters tend to be Remain voting Tories so no surprise there
A somewhat selective view. Rural southern england and elsewhere was chock full of posh Tory leave voters at the referendum.
Posh Tory Leave voters in the Home Counties are still not as posh as even posher Tory Remain voters in Kensington and Chelsea, Cities of London and Westminster and Richmond Park
Now we're coming into a cultural values question. Posh Tory leave voters in the countryside consider themselves to be more authentically at the top of the tree, essentially from both a more culturally conservative and more culturally nativist point of view.
Well they aren't, Kensington and Chelsea and Cities of London and Westminster not only have the highest house prices in the country, the highest average earnings and amongst the highest level of graduates but also I suspect the highest concentration of aristocrats and members of the upper classes. Comfortably well off, even if landed gentry, is still below that on the pecking order
Goldsmith looks pretty dead and buried. In fairness he did well to win back the seat after throwing it away in the first place.
Not necessarily. He did win 28,000 votes, and the Conservatives were level-pegging in the seat in the local elections.
The richest spots in London are very remain, and very Tory (Knightsbridge etc)
The poshest voters tend to be Remain voting Tories so no surprise there
A somewhat selective view. Rural southern england and elsewhere was chock full of posh Tory leave voters at the referendum.
Posh Tory Leave voters in the Home Counties are still not as posh as even posher Tory Remain voters in Kensington and Chelsea, Cities of London and Westminster and Richmond Park
Now we're coming into a cultural values question. Posh Tory leave voters in the countryside consider themselves to be more authentically at the top of the tree, essentially from both a more culturally conservative and more culturally nativist point of view.
"An anonymous Labour MP has written in the Times about the Brexit process.
They write: "I'm a Labour MP who voted remain, representing a constituency who voted heavily to leave. I'm torn in two.
"I want to be accountable, I want to be involved but I sit uselessly and helplessly trapped in a Commons that is falling to pieces at a time of national crisis.
"I'm one of the 650. We'll all get the blame when the ship sinks, but in truth you might as well have put a dead cat in there instead of me; it would have had as much of a role as I've had in the Brexit discussions.""
I cannot say I feel a great deal of sympathy. I do not belittle the job before them, and the minimal role of many of them on the larger aspects, nor even the pressures of party on what they are expected to do, but being an MP is not meant to be easy in a time of crisis, and every single one of them asked to take on their share of the responsibility for governing this nation. Breaking party lines, approving something previously uncontemplatable, putting it back to the people, and so on and so on, these options will put a lot of pressure on them. But none of them are insurmountable if they grow up and decide something, and hopfully MPs will start doing that soon.
I read that and my immediate response was to the effect of, sometimes you have to stop being a good constituency MP (aka a glorified social worker and local councillor) and step to face national responsibilities. There appears to be something of a struggle with that.
The bread and butter of politics is individual problems and casework where the solutions are often obvious and it is 'just' a question of getting the funding or will to resolve it. Most politicians are happy dealing with pragmatic stuff like this. At the other extreme are big issues of principle (for example whether we should have nuclear weapons) where you can have a debate working from emotions and instincts and, again, most politicians are happy spouting their opinions on such stuff without having to worry about the consequences because nothing is going to change.
Where politicians at all levels struggle is when you have a 'big' issue with a myriad of complex real world implications and detail, requiring some sort of trade off between ideology and pragmatism.
'Not really, Norway Plus could win the indicative votes by the end of next Monday and then the Commons votes to take part in the EU Parliament elections to renegotiate based on BINO and the EU agrees for a softer Brexit'
What constitutes 'win'? And how does the 'win' become Government policy and therefore actually get in front of the EU? In my view it's an exercise in futility. Meanwhile in the real world the clock ticks down...
MPs will vote for every option they could consider voting for, Norway Plus likely wins that or permanent Customs Union .
The clock is actually being reset, May removes the March 29th date by SI this week and May has also said if the Commons rules out No Deal the alter native is to contest the European elections.
Even Mogg and Fabricant have conceded the choice is now her Deal or No Brexit or BINO not No Deal
Not really, Norway Plus could win the indicative votes by the end of next Monday and then the Commons votes to take part in the EU Parliament elections to renegotiate based on BINO and the EU agrees for a softer Brexit
Except this is a farce. What's going to be renegotiated precisely?
The withdrawal agreement? The EU have already said that even if we go BINO/EEA we will need the withdrawal agreement for a transition. It won't be renegotiated.
The political declaration? This isn't legally binding anyway and if there's an election a new government could seek any other form of long term deal over whatever was agreed in the declaration.
If you believe in BINO then the withdrawal agreement is already a BINO transition.
Probably is, the Withdrawal Agreement would only be passed now with a BINO political declaration
To be fair to anyone from the ERG who are belatedly coming around to the idea of potentially backing the MV late after rejecting it before, they are to be fair not the only ones at all in this Parliament who have been holding out for their own preferred option.
I for a long time wanted another option, but I accept that is no longer a possibility.
It is utterly insane that this Wednesday, no more than 2 days before we were scheduled to have left, Parliament is looking at taking indicative votes on SEVEN plus potential options.
Our whole system right now is farcical not just a few people.
I agree. This indicative voting exercise by MPs has a sense of unreality about it. It's 6th form debating society stuff.
But the ERG do bear most of the blame, IMO. They have labelled the only deliverable Brexit (the WA) as being not Brexit.
Now if the only deliverable Brexit is not Brexit, the logical inference is clear.
Brexit is not deliverable.
And if that is the case, it would be best to call it off and apologize to the British people for teasing them with the unattainable prospect in 2016.
Goldsmith looks pretty dead and buried. In fairness he did well to win back the seat after throwing it away in the first place.
Not necessarily. He did win 28,000 votes, and the Conservatives were level-pegging in the seat in the local elections.
The richest spots in London are very remain, and very Tory (Knightsbridge etc)
The poshest voters tend to be Remain voting Tories so no surprise there
A somewhat selective view. Rural southern england and elsewhere was chock full of posh Tory leave voters at the referendum.
Posh Tory Leave voters in the Home Counties are still not as posh as even posher Tory Remain voters in Kensington and Chelsea, Cities of London and Westminster and Richmond Park
I'm not so sure. There are some fabulous houses and estates in the Home Counties (albeit, some owned by people who also have houses in Inner London).
Some but not on average as expensive as inner London nor as much a concentration of wealth and upper class
Goldsmith looks pretty dead and buried. In fairness he did well to win back the seat after throwing it away in the first place.
Not necessarily. He did win 28,000 votes, and the Conservatives were level-pegging in the seat in the local elections.
The richest spots in London are very remain, and very Tory (Knightsbridge etc)
The poshest voters tend to be Remain voting Tories so no surprise there
A somewhat selective view. Rural southern england and elsewhere was chock full of posh Tory leave voters at the referendum.
Posh Tory Leave voters in the Home Counties are still not as posh as even posher Tory Remain voters in Kensington and Chelsea, Cities of London and Westminster and Richmond Park
I'm not so sure. There are some fabulous houses and estates in the Home Counties (albeit, some owned by people who also have houses in Inner London).
The difference is your 7 bed equestrian property in Surrey is worth than the flat in Kensington.
'Not really, Norway Plus could win the indicative votes by the end of next Monday and then the Commons votes to take part in the EU Parliament elections to renegotiate based on BINO and the EU agrees for a softer Brexit'
What constitutes 'win'? And how does the 'win' become Government policy and therefore actually get in front of the EU? In my view it's an exercise in futility. Meanwhile in the real world the clock ticks down...
MPs will vote for every option they could consider voting for, Norway Plus likely wins that or permanent Customs Union .
The clock is actually being reset, May removes the March 29th date by SI this week and May has also said if the Commons rules out No Deal the alter native is to contest the European elections.
Even Mogg and Fabricant have conceded the choice is now her Deal or No Brexit or BINO not No Deal
This still doesn't explain what you mean by 'wins'. Any 'winning' option that gets less than 50% of MP's support is highly likely to lose in a subsequent Yes-No vote.
Goldsmith looks pretty dead and buried. In fairness he did well to win back the seat after throwing it away in the first place.
Even assuming
1) All signatures are unique 2) All signatures are eligible voters 3) All signatures are really in this constituency 4) All signatures would vote based on this
The number signing is still fewer than the number of Lib Dem votes in 2017, or by definition the number of Goldsmith votes in 2017
I assume that none of those points are entirely true, nor do I assume that everyone who supports or opposes something will sign an online petition about it. I'm taking the view that assuming a reasonably large number of the signatures can be taken as genuine it is still a very large chunk of voters in his constituency, and the number of people who back something will likely be higher than the number who state it publicly.
So your premise that the number of petition signatures is less than the number of votes he got, in counter to the idea it is significant, is fatuous and irrelevant because who would expect it to be? The question is whether there is enough of an indication from it as a demonstration of strength of feeling on this issue to think he is in trouble. There might be disagreement on that, but he has a very small majority, and whatever the actual numbers signing it is clearly a large number.
Sure, but Goldsmith made no secret of his pro-Brexit views in 2017, and still won back a constituency that voted 70% Remain.
In the Richmond Park by election in 2016, 1515 people voted Labour and Sarah Olney, the LD candidate overturned a 23,000 Tory majority and won by 1872 votes, thanks in part to the tactical voting by Labour supporters.
In 2017, 5773 people voted Labour! Up from 1515. Either they were enthused by Corbyn or didn't get the message but the effect was that Sarah Olney lost by 45 votes. I don't think Labour voters will make the same mistake next time and let a Tory win.
'Not really, Norway Plus could win the indicative votes by the end of next Monday and then the Commons votes to take part in the EU Parliament elections to renegotiate based on BINO and the EU agrees for a softer Brexit'
What constitutes 'win'? And how does the 'win' become Government policy and therefore actually get in front of the EU? In my view it's an exercise in futility. Meanwhile in the real world the clock ticks down...
MPs will vote for every option they could consider voting for, Norway Plus likely wins that or permanent Customs Union .
The clock is actually being reset, May removes the March 29th date by SI this week and May has also said if the Commons rules out No Deal the alter native is to contest the European elections.
Even Mogg and Fabricant have conceded the choice is now her Deal or No Brexit or BINO not No Deal
This still doesn't explain what you mean by 'wins'. Any 'winning' option that gets less than 50% of MP's support is highly likely to lose in a subsequent Yes-No vote.
No, as on Monday all options are eliminated if no majority winner on Wednesday until the last one left standing
I think it's a safe bet that the Lib Dems will pick up a few seats in the SW at the next GE.
Yes they could do very well, especially with a new leader.
Student fees seems like a long time ago now.
I take you havent been mugged by Universities of late.
Correct. But if you're a Tory Remainer in Devon, are you only going to blame the LDs for fees, and let that dictate your vote?
If youre a young person who has just been tucked up with £60k of debt with very little to show for it are you going to thank the LDs for stitching you up ? If youre a parent who doesnt want to see your kids sold to the modern version of indentured labour are you going to thank the LDs for that large hole your savings ?
My eldest and her partner were the first to go through under the new regime and they're fine with it. They do note "They should just have called it a graduate tax, shouldn't they?"
Anyway - "indentured labour"? Seriously?
"If you earn under the average income as a graduate, it's free. You only pay if you earn over the average, and that's only a proportion of your income over the average" ---"Why, that's indentured labour!"
oh a bit of poetic licence Mr Cooke
but yes it is a graduate tax and we are in the daft position of fining people for improving the national value of human capital. At a time were all saying we need a knowledge based workforce, we're disincentivising knowledge.
Like we "fine" people for working (income tax)? Or we "fine" companies for being successful (corporation tax)? Or we "fine" anyone who provides goods or services (VAT)?
Lots of disincentivising going on there.
This is simply taxing people twice for the same service. I take the view young people starting out in life need a break before they can accumulate some capital. If you want to buy a house or start a family having extra debt shoved on you means you have to put these off. Thats not healthy for the UK in the long run.
Corporation tax is mostly incident on the workers, as is Employers NI, so workers are taxed four times on their work: corporation tax, Employers NI, Employees NI, income tax.
And, of course, it's not at all like normal debt, in so much as you only pay it off if you can afford it (most debt is not like that) and is not treated as debt by lenders.
Further - it was a Tory initiative in the first place, so why not reserve the ire for the Tories?
Is it going to be as bad as the disaster that was predicited on here about GDPR which has of course subsequently ground the internet to a halt stopped a lot of my unwanted spam, thank you very much?
Yes they could do very well, especially with a new leader.
Student fees seems like a long time ago now.
I take you havent been mugged by Universities of late.
Correct. But if you're a Tory Remainer in Devon, are you only going to blame the LDs for fees, and let that dictate your vote?
If youre a young person who has just been tucked up with £60k of debt with very little to show for it are you going to thank the LDs for stitching you up ? If youre a parent who doesnt want to see your kids sold to the modern version of indentured labour are you going to thank the LDs for that large hole your savings ?
My eldest and her partner were the first to go through under the new regime and they're fine with it. They do note "They should just have called it a graduate tax, shouldn't they?"
Anyway - "indentured labour"? Seriously?
"If you earn under the average income as a graduate, it's free. You only pay if you earn over the average, and that's only a proportion of your income over the average" ---"Why, that's indentured labour!"
oh a bit of poetic licence Mr Cooke
but yes it is a graduate tax and we are in the daft position of fining people for improving the national value of human capital. At a time were all saying we need a knowledge based workforce, we're disincentivising knowledge.
Like we "fine" people for working (income tax)? Or we "fine" companies for being successful (corporation tax)? Or we "fine" anyone who provides goods or services (VAT)?
Lots of disincentivising going on there.
This is simply taxing people twice for the same service. I take the view young people starting out in life need a break before they can accumulate some capital. If you want to buy a house or start a family having extra debt shoved on you means you have to put these off. Thats not healthy for the UK in the long run.
Corporation tax is mostly incident on the workers, as is Employers NI, so workers are taxed four times on their work: corporation tax, Employers NI, Employees NI, income tax.
And, of course, it's not at all like normal debt, in so much as you only pay it off if you can afford it (most debt is not like that) and is not treated as debt by lenders.
Further - it was a Tory initiative in the first place, so why not reserve the ire for the Tories?
Why blame the Tories when you can pick on their erstwhile junior partners?
Her goose is almost cooked, lucky for her Record and labour are picking up the tab.
One to bookmark, methinks.
Has he explained the purpose of the reference to homosexuality in his tweet? The suggestion seems to be that if his father had "embraced his homosexuality" then Mr Mundell would not exist. Perhaps it should be explained to this highly unpleasant individual that being homosexual does not automatically mean you will not have children! I think most gay people would regard this tweet as highly offensive.
Top QC enters the fray and explains by telepathy what the person was really thinking.
That will be for the court to decide. The court of public opinion will no doubt conclude that yet another Scottish Nationalist is a nasty unpleasant tosser.
....sorry I forgot to say "cue the predictable inarticulate volleys of abuse" Sadly I won't see them as I have to go back to work. Keep taking the tablets Malcolm!
You flatter yourself and to try and pretend that you are employable is a hoot.
Comments
So your premise that the number of petition signatures is less than the number of votes he got, in counter to the idea it is significant, is fatuous and irrelevant because who would expect it to be? The question is whether there is enough of an indication from it as a demonstration of strength of feeling on this issue to think he is in trouble. There might be disagreement on that, but he has a very small majority, and whatever the actual numbers signing it is clearly a large number.
As regards solving Brexit, a snap GE before we leave might do that if there is a clear result, or at least it might remove the pernicious blocking power of the DUP. But then again, as you say, it might very well not. In which case, waste of time, or worse, just creates more delay and confusion.
Which is why I think the more likely outcome is that the WA is passed, and we leave, and THEN we have a GE to decide on what the Future Relationship will be and who will be running with it. So that will be a Brexit election, yes, but not purely a Brexit election. I think that is the most reasonable option from here and, even now, I trust that MPs will get there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEY3jFOR7R0
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/march-to-leave-brexit-live-2679976
I don't agree that the number should be less than the number of votes, not when this is a cheap and quick piece of virtue signalling, not when there is a concerted effort to get signatures there and not when its possible to get fake, duplicate or illegitimate signatures there too.
I agree he's in trouble, he's in trouble because his majority is only 45 and the Liberal Democrats got 45.1% of the vote in 2017. This petition says little we didn't already know.
Is he trying to win an award for most bafflingly offensive statements made in a parliament?
As other people have pointed out, the legislature are trying to do the job of the executive and through their personal shortcomings the MPs are miserably failing. They should have been constrained to act within their competence. Once the courts decided that only Parliament had the power to remove rights, they should have been asked one simple question ("should the British people lose the rights that they have solely by virtue of the UK being in the EU?") and then left to their own devices, to do whatever it is they do all day. But giving the job of making a decision to 650 people who prefer debate to decision and blaming instead of action was wrong.
It's like he made his big splash, and everyone got excited about it, and now his ruling has been totally forgotten. It is just assumed that he can be ignored. Odd. He must be bristling.
& if Mundell was suing Wings over Bath I'd be supporting the Reverend. Reserve libel/defamation for the most serious matters ta.
Corbyn beats Hunt or Gove? I would hope so, but my money would be going on the opposite. I sense that JC and number 10 are destined never to meet.
'Not really, Norway Plus could win the indicative votes by the end of next Monday and then the Commons votes to take part in the EU Parliament elections to renegotiate based on BINO and the EU agrees for a softer Brexit'
What constitutes 'win'? And how does the 'win' become Government policy and therefore actually get in front of the EU? In my view it's an exercise in futility. Meanwhile in the real world the clock ticks down...
The withdrawal agreement? The EU have already said that even if we go BINO/EEA we will need the withdrawal agreement for a transition. It won't be renegotiated.
The political declaration? This isn't legally binding anyway and if there's an election a new government could seek any other form of long term deal over whatever was agreed in the declaration.
If you believe in BINO then the withdrawal agreement is already a BINO transition.
Where politicians at all levels struggle is when you have a 'big' issue with a myriad of complex real world implications and detail, requiring some sort of trade off between ideology and pragmatism.
Gove or Hunt I would favour Corbyn
indicative process
is underway to replace this thread.The clock is actually being reset, May removes the March 29th date by SI this week and May has also said if the Commons rules out No Deal the alter native is to contest the European elections.
Even Mogg and Fabricant have conceded the choice is now her Deal or No Brexit or BINO not No Deal
What if the winning indicative vote is to refer the matter back to the government to come up with a proposal?
But the ERG do bear most of the blame, IMO. They have labelled the only deliverable Brexit (the WA) as being not Brexit.
Now if the only deliverable Brexit is not Brexit, the logical inference is clear.
Brexit is not deliverable.
And if that is the case, it would be best to call it off and apologize to the British people for teasing them with the unattainable prospect in 2016.
NEW THREAD
In 2017, 5773 people voted Labour! Up from 1515. Either they were enthused by Corbyn or didn't get the message but the effect was that Sarah Olney lost by 45 votes. I don't think Labour voters will make the same mistake next time and let a Tory win.
And, of course, it's not at all like normal debt, in so much as you only pay it off if you can afford it (most debt is not like that) and is not treated as debt by lenders.
Further - it was a Tory initiative in the first place, so why not reserve the ire for the Tories?