Doing a Google the only difference appears to be the presentation - K-W involves Parliament "agreeing" May's deal subject to a confirmatory referendum (presumably with Remain on the other side, although not everyone thinks Labour has confirmed this) whereas the PV is a straight Deal v Remain choice.
Technically there's no difference but psychologically one is saying "we intend to do this, do you agree?" and the other is saying "which of these two do you prefer?" So the ballot paper wording would be different with the former yes/no and the latter more wordy.
If I was the Speaker I would take one or the other.
Yes, the KW is a little stronger, i.e. gives the Deal more chance. We are going to do this unless you stop us - as opposed to - We will do this if you insist.
Having said that, it's toast either way. REF2 is Remain.
So, the switchers in favour of May's Deal (when it's probably too late) are:
JRM James Gray Michael Fabricant Simon Clarke Esther McVey Pauline Latham Daniel Kaczynski Rehman Chishti Robert Courts
Any others?.
The link I just posted misses a few of yours but includes Henry Smith. So that looks like 10 down 65 to go then.
DUP remain critical as Grieves won't back down. If everyone else does and he doesn't he should lose the whip.
Why should he lose the whip? Because he fundamentally disagrees with the government? If that were the case then most of the people that have caused the trouble for TMay, including old numbskull Duncan Smith should have lost the whip years ago
Make it a vote of confidence, even if Cameron has messed with the constitution.
Rupert Allason had the whip suspended for abstaining with regards to Maastricht. If the margin is down to 10 MPs then the government should make this a quasi-confidence motion and withdraw the whip from anyone who votes against.
Anyone have a sec to post the precis of the voting mechanism for the indicative votes? If that has been published.
Each MP gets a stick and they drop them into the Thames from Westminster Bridge. The first one to emerge on the other side wins.
Seriously are we going to have the Commons decide their preferred route to Brexit using an electoral system which was rejected in a people's vote in 2011 by over 7 million votes. Why exactly do we have these people's votes only for the people in Westminster to ignore them?!
Since when was the AV referendum about whether AV was an unacceptable voting system in any situation? It was about whether it should be used to elect MPs. And there are certainly many other procedures of the Commons and parliament generally that don't work in other places, and why should they? It's a deliberative assembly, not a public vote.
Unless you think it is outrageous that MPs vote by walking down separate corridors and having their names marked, whereas we have to go to the local community centre and fill out a ballot paper?
I am not denying AV has its merits - but given voters decisively rejected its use for Westminster elections it then seems odd that it should be used to take important decisions in parliament. You could potentially be disregarding the most recent people's vote (e.g. if MPs vote to revoke) using an electoral system they rejected in the previous one.
But we never rejected it for parliamentary votes, so the comparison makes no sense. The question was very clear about whether it should be used in one particular situation. We said no, and I believe that referendum was in fact made binding in the Act. I don't accept the central premise that it is therefore odd to use it, or any other method felt appropriate, within parliament itself, the situations are not at all similar. This is not about the merits or not of AV either.
We have never been asked how we think the intricacies of parliamentary proceedings should be conducted, nor should we.
This should scare the S*** out of everyone....nothing passes.
Or there is the compromise - Labour and Tories agree a permanent customs union (May's backstop may well deliver that anyway) and also agree we remain out of the single market (so freedom of movement goes).
We leave on May's deal but renegotiate the PD. We stay in the or a customs union - so the NI border issue is sorted And we don't remain fully in the single market so Freedom of movement ends (so the biggest concern of many leave voters is addressed).
Not ideal - but surely something for everyone (except for the Waitrose class who will find it more difficult to retire to their villas in Tuscany).
I can't see any other compromise which delivers leaving and might gain support. Norway plus or Common market 2.0 just seems a complete waste of time as it delivers nothing for leave voters at all - its vassal state 100.0.
The DUP won’t back the deal with the backstop so 10 there . Pro EU second vote Tories won’t so that’s 8 against . A hardcore 15 ERG against that’s being conservative .
So that’s 33 against , how many Labour for the deal .
At best 15. So still it won’t pass.
I compiled a list of the hardcore ERG before the Speaker's ruling-out of MV3 (it feels like half a lifetime ago but it was only last week):
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) Lucy Allan (Telford) Steve Baker (Wycombe) Crispin Blunt (Reigate) Peter Bone (Wellingborough) Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) Christopher Chope (Christchurch) Richard Drax (South Dorset) James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) Chris Green (Bolton West) Philip Hollobone (Kettering) Adam Holloway (Gravesham) Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) David Jones (Clwyd West) Julian Lewis (New Forest East) Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) Priti Patel (Witham) Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) John Redwood (Wokingham) Andrew Rosindell (Romford) Henry Smith (Crawley) Royston Smith (Southampton Itchen) Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
This list is, I think, conservative.
To these you can also add the hardline Conservative Remainers:
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) Justine Greening (Putney) Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) Jo Johnson (Orpington) Phillip Lee (Bracknell)
So 50 Lab MPs needed, no problem. Granted, they've only managed 3 so far, but I'm sure Lisa Nandy and co will be just ready to switch in their droves, unless something terribly relevant like their feelings being hurt by a PM statement crops up again.
All optimism for the idea that the deal will go through eventually has come from people who haven't spent much time looking at the actual views of the relevant individuals. Some on this list are going to have some very humiliating climbdowns if they are going to change their minds.
The DUP won’t back the deal with the backstop so 10 there . Pro EU second vote Tories won’t so that’s 8 against . A hardcore 15 ERG against that’s being conservative .
So that’s 33 against , how many Labour for the deal .
At best 15. So still it won’t pass.
Yes, even if every ERG member flips (unlikely as you say), the vote still falls by 323 votes to 310 if everyone else votes the same as last time.
You need all/most of the ERG AND some of the Tory ultra-Remainers/DUP/Labour Leavers.
So, the switchers in favour of May's Deal (when it's probably too late) are:
JRM James Gray Michael Fabricant Simon Clarke Esther McVey Pauline Latham Daniel Kaczynski Rehman Chishti Robert Courts
Any others?.
The link I just posted misses a few of yours but includes Henry Smith. So that looks like 10 down 65 to go then.
DUP remain critical as Grieves won't back down. If everyone else does and he doesn't he should lose the whip.
Why should he lose the whip? Because he fundamentally disagrees with the government? If that were the case then most of the people that have caused the trouble for TMay, including old numbskull Duncan Smith should have lost the whip years ago
Make it a vote of confidence, even if Cameron has messed with the constitution.
He did not, parliament passed an Act changing the rules. As Brexit has shown very well MPs are perfectly well able to oppose their own parties if they do not agree with the approach being taken, and they chose not to on that occasion.
Afternoon all. I've been comforting myself over the mess in parliament by laughing for two days straight about the Mueller report, get on Trump 2020, nothing will stick on him now. I believe I did say on here 3 weeks ago there would be no evidence of any collusion. Its the Democrats who need to watch out, the previous administration and its FBI and CIA cronies are in serious serious trouble. That means Biden might get dragged in, worth noting for the dem nomination betting. Trumps vengeance is going to be breathtaking and probably massive overkill but he has the big mo now.
You sound slightly unhinged, would that be fair?
Plato sounded unhinged towards the end, that didn't mean she wasn't right (at least in terms of reading what Trump supporters were reading, pointing out that his base was going to take him all the way to the White House, while most posters on here were still disbelieving).
If I am proven wrong I'll admit to being a basket case, but the idea Trump isnt going after the Democrats now hes been cleared is totally unhinged.
He was hinting at having people charged for treason yesterday?
This should scare the S*** out of everyone....nothing passes.
What is the difference between approve deal subject to referendum (Kyle-Wilson) and referendum on deal vs remain?
Which 20 MPs would support the former and not the latter and why?
Kyle-Wilson refers to a confirmatory referendum on the Deal. I.e., Yes/No options and a question that reads something like "Should we accept this Deal?", where No doesn't mean Remain and doesn't mean No Deal. In that case, we would need a longish extension agreed in advance to hold the ballot, and presumably there would still be some time afterwards to agree next steps if No won.
Is that what Kyle-Wilson means or were they just using the term confirmatory referndum to make it more palatable,while still intending remain would be the outcome if deal failed? I don't know the wording on it.
I may be reading too much into their wording, but I can't see how else you interpret "confirmatory referendum". I suspect it's triangulation, but I'm not sure if they're more scared of being seen to obstruct Brexit, or facilitate it.
I think that is the more reasonable interpretation of what 'confirmatory referendum' would mean, I'm just not convinced they would say they were bound by that interpretation as I see no way any referendum occurs without remain being a potential outcome - remaining is the whole point of a referendum for almost everyone proposing one after all.
The DUP won’t back the deal with the backstop so 10 there . Pro EU second vote Tories won’t so that’s 8 against . A hardcore 15 ERG against that’s being conservative .
So that’s 33 against , how many Labour for the deal .
At best 15. So still it won’t pass.
Yes, even if every ERG member flips (unlikely as you say), the vote still falls by 323 votes to 310 if everyone else votes the same as last time.
You need all/most of the ERG AND some of the Tory ultra-Remainers/DUP/Labour Leavers.
The media hasn't yet worked out that we are likely effectively to be having MV3 tomorrow (except purely indicative) whether the PM is ready or not.
You demean yourself calling Bercow a Quisling just because he is an irritant. It is as silly as suggesting all Leavers are quislings and traitors for advancing the foreign policy agenda of Putin.
Of course he's not a Quisling!
I just like the word. I'm reclaiming it from the Guido brigade.
Afternoon all. I've been comforting myself over the mess in parliament by laughing for two days straight about the Mueller report, get on Trump 2020, nothing will stick on him now. I believe I did say on here 3 weeks ago there would be no evidence of any collusion. Its the Democrats who need to watch out, the previous administration and its FBI and CIA cronies are in serious serious trouble. That means Biden might get dragged in, worth noting for the dem nomination betting. Trumps vengeance is going to be breathtaking and probably massive overkill but he has the big mo now.
You sound slightly unhinged, would that be fair?
Plato sounded unhinged towards the end, that didn't mean she wasn't right (at least in terms of reading what Trump supporters were reading, pointing out that his base was going to take him all the way to the White House, while most posters on here were still disbelieving).
If I am proven wrong I'll admit to being a basket case, but the idea Trump isnt going after the Democrats now hes been cleared is totally unhinged.
He was hinting at having people charged for treason yesterday?
His press secretary did too. Pelosi is rowing back furiously on attacks on him and encouraging dems to focus on policy for 2020
This should scare the S*** out of everyone....nothing passes.
What is the difference between approve deal subject to referendum (Kyle-Wilson) and referendum on deal vs remain?
Which 20 MPs would support the former and not the latter and why?
Kyle-Wilson refers to a confirmatory referendum on the Deal. I.e., Yes/No options and a question that reads something like "Should we accept this Deal?", where No doesn't mean Remain and doesn't mean No Deal. In that case, we would need a longish extension agreed in advance to hold the ballot, and presumably there would still be some time afterwards to agree next steps if No won.
Is that what Kyle-Wilson means or were they just using the term confirmatory referndum to make it more palatable,while still intending remain would be the outcome if deal failed? I don't know the wording on it.
I may be reading too much into their wording, but I can't see how else you interpret "confirmatory referendum". I suspect it's triangulation, but I'm not sure if they're more scared of being seen to obstruct Brexit, or facilitate it.
I think that is the more reasonable interpretation of what 'confirmatory referendum' would mean, I'm just not convinced they would say they were bound by that interpretation as I see no way any referendum occurs without remain being a potential outcome - remaining is the whole point of a referendum for almost everyone proposing one after all.
My take is that the creators intend Remain to be on the other side, but are getting some kickback from Labour's leavers.
@DPJHodges Follow Follow @DPJHodges More And I didn't think I'd ever type these words. But if we do end up with an election, Jeremy Corbyn will have played a blinder.
Can't wait for Jezza and Johnny Mac to take over the Treasury and send them all back to school to learn about Marxism.
Probably be a relief after trying to digest Ayn Rand's ramblings...
Two questions on the indicative votes for the wise heads to consider:
1. As I understand it, MPs can select any options they'd be prepared to back. But what incentive if any do they have to back options other than their favourite one or two?
2. Related to that - do we think John Rentoul's guesstimates are in the right ballparks?
The DUP won’t back the deal with the backstop so 10 there . Pro EU second vote Tories won’t so that’s 8 against . A hardcore 15 ERG against that’s being conservative .
So that’s 33 against , how many Labour for the deal .
At best 15. So still it won’t pass.
I compiled a list of the hardcore ERG before the Speaker's ruling-out of MV3 (it feels like half a lifetime ago but it was only last week):
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) Lucy Allan (Telford) Steve Baker (Wycombe) Crispin Blunt (Reigate) Peter Bone (Wellingborough) Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) Christopher Chope (Christchurch) Richard Drax (South Dorset) James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) Chris Green (Bolton West) Philip Hollobone (Kettering) Adam Holloway (Gravesham) Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) David Jones (Clwyd West) Julian Lewis (New Forest East) Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) Priti Patel (Witham) Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) John Redwood (Wokingham) Andrew Rosindell (Romford) Henry Smith (Crawley) Royston Smith (Southampton Itchen) Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
This list is, I think, conservative.
To these you can also add the hardline Conservative Remainers:
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) Justine Greening (Putney) Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) Jo Johnson (Orpington) Phillip Lee (Bracknell)
So 50 Lab MPs needed, no problem. Granted, they've only managed 3 so far, but I'm sure Lisa Nandy and co will be just ready to switch in their droves, unless something terribly relevant like their feelings being hurt by a PM statement crops up again.
All optimism for the idea that the deal will go through eventually has come from people who haven't spent much time looking at the actual views of the relevant individuals. Some on this list are going to have some very humiliating climbdowns if they are going to change their minds.
I can see some accepting such a humiliating climbdown, but certainly not enough. But it is certainly the case the the deal has been over hyped each time. Too many thinking that because it makes sense/is the best that can be managed that surely various others will agree, when they won't, and that push come to shove they would not do something like, assist with the end of Brexit entirely rather than pass it, which they might.
The DUP won’t back the deal with the backstop so 10 there . Pro EU second vote Tories won’t so that’s 8 against . A hardcore 15 ERG against that’s being conservative .
So that’s 33 against , how many Labour for the deal .
At best 15. So still it won’t pass.
I compiled a list of the hardcore ERG before the Speaker's ruling-out of MV3 (it feels like half a lifetime ago but it was only last week):
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) Lucy Allan (Telford) Steve Baker (Wycombe) Crispin Blunt (Reigate) Peter Bone (Wellingborough) Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) Christopher Chope (Christchurch) Richard Drax (South Dorset) James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) Chris Green (Bolton West) Philip Hollobone (Kettering) Adam Holloway (Gravesham) Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) David Jones (Clwyd West) Julian Lewis (New Forest East) Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) Priti Patel (Witham) Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) John Redwood (Wokingham) Andrew Rosindell (Romford) Henry Smith (Crawley) Royston Smith (Southampton Itchen) Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed)
This list is, I think, conservative.
To these you can also add the hardline Conservative Remainers:
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) Justine Greening (Putney) Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) Jo Johnson (Orpington) Phillip Lee (Bracknell)
So 50 Lab MPs needed, no problem. Granted, they've only managed 3 so far, but I'm sure Lisa Nandy and co will be just ready to switch in their droves, unless something terribly relevant like their feelings being hurt by a PM statement crops up again.
All optimism for the idea that the deal will go through eventually has come from people who haven't spent much time looking at the actual views of the relevant individuals. Some on this list are going to have some very humiliating climbdowns if they are going to change their minds.
One of the more hardcore Tories (not even on your list of 30) all but admitted earlier that a glorious defeat is preferable to a compromise:
Tomorrow's process isn't a decision so those rules don't apply. And in any event the change in timetable and the new process gives Bercow enough to rule differently.
Edit/ But you are right that the indicative yes/no process is effectively a proxy for MV3. If the deal actually passes it will be a turn up for the books!
LOL indeed (!) if the May deal is top of the pops after this process.
The DUP won’t back the deal with the backstop so 10 there . Pro EU second vote Tories won’t so that’s 8 against . A hardcore 15 ERG against that’s being conservative .
So that’s 33 against , how many Labour for the deal .
At best 15. So still it won’t pass.
Yes, even if every ERG member flips (unlikely as you say), the vote still falls by 323 votes to 310 if everyone else votes the same as last time.
You need all/most of the ERG AND some of the Tory ultra-Remainers/DUP/Labour Leavers.
The media hasn't yet worked out that we are likely effectively to be having MV3 tomorrow (except purely indicative) whether the PM is ready or not.
It would be interesting to see how many actually want the WA rather than reluctantly accept it.
Doing a Google the only difference appears to be the presentation - K-W involves Parliament "agreeing" May's deal subject to a confirmatory referendum (presumably with Remain on the other side, although not everyone thinks Labour has confirmed this) whereas the PV is a straight Deal v Remain choice.
Technically there's no difference but psychologically one is saying "we intend to do this, do you agree?" and the other is saying "which of these two do you prefer?" So the ballot paper wording would be different with the former yes/no and the latter more wordy.
If I was the Speaker I would take one or the other.
Yes, the KW is a little stronger, i.e. gives the Deal more chance. We are going to do this unless you stop us - as opposed to - We will do this if you insist.
Having said that, it's toast either way. REF2 is Remain.
Presumably the exact wording of a referendum would/should be the work of the Electoral Commission to avoid exactly that bias? If it wasn't, I expect the (supposedly independent) EC would have some words to say about it.
(EDIT: Or are you just meaning the wording in the Commons, in which case yes.. I can see why they'd do that)
Two questions on the indicative votes for the wise heads to consider:
1. As I understand it, MPs can back any options they'd be prepared to back. But what incentive if any do they have to back options other than their favourite one or two?
2. Related to that - do we think John Rentoul's guesstimates are in the right ballparks?
1. None
2.I think the government's deal might score a little lower than under MV2 - reluctant backers can back their preferred option and not bother to give their indication on that one. The Labour deal prediction looks about right, which will be very embarrassing for the government as it proves the opposition really could do a better job of unifying the Commons, even if they don't manage a majority for.I tihnk revocation and long delay will get quite a few more than he expects, and that the approve subject to referendum will be much closer
Doing a Google the only difference appears to be the presentation - K-W involves Parliament "agreeing" May's deal subject to a confirmatory referendum (presumably with Remain on the other side, although not everyone thinks Labour has confirmed this) whereas the PV is a straight Deal v Remain choice.
Technically there's no difference but psychologically one is saying "we intend to do this, do you agree?" and the other is saying "which of these two do you prefer?" So the ballot paper wording would be different with the former yes/no and the latter more wordy.
If I was the Speaker I would take one or the other.
Yes, the KW is a little stronger, i.e. gives the Deal more chance. We are going to do this unless you stop us - as opposed to - We will do this if you insist.
Having said that, it's toast either way. REF2 is Remain.
Presumably the exact wording of a referendum would/should be the work of the Electoral Commission to avoid exactly that bias? If it wasn't, I expect the (supposedly independent) EC would have some words to say about it.
No its up to the Electoral Commission to make sure the wording is balanced and clearly understood . . . not that the options are. The options are set by Parliament.
Just as last time Remain stood against WTO Leave, EEA Leave etc - so this time Deal could be stacked against multiple options.
WTO terms will be off the table if the Leave option is the deal.
It will come back. This isn't going away. It's like Scottish Independence. The activists will keep going until they win.
I think perhaps more pertinent is what will those who support no deal/a different harder deal do in such a referendum. Will they boycott it or back May's deal.
Say the turnout is way below 2016 as a result - legally remain may win but many simply won't accept the legitimacy of the result because what they thought they voted for in 2016 won't be an option on the ballot paper this time round. It won't lance the boil - it will just store up the same problems.
Two questions on the indicative votes for the wise heads to consider:
1. As I understand it, MPs can back any options they'd be prepared to back. But what incentive if any do they have to back options other than their favourite one or two?
2. Related to that - do we think John Rentoul's guesstimates are in the right ballparks?
On 2. I think Rentoul's guess is as good as any, except for underweighting the Remain side.
On 1. It's like a Prisoners' Dilemma. The supporters of the various soft Brexit options (and the remainers) should collectively support ALL the soft Brexit options, which might well put them over the line (on the basis of most Lab+some Con+smaller parties), leaving May's deal and no deal below. That sets the narrative for sorting out which soft Brexit option and how on Monday.
But individually they have the incentive to support their favoured option only, to give it a one vote edge on all of the others, as you suggest.
That the votes are all being published later might help keep any deals honest, who knows?
In between tomorrow's fun and games in the Chamber, May goes off to address the '22 Committee at 5pm, and they are talking of forcing her to pre-announce her resignation.
This should scare the S*** out of everyone....nothing passes.
What is the difference between approve deal subject to referendum (Kyle-Wilson) and referendum on deal vs remain?
Which 20 MPs would support the former and not the latter and why?
Kyle-Wilson refers to a confirmatory referendum on the Deal. I.e., Yes/No options and a question that reads something like "Should we accept this Deal?", where No doesn't mean Remain and doesn't mean No Deal. In that case, we would need a longish extension agreed in advance to hold the ballot, and presumably there would still be some time afterwards to agree next steps if No won.
Is that what Kyle-Wilson means or were they just using the term confirmatory referndum to make it more palatable,while still intending remain would be the outcome if deal failed? I don't know the wording on it.
I may be reading too much into their wording, but I can't see how else you interpret "confirmatory referendum". I suspect it's triangulation, but I'm not sure if they're more scared of being seen to obstruct Brexit, or facilitate it.
I think that is the more reasonable interpretation of what 'confirmatory referendum' would mean, I'm just not convinced they would say they were bound by that interpretation as I see no way any referendum occurs without remain being a potential outcome - remaining is the whole point of a referendum for almost everyone proposing one after all.
My take is that the creators intend Remain to be on the other side, but are getting some kickback from Labour's leavers.
It's the flipside of May's approach for the last several months. Tell Remainers that obviously if the Deal loses we'll Remain, while trying to convince Leavers that there's still time for alternatives if the Deal loses (or No Deal).
Alternatively, tell Remainers they need to vote for the Deal, or risk No Deal, while warning Leavers that we'll have to revoke if No wins.
It's one of the more palatable options for a second referendum (mainly because by focusing on Yes/No to a specific Brexit outcome, it avoids the need for multiple options), but the potential for confusion is massive, which should under normal circumstances render it a non-starter.
In between tomorrow's fun and games in the Chamber, May goes off to address the '22 Committee at 5pm, and they are talking of forcing her to pre-announce her resignation.
For the, what is it, sixth time already this year (not including various occasions last year and the year before)?
Two questions on the indicative votes for the wise heads to consider:
1. As I understand it, MPs can select any options they'd be prepared to back. But what incentive if any do they have to back options other than their favourite one or two?
2. Related to that - do we think John Rentoul's guesstimates are in the right ballparks?
On 1 it depends whether they are more motivated by support for their favoured option or opposition to their least favoured option.
Less unhinged perhaps than a media and Democrat party that have been feeding the Russia narrative for 2 years. The WH press secretary sayjng false accusation and investigation against the president is treason, the punishment for which is death, ought to highlight the gravity of things. Or we could just assume she was having a laugh and that Trump isn't going to go after those who tried to fit him up as a Putin stooge I know I said in here 3 weeks ago the report wouldn't show collusion and i was right. I'll start from there and see what else I'm right about. Or otherwise.
Russia collusion was a conspiracy theory, they are almost always wrong, and I would have been amazed if it had been otherwise in this case.
But your 'laughing for two days straight over the Mueller report' - and your 'Trump's vengeance is going to be breathtaking' - such comments do not indicate that all is well up top.
Anyhow I have to take the dog to his agility class now, so I will leave you all to mull over tomorrow's excitement. Don't forget to buy in your popcorn of choice.
Two questions on the indicative votes for the wise heads to consider:
1. As I understand it, MPs can select any options they'd be prepared to back. But what incentive if any do they have to back options other than their favourite one or two?
2. Related to that - do we think John Rentoul's guesstimates are in the right ballparks?
On 1 it depends whether they are more motivated by support for their favoured option or opposition to their least favoured option.
Yes. Obviously it makes a huge difference to the numbers, and probably to the likely options taken forward to the next step. FWIW I think John Rentoul may have assumed too little polarisation in his guesses (i.e. he's assumed that MPs will tick more Yes boxes than I would expect).
What is the media obsession with vox pops? R5L just had Prof. Curtice explaining, patiently, the latest polling on Brexit. Then. Let's see what the people of Macclesfield think about that. Not surprisingly the people of Macclesfield are as entrenched, confused and ignorant of what is going on as any of the dozens and dozens of Vox pops that infest the news programmes these days. Why not let the professor give his findings, without having them filtered by people who neither care about them nor understand them?
Because the purpose of media is entertainment.
Just listening to a Prof is a bit boring - so they break it up / fill it out with something different (but still related to the subject) to help keep people interested.
It's a bit like why reporters stand at the location they are reporting about even though they don't need to be there. If they were just sat in the studio talking to camera it would be more boring.
If anyone uses or receives vox pops as any indication of what the public at large, even on Macclesfield High Street, believes, they want their bumps feeling.
But I think as an illustration/examples of differing viewpoints they're OK. Better than Anna Foster just saying "people in Macclesfield think it's bollocks"
Is it a secret ballot or will we know what each MP voted to each question?
Both (secret at the time and public afterwards)
So MPs won't see how each other are walking through lobbies but their votes will be public record afterwards?
Still essentially public then. MPs will be under peer and whip pressure [even in a free vote] to back the 'right' line.
Could be worse, I understand if the Letwin amendment had not passed the government was planning future MV votes to take place like this in the No lobby
Is it a secret ballot or will we know what each MP voted to each question?
Both (secret at the time and public afterwards)
How so??
Because they do all the votes privately and on paper at the time - away from the whips and unable to see what their colleagues are doing. But once done and dusted all the voting will be published for us to pore over.
Less unhinged perhaps than a media and Democrat party that have been feeding the Russia narrative for 2 years. The WH press secretary sayjng false accusation and investigation against the president is treason, the punishment for which is death, ought to highlight the gravity of things. Or we could just assume she was having a laugh and that Trump isn't going to go after those who tried to fit him up as a Putin stooge I know I said in here 3 weeks ago the report wouldn't show collusion and i was right. I'll start from there and see what else I'm right about. Or otherwise.
Russia collusion was a conspiracy theory, they are almost always wrong, and I would have been amazed if it had been otherwise in this case.
But your 'laughing for two days straight over the Mueller report' - and your 'Trump's vengeance is going to be breathtaking' - such comments do not indicate that all is well up top.
*shrugs* I haven't been literally laughing obviously, but it has amused me greatly. I stand by the second comment and if you believe that makes me unhinged so be it.
Good article. On Iraq, the eagerness to allege that the government was mendacious and wicked distracted from the very strong case that it was quite simply wrong and appropriate lessons should be learned.
It's quite common for Governments and politicians generally to bend the truth, and routine to be selective in what they emphasise. Actual lying and deliberate plotting to undermine justice are IMO mercifully rare.
That's true. However, the case that Blair presented to parliament, and which the government presented to the country, were a good deal more biased than either had the right to expect on such a critical question. This wasn't a matter of selecting statistics for a Newsnight interview; it was about misleadingly gaining votes to send the country to war. Now, it might well be that Blair believed Saddam to have WMD - Saddam had, after all, gone out of his way to prevent weapons inspectors concluding otherwise - but the case as to how capable that threat was was substantially overstated (or at least, the confidence in that assessment was).
Yes. The "fact" that swung my opinion (and dominated the front pages the following day) was the "45 minutes before our bases in Cyprus get it".
The "defence" that this confused two "facts" (range of Iraqi strategic weapons with alleged preparedness of much shorter range tactical battlefield chemical weapons) was a mis-interpretation the government was happy to let stand. It was reported that Campbell was happy with this confusion.
The toerags lied through their teeth, nothing less than ars*holes of the first order.
@DPJHodges Follow Follow @DPJHodges More And I didn't think I'd ever type these words. But if we do end up with an election, Jeremy Corbyn will have played a blinder.
I don't see what Corbyn has either done or not done to get us to this point. It's been all about the Tories and the DUP.
Is it a secret ballot or will we know what each MP voted to each question?
Both (secret at the time and public afterwards)
So MPs won't see how each other are walking through lobbies but their votes will be public record afterwards?
Still essentially public then. MPs will be under peer and whip pressure [even in a free vote] to back the 'right' line.
Could be worse, I understand if the Letwin amendment had not passed the government was planning future MV votes to take place like this in the No lobby
@DPJHodges Follow Follow @DPJHodges More And I didn't think I'd ever type these words. But if we do end up with an election, Jeremy Corbyn will have played a blinder.
I don't see what Corbyn has either done or not done to get us to this point. It's been all about the Tories and the DUP.
He has done as little as possible, seeking to avoid annoying the smaller amount of Labour leave supporters, allowing Starmer and co to be as remainery as possible, while not annoying his remain heavy MPs and supporters too much by not being super keen on a new referendum. He's not done much at all, but so long as he keeps it together he will be PM soon.
@DPJHodges Follow Follow @DPJHodges More And I didn't think I'd ever type these words. But if we do end up with an election, Jeremy Corbyn will have played a blinder.
I don't see what Corbyn has either done or not done to get us to this point. It's been all about the Tories and the DUP.
He's sat there saying no to everything (deal, referendum, anything of substance) even when the withdrawal agreement contained everything he supposedly wanted. Simply saying "no, I want an election", "no, I want an election".
If everyone else takes each other out and he gets his election that is remarkable all things considered. Any other leader would have come down on the side of something [eg a referendum etc] rather than just being focused like a laser on an election and rejecting everything else.
@DPJHodges Follow Follow @DPJHodges More And I didn't think I'd ever type these words. But if we do end up with an election, Jeremy Corbyn will have played a blinder.
I don't see what Corbyn has either done or not done to get us to this point. It's been all about the Tories and the DUP.
He has done as little as possible, seeking to avoid annoying the smaller amount of Labour leave supporters, allowing Starmer and co to be as remainery as possible, while not annoying his remain heavy MPs and supporters too much by not being super keen on a new referendum. He's not done much at all, but so long as he keeps it together he will be PM soon.
I hope not!
Remain, deal, no deal . . . none of that will be as damaging as making us Venezuela.
@DPJHodges Follow Follow @DPJHodges More And I didn't think I'd ever type these words. But if we do end up with an election, Jeremy Corbyn will have played a blinder.
I don't see what Corbyn has either done or not done to get us to this point. It's been all about the Tories and the DUP.
You’re right. If May had effective used her majority Labour would have been irrelevant. It is her weakness that brings them into the game. Short of whipping Labour to support her MV, which was never going to be a thing giving its weaknesses there was nothing he could do but wait.
I would rather Anna Soubry and Jacob Rees Mogg played one winner takes all game of scissors, stone and paper to see who becomes PM and gets what they want than see Corbyn as PM.
Plato sounded unhinged towards the end, that didn't mean she wasn't right (at least in terms of reading what Trump supporters were reading, pointing out that his base was going to take him all the way to the White House, while most posters on here were still disbelieving).
I did not know Plato but have heard tell of. Trump fanboys (or girls) are IMO missing some key faculties. I backed him big-time at 4/1 to win in 2016 but there never was a bet that I was so disappointed to win. It's sad, so sad, it's a sad sad situation, and if he wins again in 2020 it will only get more and more sad.
@DPJHodges Follow Follow @DPJHodges More And I didn't think I'd ever type these words. But if we do end up with an election, Jeremy Corbyn will have played a blinder.
I don't see what Corbyn has either done or not done to get us to this point. It's been all about the Tories and the DUP.
You’re right. If May had effective used her majority Labour would have been irrelevant. It is her weakness that brings them into the game. Short of whipping Labour to support her MV, which was never going to be a thing giving its weaknesses there was nothing he could do but wait.
*shrugs* I haven't been literally laughing obviously, but it has amused me greatly. I stand by the second comment and if you believe that makes me unhinged so be it.
Plato sounded unhinged towards the end, that didn't mean she wasn't right (at least in terms of reading what Trump supporters were reading, pointing out that his base was going to take him all the way to the White House, while most posters on here were still disbelieving).
It's SAD, so SAD, it's a SAD SAD situation, and if he wins again in 2020 it will only get more and more SAD.
Seriously are we going to have the Commons decide their preferred route to Brexit using an electoral system which was rejected in a people's vote in 2011 by over 7 million votes. Why exactly do we have these people's votes only for the people in Westminster to ignore them?!
Since when was the AV referendum about whether AV was an unacceptable voting system in any situation? It was about whether it should be used to elect MPs. And there are certainly many other procedures of the Commons and parliament generally that don't work in other places, and why should they? It's a deliberative assembly, not a public vote.
Unless you think it is outrageous that MPs vote by walking down separate corridors and having their names marked, whereas we have to go to the local community centre and fill out a ballot paper?
I am not denying AV has its merits - but given voters decisively rejected its use for Westminster elections it then seems odd that it should be used to take important decisions in parliament. You could potentially be disregarding the most recent people's vote (e.g. if MPs vote to revoke) using an electoral system they rejected in the previous one.
As Sir Frank Williams founder of the Formula One racing team put it at the time:
"AV would give the losers, but not the leaders, several cracks at choosing who to vote for, letting the second or third placed options squeak home by getting extra votes from supporters of even less popular options. That’s no way to run a fair race.”
Let alone Baroness Warsi's intervention:
A switch to the Alternative Vote for Westminster elections would give more power to fascists, Conservative co-chairman Baroness Warsi warned today. Lady Warsi said that AV represented "a serious danger to our democracy"
If Parliament decides to revoke using AV her ridiculous comments at the time might be proved right!
I never understood Sir Frank's comments. (And, in particular, that criticism.)
Imagine you are the Conservative Party, and you have a process where you have several rounds of voting, with the lowest option getting kicked off.
That is AV. It's just multi-round AV. If you chose the leading option, well, you've chosen them again in the next round.
We could make it explicit by having multiple rounds of voting, where everyone gets to reassess. But AV is simply instant runoff voting.
Personally, I don't like AV because:
- it can lead to even more disporortionate results - it can lead to an excessive representation of the squishy center.
@DPJHodges Follow Follow @DPJHodges More And I didn't think I'd ever type these words. But if we do end up with an election, Jeremy Corbyn will have played a blinder.
I don't see what Corbyn has either done or not done to get us to this point. It's been all about the Tories and the DUP.
He's sat there saying no to everything (deal, referendum, anything of substance) even when the withdrawal agreement contained everything he supposedly wanted. Simply saying "no, I want an election", "no, I want an election".
If everyone else takes each other out and he gets his election that is remarkable all things considered. Any other leader would have come down on the side of something [eg a referendum etc] rather than just being focused like a laser on an election and rejecting everything else.
And now the Favourite outcome is likely to be #CorbynsCustomsUnion IMO
Plato sounded unhinged towards the end, that didn't mean she wasn't right (at least in terms of reading what Trump supporters were reading, pointing out that his base was going to take him all the way to the White House, while most posters on here were still disbelieving).
It's SAD, so SAD, it's a SAD SAD situation, and if he wins again in 2020 it will only get more and more ABSURD.
@DPJHodges Follow Follow @DPJHodges More And I didn't think I'd ever type these words. But if we do end up with an election, Jeremy Corbyn will have played a blinder.
I don't see what Corbyn has either done or not done to get us to this point. It's been all about the Tories and the DUP.
That makes you a bigger Corbyn Hater than DPJ Hodges!!!!
@DPJHodges Follow Follow @DPJHodges More And I didn't think I'd ever type these words. But if we do end up with an election, Jeremy Corbyn will have played a blinder.
I don't see what Corbyn has either done or not done to get us to this point. It's been all about the Tories and the DUP.
He's sat there saying no to everything (deal, referendum, anything of substance) even when the withdrawal agreement contained everything he supposedly wanted. Simply saying "no, I want an election", "no, I want an election".
If everyone else takes each other out and he gets his election that is remarkable all things considered. Any other leader would have come down on the side of something [eg a referendum etc] rather than just being focused like a laser on an election and rejecting everything else.
And now the Favourite outcome is likely to be #CorbynsCustomsUnion IMO
Irony being Corbyn doesn't even want a Customs Union. He just wanted a hook to differentiate himself from May and an excuse to say No.
@DPJHodges Follow Follow @DPJHodges More And I didn't think I'd ever type these words. But if we do end up with an election, Jeremy Corbyn will have played a blinder.
I don't see what Corbyn has either done or not done to get us to this point. It's been all about the Tories and the DUP.
You’re right. If May had effective used her majority Labour would have been irrelevant. It is her weakness that brings them into the game. Short of whipping Labour to support her MV, which was never going to be a thing giving its weaknesses there was nothing he could do but wait.
What majority?
The one she threw away in 2017 and then the one she bought with the DUP and then mismanaged.
Less unhinged perhaps than a media and Democrat party that have been feeding the Russia narrative for 2 years. The WH press secretary sayjng false accusation and investigation against the president is treason, the punishment for which is death, ought to highlight the gravity of things. Or we could just assume she was having a laugh and that Trump isn't going to go after those who tried to fit him up as a Putin stooge I know I said in here 3 weeks ago the report wouldn't show collusion and i was right. I'll start from there and see what else I'm right about. Or otherwise.
Russia collusion was a conspiracy theory, they are almost always wrong, and I would have been amazed if it had been otherwise in this case.
But your 'laughing for two days straight over the Mueller report' - and your 'Trump's vengeance is going to be breathtaking' - such comments do not indicate that all is well up top.
*shrugs* I haven't been literally laughing obviously, but it has amused me greatly. I stand by the second comment and if you believe that makes me unhinged so be it.
How about deplorable?
Prefer that?
If you believe someone predicting Trump will exercise vengeance on those that set up the investigation into him on apparently zero evidence is deplorable then that would fit. It would also suggest you are the one who is a bit odd. I'm predicting what will happen, I have neither love nor hate for Trump, but hes not the caricature hes painted as, and hes a thousand times better than Clinton would have been
*shrugs* I haven't been literally laughing obviously, but it has amused me greatly. I stand by the second comment and if you believe that makes me unhinged so be it.
Afternoon all. I've been comforting myself over the mess in parliament by laughing for two days straight about the Mueller report, get on Trump 2020, nothing will stick on him now. I believe I did say on here 3 weeks ago there would be no evidence of any collusion. Its the Democrats who need to watch out, the previous administration and its FBI and CIA cronies are in serious serious trouble. That means Biden might get dragged in, worth noting for the dem nomination betting. Trumps vengeance is going to be breathtaking and probably massive overkill but he has the big mo now.
You sound slightly unhinged, would that be fair?
Plato sounded unhinged towards the end, that didn't mean she wasn't right (at least in terms of reading what Trump supporters were reading, pointing out that his base was going to take him all the way to the White House, while most posters on here were still disbelieving).
If I am proven wrong I'll admit to being a basket case, but the idea Trump isnt going after the Democrats now hes been cleared is totally unhinged.
There was an investigation.
President Trump was cleared. (Although a number of aides ended up in prison for various offences.)
That's justice as it should be.
So, I don't understand your comment. Should it be illegal to investigate Russian meddling (which there definitely was) in the US election?
Less unhinged perhaps than a media and Democrat party that have been feeding the Russia narrative for 2 years. The WH press secretary sayjng false accusation and investigation against the president is treason, the punishment for which is death, ought to highlight the gravity of things. Or we could just assume she was having a laugh and that Trump isn't going to go after those who tried to fit him up as a Putin stooge I know I said in here 3 weeks ago the report wouldn't show collusion and i was right. I'll start from there and see what else I'm right about. Or otherwise.
Russia collusion was a conspiracy theory, they are almost always wrong, and I would have been amazed if it had been otherwise in this case.
But your 'laughing for two days straight over the Mueller report' - and your 'Trump's vengeance is going to be breathtaking' - such comments do not indicate that all is well up top.
Presumably the exact wording of a referendum would/should be the work of the Electoral Commission to avoid exactly that bias? If it wasn't, I expect the (supposedly independent) EC would have some words to say about it.
(EDIT: Or are you just meaning the wording in the Commons, in which case yes.. I can see why they'd do that)
No, I meant for the actual referendum. Not so much the wording on the ballot - because as you say that must be neutral - but just the knowledge that the Deal will have been passed by Parliament and will be implemented automatically with a Yes vote. Probably just a marginal point, TBF.
*shrugs* I haven't been literally laughing obviously, but it has amused me greatly. I stand by the second comment and if you believe that makes me unhinged so be it.
How about deplorable?
Prefer that?
If you believe someone predicting Trump will exercise vengeance on those that set up the investigation into him on apparently zero evidence is deplorable then that would fit. It would also suggest you are the one who is a bit odd. I'm predicting what will happen, I have neither love nor hate for Trump, but hes not the caricature hes painted as, and hes a thousand times better than Clinton would have been
"A thousand times"
I think anyone who thinks any candidate is more than about 10% better than any other has nailed their colours pretty clearly to the mast.
@ShehabKhan Mar 25 More The Guardian revealed that 15 Tory Councillors who were suspended for posting Islamophobic and racist comments online have been reinstated.
So what happens if the WA gets the most support but not a majority? Is Parliament going to grow up and pass it?
I think it will depend on what the other least unpopular options are, and what the numbers look like. If we get MV3 on Friday, the vote will take place in the knowledge of how much support there might be for alternatives. It is possible - I put it no higher than that - that MPs' minds will be focused by this new information, but I'm not holding my breath.
The media seem to be peddling support for the deal growing but fail to explain it still needs a miracle to go through .
Tbf that was the narrative before MV1 and 2. In both cases, the commentariat were surprised by the scale of the opposition.
Generally that’s true, but Peston has been publicly bearish at every stage, and been proven right. It’s true that Laura K has been churning out what she has been spoon-fed by the government day after day - but the Pope’s fondness for Holy Communion and grass’s verdance are instructive here.
Excellent header, Cyclefree. Brexit has roared back onto Facebook and I'm currently cuckooing on other people's comments fighting the good fight. I've spent a little time looking at the vote and A50 leave to appeal judgement. They slaughtered the Remainer appellants, but they've placed a lot of stall on parliament considering Brexit through the lens of the Electoral Commission rulings against Leave and I've been arguing that 17.4 million and any moral requirement on MPs to deliver 'the will of the people' has been rendered irrelevant - the MPs can do what they want now. Though, the mechanics of how MPs are accounting this are pretty opaque.
I guess I am warned - don't expect the enquiry to find this.
@rcs1000 - Have you seen my comments last night about why a technical border solution will not happen? Do you disagree?
Yes, of course I disagree.
But there's no point in debating this with you because you've decided that checks away from the border are somehow impossible, and the EU knows this, and is deliberately pretending that they're possible because... because... it somehow suits your narrative that we're about to vote 90-10 to stay in the EU.
Comments
Having said that, it's toast either way. REF2 is Remain.
Without a strong majority things could still unravel.
Rupert Allason had the whip suspended for abstaining with regards to Maastricht. If the margin is down to 10 MPs then the government should make this a quasi-confidence motion and withdraw the whip from anyone who votes against.
We have never been asked how we think the intricacies of parliamentary proceedings should be conducted, nor should we.
BTW I still think the WA passes before too long. In fact, is there anything more certain?
You need all/most of the ERG AND some of the Tory ultra-Remainers/DUP/Labour Leavers.
I just like the word. I'm reclaiming it from the Guido brigade.
Pelosi is rowing back furiously on attacks on him and encouraging dems to focus on policy for 2020
1. As I understand it, MPs can select any options they'd be prepared to back. But what incentive if any do they have to back options other than their favourite one or two?
2. Related to that - do we think John Rentoul's guesstimates are in the right ballparks?
https://twitter.com/breeallegretti/status/1110535625302831104?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed&ref_url=http://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/7456/politicalbetting-com-blog-archive-what-can-we-expect-from-the-planned-brexit-inquiry
(EDIT: Or are you just meaning the wording in the Commons, in which case yes.. I can see why they'd do that)
2.I think the government's deal might score a little lower than under MV2 - reluctant backers can back their preferred option and not bother to give their indication on that one. The Labour deal prediction looks about right, which will be very embarrassing for the government as it proves the opposition really could do a better job of unifying the Commons, even if they don't manage a majority for.I tihnk revocation and long delay will get quite a few more than he expects, and that the approve subject to referendum will be much closer
Just as last time Remain stood against WTO Leave, EEA Leave etc - so this time Deal could be stacked against multiple options.
Say the turnout is way below 2016 as a result - legally remain may win but many simply won't accept the legitimacy of the result because what they thought they voted for in 2016 won't be an option on the ballot paper this time round. It won't lance the boil - it will just store up the same problems.
On 1. It's like a Prisoners' Dilemma. The supporters of the various soft Brexit options (and the remainers) should collectively support ALL the soft Brexit options, which might well put them over the line (on the basis of most Lab+some Con+smaller parties), leaving May's deal and no deal below. That sets the narrative for sorting out which soft Brexit option and how on Monday.
But individually they have the incentive to support their favoured option only, to give it a one vote edge on all of the others, as you suggest.
That the votes are all being published later might help keep any deals honest, who knows?
Alternatively, tell Remainers they need to vote for the Deal, or risk No Deal, while warning Leavers that we'll have to revoke if No wins.
It's one of the more palatable options for a second referendum (mainly because by focusing on Yes/No to a specific Brexit outcome, it avoids the need for multiple options), but the potential for confusion is massive, which should under normal circumstances render it a non-starter.
https://twitter.com/Thatcher_legacy/status/1110600256289492992
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1110594124779012096
Still essentially public then. MPs will be under peer and whip pressure [even in a free vote] to back the 'right' line.
https://twitter.com/Pabloite/status/1110591147393597441
But your 'laughing for two days straight over the Mueller report' - and your 'Trump's vengeance is going to be breathtaking' - such comments do not indicate that all is well up top.
But I think as an illustration/examples of differing viewpoints they're OK. Better than Anna Foster just saying "people in Macclesfield think it's bollocks"
https://youtu.be/WHtemZBYbgE?t=22
If everyone else takes each other out and he gets his election that is remarkable all things considered. Any other leader would have come down on the side of something [eg a referendum etc] rather than just being focused like a laser on an election and rejecting everything else.
Remain, deal, no deal . . . none of that will be as damaging as making us Venezuela.
Prefer that?
Or should that be
Imagine you are the Conservative Party, and you have a process where you have several rounds of voting, with the lowest option getting kicked off.
That is AV. It's just multi-round AV. If you chose the leading option, well, you've chosen them again in the next round.
We could make it explicit by having multiple rounds of voting, where everyone gets to reassess. But AV is simply instant runoff voting.
Personally, I don't like AV because:
- it can lead to even more disporortionate results
- it can lead to an excessive representation of the squishy center.
Dyedwoolie maybe onto something.
Got a pretty explosive story about senior figures in the Labour Party breaking at 7pm. Stay tuned.
President Trump was cleared. (Although a number of aides ended up in prison for various offences.)
That's justice as it should be.
So, I don't understand your comment. Should it be illegal to investigate Russian meddling (which there definitely was) in the US election?
I think anyone who thinks any candidate is more than about 10% better than any other has nailed their colours pretty clearly to the mast.
@ShehabKhan
Mar 25
More
The Guardian revealed that 15 Tory Councillors who were suspended for posting Islamophobic and racist comments online have been reinstated.
I guess I am warned - don't expect the enquiry to find this.
But there's no point in debating this with you because you've decided that checks away from the border are somehow impossible, and the EU knows this, and is deliberately pretending that they're possible because... because... it somehow suits your narrative that we're about to vote 90-10 to stay in the EU.